UN Security Council calls for immediate Gaza truce

UNITED NATIONS/GAZA, Jan 9 (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council called for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip but Israeli warplanes launched intermittent attacks on Friday.

After days of intense haggling, the Security Council passed a resolution urging an "immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire", and for Israel to withdraw from Gaza after a 14-day air-and-ground offensive. The United States abstained.

The resolution, pressed for by Arab countries in the face of efforts by Britain, France and the United States for a more muted statement, called for arrangements to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza and for its borders to be opened.

It said there should be "unimpeded provision" and distribution of aid to the territory, home to 1.5 million people, many of whom are dependent on food assistance.

Moments before the resolution was passed, Israeli warplanes dropped bombs on areas on the outskirts of Gaza, the main city in the north of the coastal strip.

There was no immediate reaction from Israeli officials after the Security Council vote, but Israel had opposed the idea of a binding resolution. Israel's military commanders are keen to pursue the ground offensive and secure more gains.

On Thursday, ambulance workers ventured onto the battlefield to gather decomposing bodies from the rubble. Hamas officials said the Palestinian death toll had risen to 765, of whom more than a third were children.

While the United States abstained from the U.N. resolution, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington backed the text and had abstained only because it wanted to see the results of an Egyptian mediation effort.

Because that is what the UN security council does.

Whenever there is a conflict the UN security council always calls for an immediate ceasefire. If they’d been in existence in 1939 when the Nazi’s invaded Poland they would have called for an immediate ceasefire. They’d have called for one when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and probably one when the allies landed in Tunisia to topple the Vichy French.

To be fair, how actually could they do anything else? Can you imagine “The UN security council calls for the war between country A and country B to continue, with all the attendent loss of life, money and infrastructure. One fall, one submission or a knockout to decide the winner?”

Because that is what the UN security council does.

For sake of argument...

Because that is what the UN security council does. Yes, that is what the U.N. does, but it shouldn't. In most instances there is a good side and a bad side. Where there isn't, I would sign off on a resolution urging a ceasefire. In the instance of the bad side winning the conflict, I would also sign off on a call for a ceasefire. If the good side is winning, I would not call for a ceasefire. Good must be allowed to conquer evil.

Whenever there is a conflict the UN security council always calls for an immediate ceasefire. In line with my comments above, the U.N. shouldn't always demand a ceasefire.

If they’d been in existence in 1939 when the Nazi’s invaded Poland they would have called for an immediate ceasefire. In line with my comments above, I would have approved of a call for a ceasefire here immediately upon Germany forming at Poland's borders. After the incursion I would sign on to the call for a ceasefire, but demand a quick exit. That exit not forthcoming, I would withdraw the call for a ceasefire and advocate Germany be crushed.

They’d have called for one when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and probably one when the allies landed in Tunisia to topple the Vichy French. If the U.N. had called for these ceasefires, the NAZIs and the Empirical Japanese forces would have been allowed to remain in place, holding vast territorial gains in Europe, in the Western Pacific and Asia. In line with my comments above, I would not have signed off on any call for a ceasefire in these matters.

To be fair, how actually could they do anything else? Quite easily actually.

Can you imagine “The UN security council calls for the war between country A and country B to continue, with all the attendent loss of life, money and infrastructure. One fall, one submission or a knockout to decide the winner?” Of course I can. The only alternative is to allow a nation like NAZI Germany to continue to exist, continue to torture, inhialate, and occupy. The U.N. needn't call for a war to continue. It should demand that the aggressor nation withdraw and return to humane treatment of all civilians, foreign and domestic. Failing that, the U.N. should declare the aggressor nation to be a criminal state to be beaten into submission, and returned to international standards.

Let's not kid ourselves though. The U.N. is corrupt as any organization has ever been. It is time for it to be disbanded. Some international body could take it's place, but it would only address diplomatic issues in times of crisis, and remain out of any other global matters.

Its efforts in UNESCO would cease. It's nation building would cease. Its massive diplomatic core in NY should be jetesoned A.S.A.P. One diplomat from each nation could remain for consultations in times of conflict. Other than that, the organization has proven itself too dirty to contine on in a leadership role.

You seem to think I am endorsing the actions of the UN. Not so, I’m just commenting on their predictability.

In most circumstances of course there is a “good side” and a “bad side”. The problem is that the nations of the world have different ideas of which is which, depending on their political agendas. Because the UN is made up of all nations, they are almost always unable to agree on who is in the right and who is not, so the safest thing is simply to say “war and killing is bad”, which no one is going to publically reject. Partly because it would be impolitic, and partly because war and killing IS bad...its just not the worst thing that can happen.

Consequently, I find it hard to understand how you think an organisation like the UN can make any kind of statement on war other than the one it always trots out. The UN is a pipe dream, an entity that idealistically points to the way the nations of the world SHOULD behave, but in practice, although they have all hypocritically signed up to its charter, none of its member nations are going to vote against their own national interests. You could argue quite cogently that they shouldn’t - after all, US politicians should be obeying the wishes of their constituents, not those of an international organisation.

The United Nations should more properly be called “The Disunited Nations”. Its posturings and pronouncements clearly show up the differences between nations far more than their common aims. You rightly say that “The only alternative is to allow a nation like NAZI Germany to continue to exist, continue to torture, inhialate, and occupy.” But the simple fact is that the UN does that all the time. It did just that in the Balkans debacle a few years back. It has done it in Nigeria and Uganda, Somalia and Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Georgia, and no doubt dozens of other places. Even if the UN does take sides with its resolutions, the offending power can just ignore them and walk out. North Korea did, so too did Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan both walked out of the UN’s precursor, the League of Nations.

The UN, and particularly its security council, is little more than a talking shop whereby countries can bad mouth each other and try and assert a false moral superiority. After many hours of gabbling, the only result is some tepid platitude which everyone ignores.

I tried to comment on exactly what you stated. If I failed in that effort, I apologize.

I wouldn’t say I thought you endorsed the U.N., as much as I thought you might have skewed what it’s take should be. I expressed my take on it, and that’s what you should come away with. It’s my opinion.

I realize that the organization is somewhat accurately described by your comments. I also realize it fails it’s basic mandate almost constantly, to avoid and end conflict. And IMO, you do that best by addressing criminal behavior and treating nations that exhibit criminal behavior accordingly.

If as you say, the U.N. shouldn’t be expect to do more than it does with regard to right vs wrong, then it has proven itself to be without justification to even exist IMO.

No, nations will not listen to the U.N. if it speaks truth. That shouldn’t stop it from speaking truth. And if it cannot get a consensus what truth is, then what good is it?

Right now it can’t even determine that Hamas which has been raining down missiles on Israel at the rate of 100 per day for over a years, should be the party addressed to stop it’s actions. Instead it focuses on Israel. And so, I must state the U.N. is not only worthless, but less than worthless. It is an evil enterprise. Whether by intent or by accident, the U.N. sides with evil more often than not.

It’s time for it to go.

I appreciate your comments. I agree with a good portion of them. I recognize the limitations on an organization like the U.N., but also realize that if this is the case, then it’s legitimacy for being does not exist.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.