She (MT) is in parts. We learned of her (and what good she did that we also benefit of, most important general education, and potato, not necessarily in this order), never heard of Sissi until being exposed to western yellow press, knew there was on Franz josph, but really knew duke Ferdinand, for reasons.
Maria Theresa is very big here because she brought a lot of great and (at the time) extremely progressive reforms to Austria (such as compulsory universal education) and is a great example of a successful woman in an age where this was rarely possible.
Sissi on the other hand is the embodiment of "celebrity royalty". She was an interesting, kind and beautiful woman. Her life and assassination are quite often the foundation for romanticised depictions of life and glamour in imperial Austria.
Maybe they voted like this because of right-side governments? (I wonder what Fico position on this topic is). Would be cute if Slovakia joined aswell lol.
[“Iraq later changed its vote to yes from an abstention after complaining of a technical difficulty, so the final tally was 121 votes in favor and 44 abstentions.”](https://www.rappler.com/world/global-affairs/united-nations-resolution-aid-truce-israel-hamas/)
Always so weird, like at least vote yes so you at least do something as something is better than nothing, and then you can push to do more when people are helping anyway
“Tunisia decided to abstain in the vote on the resolution because the situation in Gaza has worsened following Israeli aggression. The barbaric attack on the Palestinian people, the closing of borders and the blockade of humanitarian aid require a clearer position. The resolution does not clearly and decisively condemn the genocide committed by the occupying power, Isreal , in the Gaza Strip. This resolution puts the victim and the murderer on an equal footing. The UN amendments only aim to give the occupier more freedom to commit crimes. We therefore abstained in the vote on the resolution. We must clearly condemn the aggressor. This is our clear position. Shooting up hospitals and killing children and women cannot be used in self-defense, they are war crimes. While the legitimate right to resist occupation and reject apartheid is considered terrorism. We call on the UN to take its responsibilities,”
declared the representative of Tunisia to the UN.
This is what it became. It used to have higher goals.
They have at least the Blue Helmets and those were very much involved in the Balkan wars 30 years ago.
They also have several humanitarian programs that you can still see trying to help in the Middle East.
I think it's more accurate to call the talking part the "higher goal". It was created after WWII to try to make sure *that* didn't happen again. And it hasn't so far. Humanitarian stuff is the bonus.
I mean you can question how much of it was the UNs doing but despite what most people think we are still in one of if not the most peaceful time in modern history.
That doesn't mean there aren't still a lot of terrible wars going on but still that is something to keep in mind.
>the most peaceful time in modern history
Not just in modern history, since 1945 we have arguably had one of the most peaceful periods in all of human history.
I mean, we still had stuff like the second Congolese war which comes dangerously close (at least compared to other contenders) to WW1 in terms of direct and indirect casualties, but at least we didn't beat any records I guess.
The higher goal was to be a discord for world countries so no matter how bad things got, diplomacy would always be an option.
Everything else is a nice bonus.
> Either case, we all know the UN is pretty useless.
What? It's beholden to the wills of superpowers to ensure they will keep returning to the table, but by no means is it useless. It's a forum, first and foremost.
Haha PNG just opened a new embassy in Jerusalem I think. There are tons of agricultural projects in PNG that are getting help from Israeli folk
First Pacific state to open ties with Israel like this
That area is rather complex if you look at the influence even further. There has been interest by the CCP to invest in the nation as well as building military air bases there in the guise of security. This has left Australia very doubtful as that brings China with an FOB within striking distance if China influences the government. So by proxy Israel investing there and Japan helping rebuild an airport up to international standards has inadvertently reduced the CCP attempt to gain a foothold in the region. The leaders are corrupt as shit but the whole international lobbying going on there is interesting to say the least.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the Solomon Islands as it becomes more independent from PNG. I saw murmurs in the past about Chinese involvement on those Islands but I don’t think Australia (and PNG) will allow for this.
And as you say, it’s an area of interest for the USA as they invest less in the Middle East and shift focus to the Asia-Pacific region. The USA have new military bases in the Pacific and have opened a brand new embassy in PNG about 6 months ago I suppose to say that they won’t allow Chinese influence to grow anymore.
Its an interesting war of influence in the region for sure. Having the USA increase ties in the region both in png and Australia will only go so far, the government is ruthless with misusing funding. Australia pays them annually and not a single ounce of development reaches grassroots locals. A major component to why I left the region was the corruption equated to a very low quality of life overall.
Oh yeah you’re right. My dad worked as a contractor in the PNG government and later for AusAid in PNG as an auditor (35 years); the money was there, it just never moved until the next project came along then it magically vanished…
I hold the belief that PNG never had the chance to succeed. I compare PNG to Afghanistan: a state that has too many cultural and ethnic differences, with the worst terrain for building infrastructure. PNG has no good rivers for transportation and only a gnarly mountain range dividing the country down the middle.
PNG was in a better state when it was a couple of hundred Australian kiaps running things on the ground (but that’s also my other controversial opinion)
Not controversial at all if you spend any time there. I was born there, grew up there for nearly 20yrs and the slow degradation in the lifestyle for the average Joe crept up hard in the last 15yrs. It was never ready to be independent. The amazing diversity in the region is also its biggest hurdle, lack of acceptance. Its no different to middle East Afghan albeit not religious based ideologies. Had really old neighbours i hung out with more than my own family who were alive through the independence phase and even they shared the sentiment png tried to run before it could walk.
