this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
393 points (97.6% liked)
World News
32514 readers
513 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just because there's a UN Resolution passed, doesn't mean everything that's proposed magically happens. Governments of all levels accept long-term plans, but then they need to do further actions to follow through on those plans (or in many cases, they don't do anything and those plans just stay as dreams and what-ifs).
Israel is a state because they've declared it and the UN has accepted Israel as a member, it's really that simple. If you want to know why Israel's statehood was accepted, that's very, very complicated and involves millennia of history. I certainly can't condense it here, maybe others could, but I doubt it. I honestly think Wikipedia's a pretty good source for the history of Israel, and I'd suggest starting the British Mandate and looking back if you need more context.
Israel was not established through direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Why the double standard?
I don't understand your question. Can you please explain it?
Maybe the answer is colonialism?
Israel gets to be recognized as a state despite not negotiating with Palestine.
Palestine isn't allowed to be a state without negotiating with Israel.
It's a double standard.
It's immensely unfair, but I'm not sure I'd call that a "double standard."
I'm no expert, Israel was accepted as a UN when they pledged to implement the partition plan. They've never followed through, so you could argue they lied to get in, but once they're in, it's difficult to expel/suspend a member.
It looks like it wasn't until decades later that Palestine sought UN membership. So it kind of makes sense to say the applicant needs to appease the existing members. You could also argue the partition plan was/is unfair, and many wars have been fought over it. I'm just not sure the situations are similar enough to be a "double standard."
This isn't about appeasing existing members, it's just the US blocking everything. Also, asking the colonized to negotiate with their own colonizers is absurd - just wolves and deer negotiating on what's for dinner.
...still not a "double standard"
The double standard is "Israel gets to be a state without negotiating with the people it's stealing the land from, Palestine doesn't get to be a state without negotiating with the people who stole their land." It's a double standard enforced by the US, but it's definitely a double standard and the rest of the world can see it.
All the US is doing is destroying its own credibility and the legitimacy of the UN. This shit is going the way of the League of Nations.
Alright, thanks. I took your advice and I think I found my answer in the 1948 Palestine war: