> The UN still hasn't condemned the October 7th attack nor Hammas's use of civilians as human shields. Not sure about the rest. So I wouldn't call them an unbiased authority.
The UN does not seem to have condemned many of the actions of the Irish Republicans Army either.
Some commenters use terminology like “apartheid” and “civil unrest” to describe this situation, so perhaps people in the UN also view this as a internal issue and they don’t want to comment on domestic terror?
The UN does not seem to have condemned many of the actions of the Irish Republicans Army either.
Unfortunately, that's kind of the point. The UN has issued twice as many condemnations of Israel as of the rest of the world combined.
Some parts of the UN do important work -- UNESCO, WHO, FAO, etc. But they are unreliable when it comes to matters of justice. They had to retire the predecessor to the Human Rights Commission because it was dominated by countries who commit lots of abuses, and the new version isn't really any better.
In particular the UN can't be trusted when it comes to Israel. There are a lot of Islamic countries, and they have made a lot of allies for the specific purpose of condemning Israel. And since Israel is a key ally of the US, it becomes the focus of anti-UN sentiment as well.
That's not to justify everything Israel does. Far from it. It would be better if there were an organization capable of evaluating the situation objectively, to sort out the truth under a barrage of propaganda from all sides. Instead, we get the UN offering meaningless and predictable condemnations.
How is Hammas attacking Israel an internal issue? It's a foreign actor invading a country (literally taking down the border) and attacking Israel.
Even if it was the case though, the UN has condemned Israel multiple times, why the difference? Shouldn't they avoid condemning Israel too as it's an internal dispute?
Some people do not internalize the idea that Palestine is a sovereign nation. At best, they consider it an occupied territory thus any conflict they have with Mother Israel is couched in terms like apartheid, segregation, and colonization.
For an examples, look at how many commenters on this thread are calling this an “internal dispute” even though they fully support Palestine.
Some Palestinian supporters don’t even recognize Hamas as the government of the Gaza Strip. How can a country exist without a government? People are just in support of the people.
I'm not saying that they are or they aren't. I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways. Either it's an internal conflict or not. Though you can't have a one-sided agenda like the UN, at least in response to the October 7th terrorist attacks.
In an internal conflict the only side you can put political pressure on is the ruling government.
Let’s take as a hypothetical, some Waco style paramilitary starts terrorist sticks in the US, and in response the US military begins shelling Chicago night and day killing thousands more civilians and the terrorists ever did.
Should the UN come out and censure both sides? The terrorists are just domestic criminals, and the UN doesn’t have a particular interest in that. However turning your military against helpless civilians is something the UN does care about.
I’m not sure this fits 100% but it’s the logic I’m following.
The UN does not seem to have condemned many of the actions of the Irish Republicans Army either.
Some commenters use terminology like “apartheid” and “civil unrest” to describe this situation, so perhaps people in the UN also view this as a internal issue and they don’t want to comment on domestic terror?