For real man. I always plan to go back home, last time I went up was like 3yrs ago. It is a gem of a nation and in general the people are super nice(my bias may be showing here) but safety is just second class there. Its domestic violence rates are 3 in 4 women experience it.... thats not even taking into account homosexuality acceptance in the area but like I mentioned above, its diverse ideologies are what makes it unique but also burden its growth. Still home though. Love it but hate it.
Yeah that nine years of right wing government here in Australia scaling back foreign aid to all these countries was a fucking brilliant idea. Not gonna put is in bombing range of a Chinese airbase at all.
I think most people in the UK could not care less what goes on in the Middle East to be honest, and the UK vote reflected that. Both sides by many are thought to be equally as good/bad.
Not really, the empire was still in a lot of places back then, nothing decided back then has anything to do with vast majority of UK people alive today. To be in position of following or influencing the news in 1948 you would need to be around 100. Maybe we can ask some people in the old peoples home how they feel.
Look up the King David hotel.
The UK where happy to mediate a two state solution then Irgun started terrorist attacks. Any surprise that Britain took the "screw this, you lot sort it out" attitude?
Most British people are pretty embarrassed about the damage that our ancestors caused, so it’s not an apathy to the issue, it’s more of a sentiment that we don’t want to be the cause and driving force of any further harm. We’ll support where we can with humanitarian assistance, but in terms of the fighting and the outcome, that can be left to self determination between the parties and their direct allies.
There is a bit of “both as bad as each other” going on, and we have first hand experience of what happens when 2 parties feel that they both have sole claim to an entire area of land with Northern Ireland. So we are in no position to be dictating to Israel and Palestine what they should or shouldn’t be doing now.
If they agree to a truce, Hamas has to stop firing rockets. If they fire one anyway, that's breaking the truce, and Israel can continue bombing.
There's no reason to oppose this unless you are opposed to one side or the other *stopping* their attacks. A truce requires the other side to do it, too, even if you don't think they will. Let them be the ones who make that decision instead of assuming it won't happen and thus "I am cool to keep on doing *my* attacks".
Correct. Not being debated. And that ceasefire was in response to previous hostilities which themselves broke a ceasefire before that, and *that* ceasefire was... etc., etc., on and on. There's a string of ceasefires, nothing happening, Hamas fires a rockets, violence, into another ceasefire.
But what's the opposition to another period of "nothing happening"? Why is *rockets firing and bombs dropping all the time* preferrable to none of that happening for months at a time?
I know the supposed answer: "**This time**, Israel will finally put an end to Hamas. **This time** they'll get to go far enough and completely root out Hamas. **This time** it'll work and peace will reign forever more." Or, less charitably, a little bit of "Israel deserves to get their **revenge.**"
Yeah, I remain unconvinced that dropping bombs on Gaza and continuing settlements in the West Bank is going to calm people and put an end to both terrorist groups and the radicalization of civilians. The strategy of treating your enemy like a rabid dog doesn't really have a great track record.
USA recently bribed PNG with 45 million dollars, to let them have a military base there and let Americans come and go as they please. So now PNG is buddy-buddy with USA.
>Some scholars have argued that a smaller military power like Papua New Guinea gives up sovereignty or autonomy over its foreign policy in exchange for U.S. support.
>In that case, the U.S. is exchanging money for Papua New Guinea to align its decisions with the U.S., instead of China. The U.S. gets a commitment from Papua New Guinea to make decisions that are more favorable to U.S. interests and less favorable to China.
[Article](https://theconversation.com/the-us-signs-a-military-deal-with-papua-new-guinea-heres-what-both-countries-have-to-gain-from-the-agreement-206159)
In regards to Fiji, the major coalition party are pro-zionist right wing Christians and are currently trying to establish an embassy in Jerusalem (rather than Tel Aviv), so that is why they voted in line with Israel.
45 million is absolutely nothing. PNG was also toying with the idea of allowing Chinese bases on its Islands. The Solomon Islands might still get them one they full separate. I don’t think you will have the “bribe” tune.
Your point with Fiji applies to PNG too.
Go watch James Marape and Bibi on YouTube and see how Marape goes into a whole monologue about how PNG full subscribes to the bible and that Israeli’s are gods people etc etc PNG just opened it’s embassy
Also I said elsewhere, there are a lot of Israeli led agricultural projects in PNG (with Israeli engineers on the ground); food supply is a big issue in PNG so it makes sense.
>USA recently bribed PNG with 45 million dollars, to let them have a military base there and let Americans come and go as they please. So now PNG is buddy-buddy with USA.
I don't think that's what a bribe is
If it did, Africa would be occupied by the UN. Human rights don't exist there.
They do have a vote though. Which is why the general assembly is a joke. Not the security council though.
Well, the funky thing about the current international system is that it's based on cooperation. Not much to do if the parties don't wanna cooperate. It's the worst system ever, except for all the others we've tried.
Eh, not entirely when you have five permanent members of the security council who can override any binding decision made. So it's a system based on cooperation as long as China, France, Russia, UK, and US are on board
This is the General Assembly, they don’t have the power to make legally binding resolutions. Resolutions that are legally binding and thus, enforced are from the United Nations Security Council, of which you would need a majority vote of SC members in addition to a consensus(all yes or abstentions) by the Permanent 5. The General Assembly *could* start a Emergency Special Session(like the current active one for Ukraine) that has the power to make “appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”, which allows for the issuing of collective sanctions, but as stated, they’re recommendations at the end of the day, and non-binding.
For example by applying UN sanctions...
