Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cromka | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cromka

> Finally, the UN should have deployed

UN has no such power. I am still amazed how people do not get this.

Members need to vote for such things to happen. It wouldn't, not in this climate.

View on HN

The question was

> What do you think world leaders should've done differently?

Members should have voted in the UN to deploy peace keeping troops. The UN does have that power if it's voted for. This isn't a question of the current realities but a question of what the right actions are.

This is where you notice that the world is more complicated than social media posts.

Like it would've been a nice idea, until you realize that Hamas is heavily backed by Iran, Iran is helping Russia, Russia is invading Ukraine, and it starts to look like that level of intervention is a step towards a world war.

Then you notice world energy markets are going to be effected by a massive conflict etc.

If the UN went into Gaza, got attacked by Iran, then had to respond, next minute they're attacking a close Russian ally, and maybe even China might have to get involved in that.

What would've been good is if October 7 didn't happen, and that goes for both sides.

Iran would WELCOME UN peace keepers in gaza, are you kidding? Hell, I think even Hamas would welcome their presence. UN peace keepers would mean the likes of UNRA could operate once again in Gaza to deliver aid. It would also mean that Israel would have to stop it's aggression.

> Iran is helping Russia

lol, no, other way around. Though the Russia hasn't really been involved with Iran since Ukraine started. It's actually China that's the biggest Iranian trade partner.

The only party that'd be upset over UN peace keepers in Gaza is Israel.

I don't think what you're saying is actually right, if peacekeepers came in, it would (likely) mean a freezing of the current borders / situation, and isn't that what most people say justified October 7, "the theft of land"?

Allowing international journalists in would make the genocide even harder to deny and at that point there's no more returning to the "current situation". Regarding the border, at least for Hamas the 1967 borders would be just fine: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full (article 20).

Are you actually sending the Hamas charter and expecting me to read that and think it's reasonable ?

(I have read it before)

By all means please enlighten me, what's so unreasonable about it?

They never cancelled their original charter, and their position is to accept borders only as a stepping stone towards getting all of the land as a Muslim waqf.

Also, Hamas literally operated the 'March of Return' (demanding the 'right of return') that year. The best implication of that 'accepting borders with Palestinian majority on both sides on them', which is just a funny way of taking all the land.

I'm immune to Hasbara and not wasting more time debating it, but just leaving some Wikipedia snippets below as a kind of a "community note".

> They never cancelled their original charter

Wikipedia [0]:

This document [the 2017 charter] reflects our position for now (...) The old charter was a product of its era, 30 years ago. We live in a different world today.

> Also, Hamas literally operated the 'March of Return' (demanding the 'right of return') that year.

Wikipedia [1]:

The first demonstrations were organized by independent activists, but the initiative was soon endorsed by Hamas, the governing party of Gaza, as well as other major factions in Gaza.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter#Since_2017 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...

Only if you think Israel is entirely correct in their assessment that every single civilian building actually houses dangerous hamas terrorists. I don't think that assessment is correct so I don't think the UN peacekeepers would be behaving exactly like Israel and the IDF has behaved in Gaza. Nor do I think the UN would put the same restrictions on aid coming into Gaza. They wouldn't stop peanut butter and baby formula from entering.

Iran gave Russia their Shahed drones, still exports artillery shells and missiles to Russia.

UN cannot allow UNRWA - since any actual operation would require Israeli cooperation given Israel is the only open border to Gaza - and Israel will not allow what it considers to be an extremist front.

UN peacekeepers in Lebanon have proven to be unable to restrain terrorist attacks, and proven to be unable to restrain the Israeli response.

That's not how that answer was phrased. It directly indicated that the UN should have taken that action.

Make it make sense. The question is what should have happened. You say I answered what should have happened. But you also say "that's not how the answer was phrased".

How is my "should have" happened not a direct answer to the question?

That would result in the USA going to war against the UN. There is a reason the UN only takes action when the security council agrees. Countries on the security council can plausibly use their military might to prevent any UN action, so to prevent the senseless deaths of peacekeepers, they are given a verbal veto instead.

No it wouldn't? We are talking hypotheticals. When talking about what world leaders should do I include the US in world leaders.

I wasn't engaging in what's likely, just what should be. Biden and Trump should have been on board with deploying peace keepers. They were not.

If Biden or Trump would simply cut off funding there probably wouldn't be a need for peace keepers any more.

I tend to agree. The US bears a pretty large amount of blame here and I don't think Israel would have continued their aggression had the US withdrawn aid (or threatened to). But if they had continued, then that's where UN peacekeepers should have been deployed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com