Albert Einstein is 100% correct. Read his letter to the NY Times.
post
Yeah, I don’t know how to solve the issues of two separate families feeling ownership for the same location (fifty years ago, a Palestinian family including several living members was evicted from a home, and an Israeli couple moved in and then died, leaving their property to their children who played no role in taking the property from the Palestinians), but the solution is not to deport all of the Israelis from the region.
My first instinct would be that the government would need to build a LOT of desirable housing and offer a cash incentive to all current and former residents to cede ownership claims to other properties in exchange for the deed to one of the newer properties, but it immediately occurs to me that the wealth difference between the average Palestinian family and the average Israeli family is probably large enough that there would essentially be a self-selection bias. Especially given the fact that poverty and food insecurity reduce our ability to make good financial decisions.
I can’t think of a resolution for that situation that doesn’t involve someone feeling resentful. I’m not saying they have equal claim- but I know that the descendants of settlers are also people, who don’t want to be evicted from the (stolen) houses in which they were raised, and sowing resentment has not helped the region in the past.
I mean, eminent domain exists for this reason, but generally, compensation for stolen property is the norm because of the difficulty of dealing with inheritances and the like several steps removed from the original crime.
Recognizing the validity of residency is not the same as recognizing privilege. "You can stay under the same criteria as anyone else, because we aren't here to engage in ethnic cleansing" and "Your property is sacrosanct and cannot be touched under any circumstances" are two different concepts, after all.
Oh, there are a thousand ways they could improve their current way of handling it. I just don’t know what the best way would be, though it would definitely involve eminent domain. I guess a lottery system for determining which families get the ancestral home?
I used to take solace in the fact that people smarter than I were in charge of this, so they could do better than that as a solution, but I’m increasingly skeptical that they actually will.
Palestinians that lived in what is now Israel are very old and very few in number now. Israelis won't feel safe with having Palestinians moving into their neighbourhoods after what happened on October 7 for at least another generation.
So right of return is dead now. Hamas killed it.
But there are the settlements. Israel has returned land from settlements to Palestinians in the past. They did this in on part of Palestine... Gaza. And there was never any problems from Gaza ever again after that, right? Nope, what happened was a plurality of Palestinians voted for Hamas and once they were in power there weren't any more elections in Gaza.
The problem mostly stems around poor leadership. Given their past experiences with attempts to exchange land for peace always ending in Palestinians seeing it as a sign of weakness, Israelis turned to Netanyahu who sucks. Palestinians have been convinced they should hate Israelis so they turn to Hamas (fascists who use hatred as tool to gain and maintain power). Fatah is an alternative, but they are corrupt and since it's easy to blame Israel for everything there's no incentive to root out corruption.
But there are plenty of Israelis that don't like Netanyahu. There are plenty of Palestinians that are against Hamas. You just won't hear about them much on lemmy because people here tend to think of countries as "good guys" and "bad guys" and discussing internal politics of countries goes against the simple narratives people like.
And we should not ignore the problem of Iran's government. There obviously isn't going to much of chance for peace if there's a country in the region that will send rockets to whatever faction is willing to fire them at Israel. Before October 7, we were very close to seeing official recognition of Israel by the Saudis and normalization of relations. This kind of thing isn't in Iran's interests and they have proxies that can attack Israel so...
October 7 was obviously beyond previous attacks but it's been an ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran's proxies for decades. So how do you convince an authoritarian theocratic regime to chill out on a country their whole propaganda system has villainized for decades? So... once again bad leaders.
So yeah... we could only wish this was just a land for peace kind of problem. That's hard to solve to be sure, but nothing compared to the complexities involved with the various factions throughout the region.
The meme itself is fine.
But shilling a one-state solution with it?
Not cool.
Wait, what's not cool about a one-state solution?
I'm not opposed to a two-state solution, but generally a one-state solution is considered the more radical option, so I picked it to emphasize that I'm not asking anyone to be pro-Israel.
I don't know what you thoght when typing up the post, but I do know what I understood when I read it.
A one-state solution is "never" going to work because that's the current solution. There's one state of Israel and no state of Palestine. And currently, Israel hasn't show itself to be all too nice to the palestinians, what with the settling, apartheid and recently as transparent genocide as it gets.