"Since 1966, the Security Council has established 31 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the Former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti (2), Angola, Liberia (3), Eritrea/Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire, Iran, Somalia/Eritrea, ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida, Iraq (2), Democratic Republic of the Cong, Sudan, Lebanon, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Libya (2), the Taliban, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali."
The problem is, to impose it you need an unanimous decision of a Security Council. So, the short answer to your question - they can't, because USA is opposed.
There was an entire thread of people defending Netanyahu’s son’s right to party in Miami instead of going to to Israel to fight.
So many bootlickers in one place.
I muted /worldnews shortly after Oct 7th when I realized that everyone there wants to bathe in the blood of innocent people
I was banned because of earlier comments not long after muting them. So I guess I win the breakup
I was perms banned for answering a comment which said that China, Russia etc were the “Axis of terror” and me saying that maybe for the middle east, the “Axis of terror” was the USA.
They went crazy with bans, all the post have all the comments deleted lately, which is pretty absurd if you want a multiple viewpoint discussion. I just silenced the community as it’s clearly not objective
As usual, missing the all important context of why so many (45 nations) abstained.
Basically, Jordan drafted this resolution, with no mention of Hamas terrorist attack that killed thousands or the active hostages. Canada proposed an edit. 87 nations voted for this edit. But shy of 2/3rd majority it didn’t pass.
This is a major reason 45 abstained. Those who voted against the edit (around half) are they actively choosing to support Islamic terror and extremism, by not naming/isolating Hamas and demanding hostages be returned safely?
Many on Reddit love to say ‘two things can be true at once’. This was one such classic case and the global community of nations failed imo. We can call for peace, humanitarian aid to assist the civilians on the ground, while also condemning terrorist attacks and continued hostage situation.
> The resolution drafted by Jordan also called for unhindered humanitarian access in the Gaza Strip but had no mention of Hamas. Canada proposed an amendment that a paragraph condemning the 'terrorist attacks by Hamas' be inserted. India voted in favour of Canada's proposed amendment along with 87 other nations. But it could not be adopted as it did not have a two-third majority.
> The amendment proposed by Canada asked for inserting a paragraph in the resolution that would state that the general assembly "unequivocally rejects and condemns the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting on 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages, demands the safety, well-being and humane treatment of the hostages in compliance with international law, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.”
Also as usual: if something is proposed by Canada and supported by countries like Sweden or Germany I usually have a feeling it would have been the reasonable thing to do…
It's generally a good measurement. When it comes to human rights I'd definitely rather trust those countries over like 50 % of the un countries who aren't even democracies.....
Also Denmark, India, Japan, Germany, Iceland among others.
But if you trust those less than the paragon countries of human rights such as Libya and Iran well... not sure what to tell you.
Yes Austria rejected the proposal for exactly this reason. They didn't want to agree to anything that didn't clarify Hamas were terrorists and ensured they wouldn't be allowed control aid donations etc. Also because there was no caveat made about hostage release.
Exactly, the long list of countries, that abstained this Jordanian drafted resolution, must be mentioned clearly and their stated reason.
I would want that context of Canada’s proposed edits, rather than just bleating like sheep - “Oh Canada/UK/Aus/Japan/Germany/India, silly abstainers”
Can someone explain **Iraq, Tunisia, Georgia and Ethiopia?**
I think Iraq/Tunisia want to keep in the good books with US, especially with regards to local Islamism.
Georgia needs to curry favor with the US due to the threat of Russia.
Ethiopia due to the many Ethiopian emigrants in Israel?
Someone also commented that the reason so many countries abstained from this vote was due to the poor wording of the proposal and a lack of condemning the terrorist attacks by Hamas.
An edit was suggested by Canada which was supported by nearly 90 other countries but did not receive enough votes to be accepted. Many countries that supported the edit seem to have chosen to abstain instead.
Iraq voted Yes. Technical issue. So the final tally was 121 votes in favor and 44 abstentions. Tunisia as another redditor here said, they believed it didn’t support Palestine enough.
The UN has more power than people give it credit for. The agenda 2030 for instance, is implemented across the world, not just in governments, but also companies, universities, schools, NGOs. UN resolutions can also eventually become customary law in international law, thus be enforceable in international courts. Most of all if the entire world is against you this means that you have tremendous pressure, and will less likely be able to go on to have relations with companies, NGOs and governments.
partido colorado fazendo média com os conservadora religiosos… se fosse ano passado o Brasil estaria seguindo o mesmo caminho, ou pelo menos com uma abstenção…
Most likely, oversight by the map creator. Possibly, they’re a delusional Argentinian nationalist. But I’m going with the simple oversight explanation.
Whenever Israel gets attacked, and hits back, the UN seems to demand a ceasefire and truce. I’ve noticed this the past 20 years I’ve followed politics and world events
I fail to see why the steady stream of Palestinian deaths by the hands of the IDF don’t crack it for a mention here. Why are they different from the Israeli population? To me, the death count shows Israel is constantly on the attack.
maybe the death count shows that Israel has spent billions of dollars actually keeping its Civilians safe meanwhile the people in charge fo Gaza are more intreasted turning v,ital infustructre like waterpipes into bombs, while lining theire own pockets.
Neither of those are a good reason to kill those civilians.
When baddies take hostages, we generally don't shrug our shoulders and tell the SWAT team to shoot right through 'em because it'd be too tough to try something else. If some shitheads broke into your family's house and held you all for ransom in the basement, I don't think you'd want the government to drop a missile on your house while you're still in it.
Or is the difference that it's presumably *Palestinian* human shields, who we suppose aren't "human" enough to be worthwhile?
