A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
israel has no right to command anyone else in sovereign country. It has the same value as that degenerated retard putin talking about something happening in Ukraine.
Respect for staying determined to do the job they was assigned to despite all the risks
The risks of observing Israel commit war crimes. Props to them for staying and fuck the IDF for firing on the UN.
The risk of being Israeli war crime victims
Agreed. They are fine folks for what they do. Proud to have them represent the UN.
Good. Brave fellows. I hope their observation of Israeli war crimes ends up used in trials in the future.
Can/will the peacekeepers actually shoot back? I can't imagine the orders that they were deployed under accounted for an Israeli ground invasion
The worst scenario, in self-defense, when life is threatened.
The US satellites won't go against Israel.
There are three basic principles that continue to set UN peacekeeping operations apart as a tool for maintaining international peace and security.
These three principles are inter-related and mutually reinforcing:
-Consent of the parties
-Impartiality
-Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate
Seems like they have activated condition 3.
Bigger question. Given that it's known that Israel's issuing evacuation orders for places that it's going to hit, why are people on the ground making the call to go or stay? Like, why hasn't this policy call been made at a higher level?
I'd understand if this were the first one going out and nobody had time to make a policy call on it. Then you have to make an ad hoc call quickly.
But this isn't that situation, not now.
Leaving would mean that they can't do the job they was assigned to
israeli government/army are the same assholes as those fuckers surrounding them. hamas, hezbollah, all same shit.
Gotta love accounts saying why aren't they just following Israel ordersthen finding them saying Israel is keeping the civilian killed ratio at low levels in the same say
Why would a peacekeeping force listen to the ones being the aggressors?
Why would anyone be dumb enough to try and order them around or shoot them?
The Italian defense minister explained it pretty well: https://youtu.be/Ox0AzK7iVe4?si=1D4m8M7B-DIYcBci
There is a UNSC resolution, if Israel has a problem with that, they have to take it up with the UNSC.
Because it's their own life at stake and they should always have the choice.
In a military operation, there are going to be directives as to how to act. You have RoEs, and usually normally countries are going to make calls as to what they want to do from a policy standpoint with their militaries.
The UN isn't a military organization. It is a peacekeeping org and as such is not bound by the same operational rules as an army would be.
The soldiers are sent from the militaries of member countries.
Doesn't mean they have the same obligations as normal soldiers. Like unifil soldiers can't engage in offensive attacks unlike soldiers in the members countries armies. Their role is to monitor rather than engage militarly. I don't even think the country members have also the authority to order them to move due to the contract
That does not mean they work under military rules. They are under UN control, and the UN is a peacekeeping force. It is not a nation state military force.
The UN isn't, but the soldiers themselves are, and are acting for their respective member state military:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_peacekeeping
Most of these operations are established and implemented by the United Nations itself, with troops obeying UN operational control. In these cases, peacekeepers remain members of their respective armed forces, and do not constitute an independent "UN army", as the UN does not have such a force.
... with troops obeying UN operational control
That says the UN controls the troops.
They are not an army, they are a peacekeeping force.
They are also under UN rules, not their own nation's.
If the UN decides they can choose to stay or leave, that's what happens.
They are not an army,
They are members of their own state militaries acting in an operation headed by the UN.
They have ROEs and similar orders handed to them.
kagis
Here's a sample UN peacekeeping RoE for a recent exercise simulating an actual operation.
It'll lay out the conditions under which one attacks and to what degree peacekeepers should hold maintain a position given the possibility that it is attacked, who they are authorized to engage, and such.
In this situation, you've got an active conflict underway between Hezbollah and Israel. Like, this isn't going to be a "there's nobody shooting at each other" situation. My point is that normally, countries are pretty particular about the lines for international conflict, and I'd expect an RoE to have specified whether they are expected to maintain positions during an evacuation order or not.
I work for company A. Company A is based in Florida, USA. I work in a warehouse owned by Company X, and staffed by Company Z.
As an employee of Company A, I do have my own conduct rules.
That said, when working in Company X's warehouse with Company Z's people, I have a different set of conduct rules, some of which conflict with Company A's rules. But since I'm currently on contract with and on the premises of Company X and Z, their rules take precedent. Company A understands this and is okay with it. I will not be fired.
I am not being condescending, and genuinely hope this helps it click for you.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/oct/12/israel-gaza-war-lebanon-hezbollah-hamas-middle-east-latest-news-updates