What a one state solution will do is keep the current oppressive power structures. Meaning nothing will truly change. The Israeli press has shown itself to be very anti-Palestinian, and a lot of the population is indoctrinated to think Jews are entitled to settle the land at all costs towards the Palestinians.
There are a lot of examples on YouTube of 'regular' Israelis talking of it in the most gruesome and off-putting words imaginable. One might call it cognitive dissonance, but it's pure indoctrination.
And breaking such indoctrination, cultivated potentialy since the dawn of the sigle state, takes both time and effort.
Effort which is most lukely to succeed were the Palestinians given their own, fully autonomus, UN-recognized and in all aspects equal state free from Israeli control of all types.
Why?
Because Israel has shown itself to be unworthy of having authority over Palestinians.
Systematic oppression needs an equally systematic way of undoing it. Any attepmts at molding the current power structures are unlikely to stop the mistreatment of Palestinians.
The current Israel was and continues to be a one-state solution. A failed solution, that lead to the current genocide. The only way in which such a solution would work is through radical changes to the power structures of the current State, or a new one altogether. One with new laws, a new government, artificially made to overrepresent Palestinians to try to undo the equally artificial, but ingrained in Israeli society opression of them.
Previous such solutions have had a very bad success rate. Such an artificial state is truly like a house of cards. A bad compromise. Neither side is happy for a long time - both feel entitled to more than they get.
So in my humble opinion, one could say that Israel has been given a chance to govern the Palestinians. What they ended up doing is commiting systematic opression a d as of late, a very transparent genocide against them.
If you ask me, any goodwill they've gotten to that end was rescinded as of late, and anything less than a two-state solution will be rewarding the perpetrators.
Obligatorily: I'm not saying that Israelis are all genocidal maniacs, or activelly commiting genocide. But the state, their state, is. And such a state cannot reasonably be expected to stop of its own accord or by a finger-wag from the UN. Since the figer-wagging has been done consistently for quite some time now, way before the recent escalations.
A one-state solution is “never” going to work because that’s the current solution.
Again, that's not what "one-state solution" means. "One-state solution" necessarily implies, for one, that there is a current problem in need of a solution; it would be extremely strange to say "The solution to the problem is the status quo."
When people say "One-state solution", they generally mean a single state encompassing all of Palestine and Israel with equal rights.
So, there being one state isn't a solution?
And how would you solve it?
By not changing the fact that there's one state non-solution out there?
Of course there's a problem. But you seem to imply as if the problem is brand-new and no solutions have been tried. Not doing anything (or in this case enough) is a solution. A bad one, for sure, but even not doing anything requires some action.
One state with equal rights will not happen. And how do I know that?
I'm acquainted with the history of the Middle East.
This isn't the first conflict between Israel and Palestine by a long shot. Israel's had plenty of ample opportunities to show some humanity, humility and respect for human rights. We all know very well how they answered that call.
As I see it, there are three hypotheitical possibilities (scenarios) with a one state "solution" (as if it'll be anything new):
a) Nothing changes (obviously). Palestibians keep being opressed. The war and the genocide stops, but in essence, they stay opressed.
b) The Israeli government falls. Palestinians take over. The opressors become the oppressed. Again, nothing fundamentally changes, just the roles swap.
c) A magical "middle-way" coalition wins power. All current laws get rewritten. Palestinians get equal rights, and a way to reclaim lost land. Everyone is happy.
I hope you see how only one of these makes aby sense in the real world. One is impossible, and the other a fucking fairytale (read: equally as impossible).
A two-state solution lets Bibi do what he's been doing (Fascism Lite), while stopping the genocide and giving Palestinians basic human rights.
Anything else isn't a realistic solution (read: it'll never work or quickly break down with the current simulation parameters).
I would argue that a two-state solution is equally unlikely under the current circumstances.
But my overall point is not whether a one-state solution is viable, only that it is ideal, and I used it in the title to emphasize that I am not arguing against even people who want to completely dissolve the state of Israel as it exists now, but only against the idea that directly making statements that are antisemitic or in favor of ethnic cleansing is what I'm objecting to.
To paraphrase: I wouldn't argue it's a viable solution, merely that it's the ideal one.
Wouldn't the ideal solution also need to be viable, at the very least?
While I'm also not arguing against the people denying Israel's right to exist, I am also not arguing for them either.