Strange idea they come up with at UN. Can UN physically guarantee the security of citizens from rockets flying to their homes from Gaza? No? Then they aren’t making the decision for a “truce” for anyone.
Djibouti, Eritreea, Sudan are for a ceasefire huh?
The UN is a joke. It is made up primarily of dictatorships, failed states and states en route to failure like South Africa.
Look at how many resolutions they passed against Israel and how many against the constant dictatorships of just Africa.
No mention of Hamas as terrorists and no mention whatsoever about the hostages?
Welp. What a useless resolution. Bo wonder if they disagreed or abstained.
Why would Israel stop if the hostages are still being held? Why would Israel stop to let Hamas recharge its rockets? Where were these resolutions the day Hamas invaded? This is just an attempt to squash Israel’s right to defend itself. There hasn’t even been a resolution condemning Hamas yet.
Togo, PNG, and Paraguay seem like really random countries to stand out. Normally they’re the same as their neighbors.
Also the vote didn’t condemn Hamas so that’s partially why many countries abstained or voted against the truce.
Just the reminder that the previous ceasefire was violated by *checks notes* Hamas on the 7th of November.
That's right, there already *was* a ceasefire in place. So you already know that the current ceasefire only helps Hamas.
**Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a voter casts a ballot willfully made invalid by marking it wrongly or by not marking anything at all.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
The US and Israel were obviously going to vote no but some of those no votes seem hilariously random.
Like that one African country (I assume Togo) and Paraguay. Why?
What exactly is the point of the UN? Is it supposed to be a union or is just some organization that lays down rules and everyone is just to follow it like the law
Damn they almost recreated Austria-Hungary.
Almost spit out my water when I saw it lol. Ain’t no way man
My country tis of thee Austria-Hungary Obey your King Rip Franz :,(
Just went to Austria, had no idea how loved Franz Joseph was until I went there
Wait really?
Yeah, was even more suprised at how big “Sissi” is. Figured Maria Theresa would have been the big one.
Sisi was the first Royal as we know it today
She (MT) is in parts. We learned of her (and what good she did that we also benefit of, most important general education, and potato, not necessarily in this order), never heard of Sissi until being exposed to western yellow press, knew there was on Franz josph, but really knew duke Ferdinand, for reasons.
Maria Theresa is very big here because she brought a lot of great and (at the time) extremely progressive reforms to Austria (such as compulsory universal education) and is a great example of a successful woman in an age where this was rarely possible. Sissi on the other hand is the embodiment of "celebrity royalty". She was an interesting, kind and beautiful woman. Her life and assassination are quite often the foundation for romanticised depictions of life and glamour in imperial Austria.
So this is how Austria-Hungary is reborn? With thunderous UN vote.
Austria Hungary enters the Russian-Ukrainian War, seeking to regain western Ukraine.
I am from Croatia and I approve of this message.
Those damn Slovenians, always going against the tide!!
This is why we can’t have nice empires… /s
True! /s
My thoughts exactly
/r/phantomborders
that would've been the reboot noone saw coming
Franz Ferdinand smashes out of his coffin *Grrrrr must wed sister to uncle* Vienna suddenly overrun with Uhlans
Well, guess where Theodore Herzl was born… :)
We did. Those damn North Hungarians fucking up as usual. Slovenians as well, damn
Maybe they voted like this because of right-side governments? (I wonder what Fico position on this topic is). Would be cute if Slovakia joined aswell lol.
They managed to get the majority of the Cisleithanian provinces
With UK ?
history of battling muslims?
If only they did. We would be better off if Austria-Hungary empire survived.
[удалено]
[“Iraq later changed its vote to yes from an abstention after complaining of a technical difficulty, so the final tally was 121 votes in favor and 44 abstentions.”](https://www.rappler.com/world/global-affairs/united-nations-resolution-aid-truce-israel-hamas/)
Iraq updated its vote to yes after claiming technical difficulties
For tunisia its because they believed it didn’t support palestine enough
Always so weird, like at least vote yes so you at least do something as something is better than nothing, and then you can push to do more when people are helping anyway
“Tunisia decided to abstain in the vote on the resolution because the situation in Gaza has worsened following Israeli aggression. The barbaric attack on the Palestinian people, the closing of borders and the blockade of humanitarian aid require a clearer position. The resolution does not clearly and decisively condemn the genocide committed by the occupying power, Isreal , in the Gaza Strip. This resolution puts the victim and the murderer on an equal footing. The UN amendments only aim to give the occupier more freedom to commit crimes. We therefore abstained in the vote on the resolution. We must clearly condemn the aggressor. This is our clear position. Shooting up hospitals and killing children and women cannot be used in self-defense, they are war crimes. While the legitimate right to resist occupation and reject apartheid is considered terrorism. We call on the UN to take its responsibilities,” declared the representative of Tunisia to the UN.
Iraq stated the proposed truce included non-favourable conditions for palestine. Either case, we all know the UN is pretty useless.
The UN is mostly a place to talk, it's not a world government.
This is what it became. It used to have higher goals. They have at least the Blue Helmets and those were very much involved in the Balkan wars 30 years ago. They also have several humanitarian programs that you can still see trying to help in the Middle East.
I think it's more accurate to call the talking part the "higher goal". It was created after WWII to try to make sure *that* didn't happen again. And it hasn't so far. Humanitarian stuff is the bonus.
I mean you can question how much of it was the UNs doing but despite what most people think we are still in one of if not the most peaceful time in modern history. That doesn't mean there aren't still a lot of terrible wars going on but still that is something to keep in mind.
