By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The website utilizes different types of cookies to enhance user experience and gather data. Necessary cookies distinguish between human users and bots, improving website reporting accuracy. Functional cookies remember user preferences, like language selection. Performance/Analytical cookies track website usage through unique IDs, facilitating statistical analysis and throttling request rates. Advertising/Marketing cookies collect consumer behavior data, which is then sent to Alexa Analytics for further analysis.
Read the original article here
Irish President Michael D. Higgins, it seems, is urging the United Nations to step in and take action in Gaza, using stark language: “destruction of an entire people.” This, naturally, is a weighty accusation, one that demands both scrutiny and a careful consideration of the complexities of the situation. The president’s call for intervention, however, has stirred a multitude of reactions, ranging from strong support to outright skepticism.
The crux of the president’s argument appears to be a belief that the scale of the conflict and its impact on the Palestinian population warrant international intervention, specifically through the UN. His reported suggestion of invoking Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which allows for a range of actions, including the use of force, underscores the gravity with which he views the situation. However, this proposal has been met with immediate challenges. The UN’s track record in resolving conflicts, especially those with deep-seated historical and political roots, is far from perfect. The Security Council, the body responsible for authorizing such interventions, is often paralyzed by political divisions, particularly the veto power wielded by permanent members.
Furthermore, the practicalities of implementing a UN intervention in Gaza are immense. Who would provide the troops? How would they navigate the complexities of the ongoing conflict, including the presence of Hamas and the security concerns of Israel? The idea of a “peacekeeping” force becoming embroiled in the fighting is a legitimate concern, and the historical experiences of UN missions in other conflict zones offer little comfort. The debate over the UN’s role in supporting or even enabling Hamas, through agencies like UNRWA, further complicates the picture. Critics argue that this support undermines the UN’s perceived neutrality and effectiveness.
The president’s statement has also been criticized for what some perceive as a one-sided view of the conflict. While the impact on Palestinian civilians is undeniable, the absence of any mention of Hamas and the attacks on Israel, or the hostages held by Hamas, has been noted. The debate over the October 7th attacks and the subsequent actions by the Israeli military has, in this context, been presented as a piece of propaganda. The fact that Israel is a target of condemnation in this view has made people critical of the president’s suggestion. In the meantime, the proposals for ceasefire that have been put forth by Israel are not accounted for.
Beyond the specific call for UN intervention, the broader question of who can or should intervene looms large. Calls for Ireland itself to contribute troops or send its armed forces, however unlikely, seem, to some, to be a fairer approach than the president’s call for intervention. Even the use of Irish peacekeeping would likely be problematic considering Ireland’s military size. Some critics point out that Ireland, with its modest military capabilities, would be hard-pressed to mount a significant intervention.
The realities of international politics are also worth considering. The United States, as a key ally of Israel, holds considerable influence in the Security Council. Any resolution critical of Israel would likely face a veto from the US. Without a consensus among the major powers, any UN intervention would be doomed to failure. The suggestion, then, that other nations should step forward with a commitment, in their own capacity, would have to be recognized as more probable.
Finally, there’s a certain sense of frustration, a weariness with the persistent failure of the international community to prevent or resolve conflicts. Many agree that the UN, ideally, should be a powerful force for peace, but in reality, it has been often ineffective in conflicts that are particularly high-profile. The sentiment that “humanity has all the tools it needs to save itself from itself, but repeatedly fails to implement them” perfectly captures this sense of disillusionment. The situation in Gaza, as with so many other conflicts around the world, serves as a stark reminder of the challenges of achieving peace and justice in a world marked by political division and competing interests.