And about antisemitism: I'd like to think of myself as against all types of totalitarian control and oppression. I'm also very lucky to not have a personal stake in any armed conflict current or past, which I feel gives me relatively unclouded judgement. I'm also very much against genocide, as I view it as a specific form of oppression.
Now, whether or not I am an antisemite largely defends on how you define the word.
I'd like to think that i'm not. However, that assumes the "classic" definition of antisemitism - having something against the Jews by way of religion or ethnicity and discriminating because of that.
I have something (a lot, in fact) against oppression and genocide. If not supporting everything Israel says and does uncritically and without reservation then yes, I am antisemitic. I do not support Israel's genocide.
Hovewer, I feel this "new" use of the term is only going to harm not only Israel's interests, but all Jews (Jews themselves inherently, not merely "their interests"). Abusing the term to refer to any dissent from Israeli policy will only remove all "teeth" from the original meaning. Of course, I wouldn't want that, but that's what I not only feel will happen, but is already happening, and it's not because of me.
As always, Israel doesn't represent all Jews, nor do all Jews constitute Israel. Much less so if we look at Israeli leaders' official stance and world outlook. Conflating the three is a grave mistake.
two state solution is never going to work.
Israel is already a one state solution, as it contols all the territory and if commited to apartheid and genocide.
one democratic state is the only viable solution, just end apartheid, expand the racist right of return.
one democratic state is the only viable solution, just end apartheid, expand the racist right of return.
That's what most people mean when they say one-state solution, though.
Crazy idea, but maybe we should end our dependence on oil? Wars cost money and we fund those wars when we buy oil. We pretend to be upset when we see the suffering caused by war, but then vote for whoever we think will bring down the price of gas and then pretend we don't understand why there's war in an oil rich region of the world.
As long as:
Stolen land is given back, and criminals prosecuted,
Sure.
You want to prosecute criminals responsible for an insane amount of death? Believe it or not, anti-Semitic.
You want justice for people whose lives have been systematically destroyed over 70+ years? Believe it or not, anti-Semitic.
This person actually believes they're being brilliant suggesting a one state solution but is that really for the benefit of the Palestinian people? Or is it to further push save Israel agenda since everyone can now see their true nature.
I'm onboard with that, man. Like I said, I'm down with everything up to the very destruction of the Israeli state. It's just ethnic cleansing and antisemitism I'm opposed to.
Why not destroy the state and create one where everyone has equal rights? A state anchored in the supremacy of one group is an apartheid state. It's clear as day which side you're on supporting such a state.
Why not destroy the state and create one where everyone has equal rights?
That's literally what a one-state solution is, as supported in the very fucking title. Jesus Christ.
A state anchored in the supremacy of one group is an apartheid state. It’s clear as day which side you’re on supporting such a state.
Me: "Like I said, I’m down with everything up to the very destruction of the Israeli state."
You: "It's clear that you support the state of Israel!"
The worst part is, I don't know if this is trolling. I legitimately believe that you could be at this reading level.
There will be no Israeli state in a world where everyone has equal rights. It will be destroyed if it is for everyone to have equal rights. And a new state will be founded, under a name that is not Israel and doesn't resemble the apartheid state of Israel. Only then can you actually talk about equal rights for every group of people.
... okay? How does that contradict anything I said, considering that I explicitly mentioned the destruction of the Israeli state as perfectly fine by me?
Or are you going to ignore that and make another inane statement in direct contradiction to the very comment you're quoting?
So I, a jew who has never even been to Israel, who's ancestors left centuries ago, am responsible for the state of Israel in any fucking way?
Jewish does not mean Israeli... At all.
Ummm I never said that.
I agree that Jewish does not mean Israeli.
I'm specifically talking about individuals involved in war crimes that they should be held accountable.
Anti semitic remarks are not the same as anti Israeli remarks
I feel nothing when that guy changed "death, death to the IDF". Well, maybe a mix of amusement and concern. But I have nothing, at all, to do with the IDF and do not support what they do
When you say, in this context, "I'll cool it with the anti semitic comments when war criminals are brought to justice", how do you think that feels?