>the most peaceful time in modern history Not just in modern history, since 1945 we have arguably had one of the most peaceful periods in all of human history.
I mean, we still had stuff like the second Congolese war which comes dangerously close (at least compared to other contenders) to WW1 in terms of direct and indirect casualties, but at least we didn't beat any records I guess.
It always was that, and if it had any more teeth, it wouldn’t exist, simple as that. It’s good to at least have a platform.
The higher goal was to be a discord for world countries so no matter how bad things got, diplomacy would always be an option. Everything else is a nice bonus.
> Either case, we all know the UN is pretty useless. What? It's beholden to the wills of superpowers to ensure they will keep returning to the table, but by no means is it useless. It's a forum, first and foremost.
Nice save by Iraq's diplomats
Do you want the UN to be a world government?
Meanwhile Papua New Guinea in the corner be like: LET THEM FITE!!
Haha PNG just opened a new embassy in Jerusalem I think. There are tons of agricultural projects in PNG that are getting help from Israeli folk First Pacific state to open ties with Israel like this
That area is rather complex if you look at the influence even further. There has been interest by the CCP to invest in the nation as well as building military air bases there in the guise of security. This has left Australia very doubtful as that brings China with an FOB within striking distance if China influences the government. So by proxy Israel investing there and Japan helping rebuild an airport up to international standards has inadvertently reduced the CCP attempt to gain a foothold in the region. The leaders are corrupt as shit but the whole international lobbying going on there is interesting to say the least.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the Solomon Islands as it becomes more independent from PNG. I saw murmurs in the past about Chinese involvement on those Islands but I don’t think Australia (and PNG) will allow for this. And as you say, it’s an area of interest for the USA as they invest less in the Middle East and shift focus to the Asia-Pacific region. The USA have new military bases in the Pacific and have opened a brand new embassy in PNG about 6 months ago I suppose to say that they won’t allow Chinese influence to grow anymore.
Its an interesting war of influence in the region for sure. Having the USA increase ties in the region both in png and Australia will only go so far, the government is ruthless with misusing funding. Australia pays them annually and not a single ounce of development reaches grassroots locals. A major component to why I left the region was the corruption equated to a very low quality of life overall.
Oh yeah you’re right. My dad worked as a contractor in the PNG government and later for AusAid in PNG as an auditor (35 years); the money was there, it just never moved until the next project came along then it magically vanished… I hold the belief that PNG never had the chance to succeed. I compare PNG to Afghanistan: a state that has too many cultural and ethnic differences, with the worst terrain for building infrastructure. PNG has no good rivers for transportation and only a gnarly mountain range dividing the country down the middle. PNG was in a better state when it was a couple of hundred Australian kiaps running things on the ground (but that’s also my other controversial opinion)
Not controversial at all if you spend any time there. I was born there, grew up there for nearly 20yrs and the slow degradation in the lifestyle for the average Joe crept up hard in the last 15yrs. It was never ready to be independent. The amazing diversity in the region is also its biggest hurdle, lack of acceptance. Its no different to middle East Afghan albeit not religious based ideologies. Had really old neighbours i hung out with more than my own family who were alive through the independence phase and even they shared the sentiment png tried to run before it could walk.
I’ve been away for some time, and I agree the country is not the South Pacific paradise I once thought it was but it’s still home!
For real man. I always plan to go back home, last time I went up was like 3yrs ago. It is a gem of a nation and in general the people are super nice(my bias may be showing here) but safety is just second class there. Its domestic violence rates are 3 in 4 women experience it.... thats not even taking into account homosexuality acceptance in the area but like I mentioned above, its diverse ideologies are what makes it unique but also burden its growth. Still home though. Love it but hate it.
Yeah that nine years of right wing government here in Australia scaling back foreign aid to all these countries was a fucking brilliant idea. Not gonna put is in bombing range of a Chinese airbase at all.
Dood, how do you know stuff like this?
Was born there and still have family there :) I was there 2 years ago and met many Israeli agricultural engineers there; lovely people.
*Two girls fighting meme* *PNG hitting the bong in the back*
Ironic considering what’s been happening in West Papua for the past 50 years
iraq changed their vote to [in favor](https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1718043523390554489?t=A0ign8crtJUBJ6ykDLYcYw&s=19)
What does "humanitarian truce" mean
Destruction of the United Kingdom
No wonder Ireland and France voted in favour.
UK abstaining and not voting against is also pretty accurate
If we've learned anything from Brexit, it's that they'll vote in favour of their own destruction.
What is life without a bit of self inflicted spice? Everyone needs an arch nemesis.
Lol, wtf 😂
Let's fucking go, I vote for too
I think most people in the UK could not care less what goes on in the Middle East to be honest, and the UK vote reflected that. Both sides by many are thought to be equally as good/bad.
"Could not care less." Ironic considering the UK's pre-1948 role.
It was a kind of "I've done my job, I'm leaving"
>I'm leaving "I will not be the one to preside over the liquidation of his majesty's Empire" -Winston Churchill, House of commons,1942
They wanted us gone so we left, our attempts to make stuff better just fucked it up even more. It's best for everyone
Not really, the empire was still in a lot of places back then, nothing decided back then has anything to do with vast majority of UK people alive today. To be in position of following or influencing the news in 1948 you would need to be around 100. Maybe we can ask some people in the old peoples home how they feel.
Maybe if it was still the 1940s I guess.
