Everyone who has spent the last six months organizing, protesting, harassing zionist ghouls, and calling out Genocide Joe has a part in this. The US would never, ever allow something like this to pass without the large, persistent, and threatening popular movement that has demanded a ceasefire and Palestinian liberation.
Does this give a mandate for a UN peacekeeping operation? I know it would never happen, just curious about the technicalities.
From what I understand, although this is technically binding and enforceable, any further action taken by the UN would require another resolution to adopt a specific response (whether that be sanctions, military intervention, etc.), which the US could just continue to abuse its veto power with.
SC resolutions are considered enforceable international law, so potentially. Somebody would need to enforce it, though.
Yeah, so looking at the permanent members. The US ain't doing shit. The UK is the US but useless. The French might be keen but probably not and are preoccupied with the Beret Confederation. Russia would fucking love to but is a little busy right now.
Which leaves China, who generally adopt a non interventionist approach and might not have the power projection.
And then there are the minor members, who are particularly useless right now, with the only substantial militaries being the ROK (no) and Japan (would be funniest option, but no)
That's the question on my mind too. Does this have teeth in it, or is it a toothless gesture?
The UN has always been toothless and ineffective and helpless when it comes to good things. And is a ferocious apex predator when it comes to bad things.
The UN only has the power it's member states give it, it has no independence really. It's trash because the countries on the security council are (mostly) trash, and with veto it only takes one. But that's the only way it can exist at all.