Don't take this shit casually, anti semitism goes back to biblical times. I've experienced it growing up. And now, they're asking new York Jews what they think of "their" prime minister? They're "othering" us already
They just built a concentration camp. In America. The Holocaust wasn't the first time they targeted the Jews as the enemy within. I've always reminded my family who start flirting with conservatism... We're always second. When they run out of people that look different, we're next
I know what you meant. But that's not what you said, and words matter
So I, as a jew, who has never even been to Israel, don't feel threatened by the original comment at all, because I'm not an Israeli settler and haven't kicked anyone off their property, and thus don't have to fear having to give anyone their stolen property back.
We've tried a 1 state solution for a long time
It's probably time to start aknowledging the goal of Zionism is to take land from others, and aknowledge that the Zionist have too much influence in politics.
It's either the Zionists go, or we just have to accept that Isreal wants to behave like a fascist colonizer and cut ties
It’s either the Zionists go, or we just have to accept that Isreal wants to behave like a fascist colonizer and cut ties
Cutting ties isn't advocating genocide against Israelis though.
If we look at the modern history of the reigon, the Zionist have been the agressors since NATO made the choice to just give the Palestinians' land to the Zionists, because the Zionists wanted the land and had an excuse/sympathy after WW2.
There hasn't been a political party in Isreal capable of being peaceful and fair with their neighbors.
If we look at the modern history of the reigon, the Zionist have been the agressors since NATO made the choice to just give the Palestinians’ land to the Zionists, because the Zionists wanted the land and had an excuse/sympathy after WW2.
NATO wasn't founded until over a year after Israel was. Soviet aid, in fact, was instrumental in saving Israel after it was founded in '48.
There hasn’t been a political party in Isreal capable of being peaceful and fair with their neighbors.
Okay? That still doesn't justify genocide?
If you want to be pedantic about what NATO was called when the same members were just the allied forces then idk if we can talk about this in good faith.
Okay? That still doesn't justify genocide?
Jews are not being currently genocided, Zionists are currently genociding Palestinians. So I feel like that's what is most valid to focus on.
It seems like most of the "antisemitism" that appeared out of nowhere in the last couple months is just a renewal of an IDF troll campaign. The warmongering Zionists get their trolls to beat the "antisemitism" gong whenever they are starting to look bad in the press.
If you want to be pedantic about what NATO was called when the same members were just the allied forces then idk if we can talk about this in good faith.
... Jesus fucking Christ.
Israel was not 'given land' by 'the allied forces'.
It seems like most of the “antisemitism” that appeared out of nowhere in the last couple months is just a renewal of an IDF troll campaign.

It was the allies who gave the land to the Zionists.
The Haavara Agreement ... enabled Jews fleeing persecution under the new Nazi regime to transfer some portion of their assets to British Mandatory Palestine.[2] Emigrants sold their assets in Germany to pay for essential goods (manufactured in Germany) to be shipped to Mandatory Palestine.[3][4] The agreement was controversial and was criticised by Revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky and by some non-Zionist Jews, as well as by members of both the Nazi Party and the German public.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
We can see the landgrab was even unpopular with non-Zionist jews at the time.
Dude you gotta chill. Palestinians are being erased, and Jews are not. It's really as simple as that.
Supporting Zionists does not help Jews. And pretending any antisemitism happening against Zionists is as bad as the erasure of the Palestinian people is intentionally ignoring the ongoing atrocities to clutch pearls.
Zionists and Isralis don't get sympathy from me while committing the worst war crime possible.
It was the allies who gave the land to the Zionists.
Emigrants sold their assets in Germany to pay for essential goods (manufactured in Germany) to be shipped to Mandatory Palestine.
Are you... did you not read what you literally fucking quoted? Not only is that not 'the allies', but rather independent Zionist orgs making a deal with Nazi Germany, but it's not giving land, and it's not post-WW2 like you claimed.
Dude you gotta chill. Palestinians are being erased, and Jews are not. It’s really as simple as that.
Oh, okay, since Palestinians are being genocided right now, we can call for a little genocide of Israelis, as a treat.
Supporting Zionists does not help Jews. And pretending any antisemitism happening against Zionists is as bad as the erasure of the Palestinian people is intentionally ignoring the ongoing atrocities to clutch pearls.
"Please don't advocate for genocide or antisemitism"
"Oh, so you think the current situation for ZIONISTS is just as bad as the ongoing Palestinian genocide???"
...
Zionists and Isralis don’t get sympathy from me while committing the worst war crime possible.
Yes, it's increasingly apparent that you're quite willing to tolerate calls for genocide as long as the 'other side' committed genocide first.