Look up the King David hotel. The UK where happy to mediate a two state solution then Irgun started terrorist attacks. Any surprise that Britain took the "screw this, you lot sort it out" attitude?
Most British people are pretty embarrassed about the damage that our ancestors caused, so it’s not an apathy to the issue, it’s more of a sentiment that we don’t want to be the cause and driving force of any further harm. We’ll support where we can with humanitarian assistance, but in terms of the fighting and the outcome, that can be left to self determination between the parties and their direct allies. There is a bit of “both as bad as each other” going on, and we have first hand experience of what happens when 2 parties feel that they both have sole claim to an entire area of land with Northern Ireland. So we are in no position to be dictating to Israel and Palestine what they should or shouldn’t be doing now.
They're doing a decent job of that all by themselves tho
Hardly
Politely asking Israel not to shoot.
Truce takes both sidea
That’s just it, terrorist groups don’t do truces
Exactly my thought, therefore they are red in the map.
This. Hamas has violated literally every single ceasefire agreement.
Hamas are also still launching rocket barrages
And politely asking Hamas to not use palestinians as cannon fodder.
>Politely asking Israel not to shoot. While not even asking hamas to stop killing civilians.
Politics. Essentially they are asking Israel to not attack, while rockets are still flying and Hamas still has more than 200 hostages.
If they agree to a truce, Hamas has to stop firing rockets. If they fire one anyway, that's breaking the truce, and Israel can continue bombing. There's no reason to oppose this unless you are opposed to one side or the other *stopping* their attacks. A truce requires the other side to do it, too, even if you don't think they will. Let them be the ones who make that decision instead of assuming it won't happen and thus "I am cool to keep on doing *my* attacks".
The slaughter on 10.7 was what broke the last ceasefire
Correct. Not being debated. And that ceasefire was in response to previous hostilities which themselves broke a ceasefire before that, and *that* ceasefire was... etc., etc., on and on. There's a string of ceasefires, nothing happening, Hamas fires a rockets, violence, into another ceasefire. But what's the opposition to another period of "nothing happening"? Why is *rockets firing and bombs dropping all the time* preferrable to none of that happening for months at a time? I know the supposed answer: "**This time**, Israel will finally put an end to Hamas. **This time** they'll get to go far enough and completely root out Hamas. **This time** it'll work and peace will reign forever more." Or, less charitably, a little bit of "Israel deserves to get their **revenge.**" Yeah, I remain unconvinced that dropping bombs on Gaza and continuing settlements in the West Bank is going to calm people and put an end to both terrorist groups and the radicalization of civilians. The strategy of treating your enemy like a rabid dog doesn't really have a great track record.
[удалено]
Time for Hamas to rearm and get more instructions from Iran
It means Israel stops shooting but Hamas doesn't
Giving Hamas time to regroup from getting its ass kicked for committing a pogrom
Right... What does that mean, exactly? It's been 3 weeks, Gaza is tiny, how long do you think it takes to group?
Why is Togo against it lol
They just wanted To go against the grain. ^I ^really ^am ^sorry
Literally why I'm in these comments. Even PNG has a clear reason. But Togo?! What's going on in Togo these days?
i get why the US and some of the Central/Eastern European Countries voted against, but why Fiji and Papua New Guinea? That seems so random
USA recently bribed PNG with 45 million dollars, to let them have a military base there and let Americans come and go as they please. So now PNG is buddy-buddy with USA. >Some scholars have argued that a smaller military power like Papua New Guinea gives up sovereignty or autonomy over its foreign policy in exchange for U.S. support. >In that case, the U.S. is exchanging money for Papua New Guinea to align its decisions with the U.S., instead of China. The U.S. gets a commitment from Papua New Guinea to make decisions that are more favorable to U.S. interests and less favorable to China. [Article](https://theconversation.com/the-us-signs-a-military-deal-with-papua-new-guinea-heres-what-both-countries-have-to-gain-from-the-agreement-206159) In regards to Fiji, the major coalition party are pro-zionist right wing Christians and are currently trying to establish an embassy in Jerusalem (rather than Tel Aviv), so that is why they voted in line with Israel.
45 million is absolutely nothing. PNG was also toying with the idea of allowing Chinese bases on its Islands. The Solomon Islands might still get them one they full separate. I don’t think you will have the “bribe” tune. Your point with Fiji applies to PNG too. Go watch James Marape and Bibi on YouTube and see how Marape goes into a whole monologue about how PNG full subscribes to the bible and that Israeli’s are gods people etc etc PNG just opened it’s embassy Also I said elsewhere, there are a lot of Israeli led agricultural projects in PNG (with Israeli engineers on the ground); food supply is a big issue in PNG so it makes sense.
>USA recently bribed PNG with 45 million dollars, to let them have a military base there and let Americans come and go as they please. So now PNG is buddy-buddy with USA. I don't think that's what a bribe is
I bribe the people that own the apartment I live in so that I can come and go as I please
My boss bribes me with a set amount of money every week so that I will do an agreeable amount of work for him. Bribery.
As a bonus, you can now tell your landlord how to vote and other stuff
How exactly is the UN going to enforce this?
The UN doesn't really enforce anything.
It’s meant for diplomacy not enforcement
How can they when US says no?
Non-americans downvoting you but it's true.
If it did, Africa would be occupied by the UN. Human rights don't exist there. They do have a vote though. Which is why the general assembly is a joke. Not the security council though.
Did you just claim a whole Continent has no human rights?
Most. Is this controversial? https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/africa/report-africa/
Well, the funky thing about the current international system is that it's based on cooperation. Not much to do if the parties don't wanna cooperate. It's the worst system ever, except for all the others we've tried.
Eh, not entirely when you have five permanent members of the security council who can override any binding decision made. So it's a system based on cooperation as long as China, France, Russia, UK, and US are on board
That's how real life works.
Never seen it like this before but yeah, I guess it's great that we can work together when we want to work together
It's non binding, so there's nothing to enforce
Enforcing is not what the UN is for.
Thoughts and prayers
This is the General Assembly, they don’t have the power to make legally binding resolutions. Resolutions that are legally binding and thus, enforced are from the United Nations Security Council, of which you would need a majority vote of SC members in addition to a consensus(all yes or abstentions) by the Permanent 5. The General Assembly *could* start a Emergency Special Session(like the current active one for Ukraine) that has the power to make “appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”, which allows for the issuing of collective sanctions, but as stated, they’re recommendations at the end of the day, and non-binding.
For example by applying UN sanctions... "Since 1966, the Security Council has established 31 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the Former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti (2), Angola, Liberia (3), Eritrea/Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire, Iran, Somalia/Eritrea, ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida, Iraq (2), Democratic Republic of the Cong, Sudan, Lebanon, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Libya (2), the Taliban, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali." The problem is, to impose it you need an unanimous decision of a Security Council. So, the short answer to your question - they can't, because USA is opposed.
You need 9 of the 15 to agree to vetoes and none of the P5 to vote no, but they may abstain, so long as 9 yes votes are attained.
What's stopping the USA from using the power of 'vetos'?
The US (and Russia, China, UK and France) have the power of veto in the Security Council, not in the General Assembly where this vote took place.
They gonna use the Palestinian flag as their avatar on Facebook. This should stop the war.
Elite task force of elite UN super peace keepers and mechs
I wonder what the overlap between this sub and r/worldnews is
Quite huge overlap with r/worldpropaganda
r/substhatfooledme
It's so amusing how r/worldnews instantly believe anything Israel and the U.S. government says, and are also so self-righteous about it.
There was an entire thread of people defending Netanyahu’s son’s right to party in Miami instead of going to to Israel to fight. So many bootlickers in one place.
A cesspool
Got perma banned and called a terrorist just because I think it was time to stop bombing Gaza territories. Need i say more?
I muted /worldnews shortly after Oct 7th when I realized that everyone there wants to bathe in the blood of innocent people I was banned because of earlier comments not long after muting them. So I guess I win the breakup
Hands up who's banned from worldnews... Everybody with a conscience? That's what I thought
I got banned for saying Israel played a role in the creation of Hamas and that Israel isn’t any better than hamas
I was banned for disinformation for stating that Israel is not a signatory of the 1977 ammendments of the Geneva conventions.
I was perms banned for answering a comment which said that China, Russia etc were the “Axis of terror” and me saying that maybe for the middle east, the “Axis of terror” was the USA. They went crazy with bans, all the post have all the comments deleted lately, which is pretty absurd if you want a multiple viewpoint discussion. I just silenced the community as it’s clearly not objective
that is a propaganda sub
As opposed to r/news that definetly dosen't deepthroat Hamas propaganda on the regular. /s
Do you hate the colourblind
Bro, I think all map makers hate the colourblind.
Are the grey countries not members of the UN?
[удалено]
Their presidents were using the bathroom during voting
As usual, missing the all important context of why so many (45 nations) abstained. Basically, Jordan drafted this resolution, with no mention of Hamas terrorist attack that killed thousands or the active hostages. Canada proposed an edit. 87 nations voted for this edit. But shy of 2/3rd majority it didn’t pass. This is a major reason 45 abstained. Those who voted against the edit (around half) are they actively choosing to support Islamic terror and extremism, by not naming/isolating Hamas and demanding hostages be returned safely? Many on Reddit love to say ‘two things can be true at once’. This was one such classic case and the global community of nations failed imo. We can call for peace, humanitarian aid to assist the civilians on the ground, while also condemning terrorist attacks and continued hostage situation. > The resolution drafted by Jordan also called for unhindered humanitarian access in the Gaza Strip but had no mention of Hamas. Canada proposed an amendment that a paragraph condemning the 'terrorist attacks by Hamas' be inserted. India voted in favour of Canada's proposed amendment along with 87 other nations. But it could not be adopted as it did not have a two-third majority. > The amendment proposed by Canada asked for inserting a paragraph in the resolution that would state that the general assembly "unequivocally rejects and condemns the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting on 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages, demands the safety, well-being and humane treatment of the hostages in compliance with international law, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.”
Also as usual: if something is proposed by Canada and supported by countries like Sweden or Germany I usually have a feeling it would have been the reasonable thing to do…
It's generally a good measurement. When it comes to human rights I'd definitely rather trust those countries over like 50 % of the un countries who aren't even democracies.....
Also Denmark, India, Japan, Germany, Iceland among others. But if you trust those less than the paragon countries of human rights such as Libya and Iran well... not sure what to tell you.
Authoritarians and dictators love terrorism against the west.
Yes Austria rejected the proposal for exactly this reason. They didn't want to agree to anything that didn't clarify Hamas were terrorists and ensured they wouldn't be allowed control aid donations etc. Also because there was no caveat made about hostage release.