When I can post literal quoted history and you aren't capable of internalizing that it makes me feel you aren't interested in a serious conversation about this.
What was the group that forced Germany to pay reperations?
Cmon say it with me, the allies!
FFS you are crashing out my dude.
When I can post literal quoted history and you aren’t capable of internalizing that it makes me feel you aren’t interested in a serious conversation about this.
What was the group that forced Germany to pay reperations?
In the quoted and cited incident, as I pointed out, there were no 'allies' who made Germany pay anything.
In the postwar situation, no one made Germany pay reparations to anyone involved in this situation we are discussing except the survivors of the Holocaust, and those reparations had nothing to do with the land of Israel, which was under the British Mandate of Palestine.
FFS you are crashing out my dude.
Jesus fucking Christ.
I'm sorry for having an understanding of the recent history of the region instead of some bizarre fucking fever dream.
Do you think Germany would have voluntarily stopped WW2 and voluntarily made reperations all on their own?
No. That's literally Revisionist history.
Don't be ignorant on purpose
Do you think Germany would have voluntarily stopped WW2 and voluntarily made reperations all on their own?
No. That’s literally Revisionist history.
Don’t be ignorant on purpose
what the ever-loving fuck does that have to do with the foundation of Israel and Zionists acquiring land in Palestine
If you want to learn the history of Zionism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovers_of_Zion
The founders of modern Zionism started the ideology with the stated goal of reposessing the holy land that was promised to them by god.
This group of rich Russian and Austrian jews were able to place themselves at the table during the reperations process after WW2, they then convinced the Allied forces to give them the british owned land in the reigon, and they have been expanding their boarders ever since.
This is human history, verifiable.
Please for your own sake stop frothing and start reading Wikipedia articles.
This group of rich Russian and Austrian jews were able to place themselves at the table during the reperations process after WW2, they then convinced the Allied forces to give them the british owned land in the reigon, and they have been expanding their boarders ever since.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Please for your own sake stop frothing and start reading Wikipedia articles.
For fuck's sake, please read up on the history of the British Mandate, including the fucking Balfour Declaration, before making insane fucking statements about Zionists being given Israel by the Allies after WW2.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine
So the mandate was created after WW1, not 2, with the purpose of giving jewish people a national homeland and having a bunch of European countries control the reigon for 3 decades until they let it expire and let the Jews and Palestinians sort it out with each other.
On the last day of the mandate, the creation of the State of Israel was proclaimed and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War began.My partner is plural so she's taught me a lot about how people see and present their own consciousness.
So the allied forces colonized the reigon for Zionists to move in and take land that was being owned by other people, and then shugged their shoulders and walked away...
You're not making a case here for the Zionists.
Should European-Americans all “just relocate” since we occupied North America from the Native Americans?
Otherwise I don’t see how you’re any different than the Israelites.
Well one happened in living memory and people are still living in the houses of displaced people in Palestine.
This isn't just about land. This about homes, farms, legacies, birthright, inheritances that have been stolen by living people from living people. Not a vague concept of belonging.
Congratz you're starting to learn how it's problematic to deport people who were born in the reigon.
Congratz you’re starting to learn how it’s problematic to deport people who were born in the reigon.
Luckily, it's not problematic or worthy of condemnation to deport people who were born in the region if their government commits genocide first. The Israeli Jews have to learn that collective punishment is Good, Actually, as long as it's in response to previous crimes.
I don't think we need to deport the Isralis, but they ARE genociding their neighbors so maybe they can't live peacefully in the reigon.
IMO the Palestinian families that lived there before WW2 have more of a claim to the land. That's if they can't stop killing each other.
But do the Israelis WANT to integrate though ?
Shit can I get expelled back to Britain? They got their own problems but fuck, my family is in the domesday book, can I go back?
Words that people misuse are still meaningful when the reader and writer both understand the same meaning. I expect you understand OP perfectly well.
Words that people misuse for the sake of propaganda are intentionally misleading, regardless of how any in-group understands it.
Jewish people and groups around the world need to issue strong rejection of Israel's actions.
If they don't, i'm very concerned that Israel's crimes will fall back on them in the future.
Let's look at sentiment from different groups
Young and liberal associate them with Israeli genocide.
Young and conservative is full of full on Nazis.
Politically they aren't worth much being concentrated in liberal strongholds.