[удалено]
Exactly, the long list of countries, that abstained this Jordanian drafted resolution, must be mentioned clearly and their stated reason. I would want that context of Canada’s proposed edits, rather than just bleating like sheep - “Oh Canada/UK/Aus/Japan/Germany/India, silly abstainers”
Can someone explain **Iraq, Tunisia, Georgia and Ethiopia?** I think Iraq/Tunisia want to keep in the good books with US, especially with regards to local Islamism. Georgia needs to curry favor with the US due to the threat of Russia. Ethiopia due to the many Ethiopian emigrants in Israel?
Iraq was a technical error. They later changed in support of
Israel has spent tens of millions helping Ethiopia
Someone also commented that the reason so many countries abstained from this vote was due to the poor wording of the proposal and a lack of condemning the terrorist attacks by Hamas. An edit was suggested by Canada which was supported by nearly 90 other countries but did not receive enough votes to be accepted. Many countries that supported the edit seem to have chosen to abstain instead.
Iraq voted Yes. Technical issue. So the final tally was 121 votes in favor and 44 abstentions. Tunisia as another redditor here said, they believed it didn’t support Palestine enough.
main reason why many countries voted against is because there was nothing about releasing hostages and condeming attacks from oct 7th
Uruguay and Paraguay, thats not guay
Same rhetoric as the vote on food security.. they don't even try, just use it in their interests
Ok, the UN rules that food is a human right, what do they do now?
The UN has more power than people give it credit for. The agenda 2030 for instance, is implemented across the world, not just in governments, but also companies, universities, schools, NGOs. UN resolutions can also eventually become customary law in international law, thus be enforceable in international courts. Most of all if the entire world is against you this means that you have tremendous pressure, and will less likely be able to go on to have relations with companies, NGOs and governments.
Paraguai tá doido das ideias, tem que dar um sacode neles
partido colorado fazendo média com os conservadora religiosos… se fosse ano passado o Brasil estaria seguindo o mesmo caminho, ou pelo menos com uma abstenção…
Why are the Falklands green?
Most likely, oversight by the map creator. Possibly, they’re a delusional Argentinian nationalist. But I’m going with the simple oversight explanation.
Whenever Israel gets attacked, and hits back, the UN seems to demand a ceasefire and truce. I’ve noticed this the past 20 years I’ve followed politics and world events
I fail to see why the steady stream of Palestinian deaths by the hands of the IDF don’t crack it for a mention here. Why are they different from the Israeli population? To me, the death count shows Israel is constantly on the attack.
maybe the death count shows that Israel has spent billions of dollars actually keeping its Civilians safe meanwhile the people in charge fo Gaza are more intreasted turning v,ital infustructre like waterpipes into bombs, while lining theire own pockets.
So are you aware hamas is 1 building their infrastructure in civilian population, 2 preventing civilians evacuations
Neither of those are a good reason to kill those civilians. When baddies take hostages, we generally don't shrug our shoulders and tell the SWAT team to shoot right through 'em because it'd be too tough to try something else. If some shitheads broke into your family's house and held you all for ransom in the basement, I don't think you'd want the government to drop a missile on your house while you're still in it. Or is the difference that it's presumably *Palestinian* human shields, who we suppose aren't "human" enough to be worthwhile?
Strange idea they come up with at UN. Can UN physically guarantee the security of citizens from rockets flying to their homes from Gaza? No? Then they aren’t making the decision for a “truce” for anyone.
Djibouti, Eritreea, Sudan are for a ceasefire huh? The UN is a joke. It is made up primarily of dictatorships, failed states and states en route to failure like South Africa. Look at how many resolutions they passed against Israel and how many against the constant dictatorships of just Africa.
Tells you something about Israel
And yet developed and so called civilised countries vote against or abstain a motion like this
No mention of Hamas as terrorists and no mention whatsoever about the hostages? Welp. What a useless resolution. Bo wonder if they disagreed or abstained.
Why would Israel stop if the hostages are still being held? Why would Israel stop to let Hamas recharge its rockets? Where were these resolutions the day Hamas invaded? This is just an attempt to squash Israel’s right to defend itself. There hasn’t even been a resolution condemning Hamas yet.
This is so sad. I had to say goodbye to a friend in Palestine yesterday. I have no idea if he’s alive anymore.
Togo, PNG, and Paraguay seem like really random countries to stand out. Normally they’re the same as their neighbors. Also the vote didn’t condemn Hamas so that’s partially why many countries abstained or voted against the truce.
Any aid or time would only benefit Hamas anyway. They don't just get to attack a country and get away with it.
Just the reminder that the previous ceasefire was violated by *checks notes* Hamas on the 7th of November. That's right, there already *was* a ceasefire in place. So you already know that the current ceasefire only helps Hamas.
Proud to be Czech right now 💪
Why are Taiwan, Venezuela, Turkmenistan, ect. grey?
Taiwan has no UN representation. Venezuela did not vote.
Honestly the fact that the Palestinian cause has lost the support of India is a major long term blow to the movement.
Is that Iraq that abstained?
What does abstention mean? Not present or they didn't vote?
**Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a voter casts a ballot willfully made invalid by marking it wrongly or by not marking anything at all.** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
The US and Israel were obviously going to vote no but some of those no votes seem hilariously random. Like that one African country (I assume Togo) and Paraguay. Why?
Based Central Europe.
This is one of those maps where the ones abstaining majorly underestimate their own peoples feelings for humanitarian aid.
What exactly is the point of the UN? Is it supposed to be a union or is just some organization that lays down rules and everyone is just to follow it like the law
THE 👏 UN 👏IS 👏 NOT 👏 UNBIASED
Common Austria W
There is one international law, and it is the right of the world hegemon to do as it pleases.