When the old folks who are pro Israel go into the grounds dislike will be a rare point of agreement. Not a great position.
It will protect them from the free palestine crowd, but not from anti-semites. Is there a downside though?
Well yeah, obviously. There are anti-semites everywhere. I meant those whose motivations are "free palestine," which in my estimate is the main motivation of the free palestine crowd when viewed as a whole -- not antisemitism. I don't mean to say that there don't exist people who are aligned with free-palestine just because they're anti-semitic. But there's no protection from those people either way -- so, no downside.
I'm sure contains, though I doubt there's a complete overlap, not covers for. People who want a literal genocide to end aren't automatically antisemites or antisemite apologists. Nor are antisemites, especially Trumper antisemites, automatically in favor of Palestine.
Israel is the most anti-Jewish state since Nazi Germany, and Palestinians are semitic.
*It's ok to hate Israel
I really don't understand people who think a one state solution is possible anymore. I'm not sure if it ever was but certainly at this point it's not viable.
Nothing is "viable" if you just extrapolate the present, except I guess genocide.
To take a step back, moral ambition and political courage are necessary. If Ireland could reach a Good Friday Agreement, if South Africa could overcome apartheid, so can Palestine/Israel.
A plurinational democratic state with equal rights for all, with a truth and reconciliation process, and with strong international support is the only way the middle east can ever reach peace.
And if we are putting on big boy pants and imagining a better world, why not envision the Mediterranean Union becoming a force for democratization and stabilization allowing the free movement of people throughout the region.
When realism is dystopian, fuck realism and pick utopia. Otherwise, why even live?
Yes but for as brutal as South Africa could be they weren't in the throes of active genocide. The overwhelming majority of their people weren't okay with the extermination of entire races. Or at least they didn't say so out loud, proudly. Expecting them to live in harmony with the people whose blood they are braying for seems foolhardy to me. Expecting those whose children have been murdered in mass in front of them to just politely join hands with the people who celebrated the murder of their children with Glee seems again, foolhardy.
I'm not expecting harmony immediately, I'm advocating for a political project with outside pressure to get to it eventually. Israelis like to talk about deradicalization of the Palestinians, but Israeli society itself needs to be deradicalized.
There is nothing cosmically exceptional about this conflict compared to other conflicts. If Bosnia and Herzegovina can be a society for Bosniak, Serbs and Croats and if Rwanda can find reconciliation after a genocide, so can Palestinians and Israelis.
This: "Why Rwanda is held up as a model for reconciliation, 26 years after genocide" | CBC Radio https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/why-rwanda-is-held-up-as-a-model-for-reconciliation-26-years-after-genocide-1.5842139
If we can't imagine this horizon and if we don't have the courage to work for it, what are we even doing? If all we can imagine is death and hatred, we are creating a self fulfilling prophecy and precluding ever going beyond it. We need moral courage and ambition, that's all I'm saying.
I mean, the situation is so fucked that saying anything is 'viable' at this point is a pipe dream. But I mentioned a one-state solution to emphasize that I'm not asking anyone to be pro-Israel, or even ask that Israel, as a state, should be allowed to continue to exist. My opposition is to advocacy for genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Israel is already a one state solution, it contols all the territory from the river to the sea, and commiting apartheid and genocide.
End apartheid and you have a single state where everyone is free.
One apartheid state is no viable.
I may be naive but why wouldn't a UN governed state not be in the best interest for all parties? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_separatum_(Jerusalem)
Oh geeze, an United Nations governed state is an entirely different can of worms. Though one does wonder what difference there will be between that and just Israel considering the amount of influence they have on the UN.
Though one does wonder what difference there will be between that and just Israel considering the amount of influence they have on the UN.
The only real influence Israel has on the UN is the US veto, though. The UN regularly castigates Israel for its horrors.
United Nation members regular castigate Israel for its Horrors. Official action from the organization as a whole is almost zero. Also the unlimited and overwhelming veto is a massive amount of influence. Enough so that it makes the rest of the UN virtually irrelevant. Also something tells me if for some reason the US change its mind the UK would happily step in and fulfill that role.
Official action from the organization as a whole is almost zero.
... because the UN has very little power as a whole.
Meaning it'd be very ineffective at governing a nation particularly one with extreme special interests and extreme ethnic tension.
top 93 comments