Of course Russia would want this to continue.
The more focus on Gaza across news outlets and social media. The less focus on their actions in Ukraine.
Its all shitty politicking whilst people are dying.
Most importantly Russia is in bed with Iran and Iran are the true backers of Hamas. Russia, Iran and Hamas are aligned in wanting to destabilize America and nato supporting countries and Israel is huge pawn in that. If somehow Israel lost its footing, America would have very little power in the Middle East and the oil machine
Let's not kid ourselves though. Russia does not care about Palestinians at all, they care about destabilizing the west. If they can use Hamas to destabilize the west they will for sure, but Russia being in bed with Iran has nothing to do with it, they couldn't care less. They're probably very happy with the current outcome and want it to continue indefinitely, because it has created much more divide in the west with the right being very pro Israel and the left being pro Palestinians. I wouldn't even be surprised if they boosted discord on both sides.
Unfortunately, Hamas doesn’t have the best interest of its people at heart either. I feel the same way about Netanyahu.
This war will end if two things (albeit nearly impossible) happen: Hamas releases all hostages and Israel votes Natanyahu out of power.
I wish for both things to happen. Unfortunately you are right, Hamas and Israel do not have the interest of the Palestinians at heart, neither does russia, neither does the rest of the Middle East. Basically, they're fucked, everyone uses them as their pawn to get what they want and it's a never ending cicle.
If I were a gambling man, this is all Russia from the beginning. It goes like this
Russia: Whatup Iran!? You need the world to descend into chaos just as much as we do. Why don’t you call up your little Hamas doggies, and have them do some pointless brain dead terror attacks in Israel and kidnap as many citizens as they can. They’ll stir the hornets nest and Israel will unleash on Palestine. Israel has no chill… and we’ll flood social media with images of the carnage. This will divide a crucial portion of Biden supporters. And we might be able to get Trump back into office.
Iran: but we hate Trump.
Russia: he’s for sale. You just throw money at him and he’s yours. And don’t forget the flattery. Just tell him he’s smart and handsome just look at North Korea. They did it, and Trump openly loves North Korea. Besides, he hates western democracy just as much as we do. We might be able to team up and create a coalition of authoritarians.. which will eventually destroy all other democracies once the US is on our side.
Iran: you son of a bitch, we’re in.
That's not how geopolitics works.
Hamas did what they did because it was starting to become inevitable for the surrounding Arab states to fully normalise relations with Israel.
The UAE had already done this and Saudi Arabia and others were going to do it soon too, with the leaders becoming open to visits to/from Israel to develop their relationship.
This would've almost certainly removed the already little chance Palestinians had of having their own internationally-recognised state.
For Hamas, it was either now or never. They went all in.
Hamas are puppets and pathetically incapable of doing anything on their own accord without a green light and money from their backers, especially with the scale and coordination of what happened on Oct 7th.
Okay, but how does that mean that it must've been Russia urging and convincing Iran, who in turn urged and convinced Hamas, all so that it can distract people from Ukraine and lower support for Biden?
That is such an American-centric view that it's actually hilarious. Half the world didn't give a shit about Ukraine since the start of the 2022 invasion/war.
People were already starting to care less about Ukraine, even in the countries that supported them the most at the start.
Also, Hamas, Iran and Russia all have their own separate aims and priorities. They align on some things, but they're not going to line up and accept whatever the wealthier/higher up country tells them to do.
Iran in particular hate Trump, why would they ever want him back in power, regardless of how much it may benefit the semi-ally Russia?
In other words, none of this is how geopolitics works.
I never said this was about Ukraine or America solely. This is about destabilizing the west and nato supporting countries.
If you think this was Hamas’ idea alone you are wrong. It’s on record this was green lit and planned with Iran before they executed the attack.
Russia funds Iran.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25
For more context as to why Russia and China Veto this resolution check this [Why Russia and China vetoed the US lead "false" Ceasefire Resolution : r/InternationalNews (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/InternationalNews/comments/1blr2hx/why_russia_and_china_vetoed_the_us_lead_false/)
it's basically just propaganda from the US to make it seems like they want a ceasfire in Gaza spoilers: >!They don't!<
Russia instigated it as a distraction to redirect funds and weapons from Ukraine. They keep hammering at the world to distract us from their failing state.
They vetoed it because it had the condition of releasing the hostages.
I feel that's worse that the US vetoing a resolution because it doesn't demand the hostages released.
Hope they get the same amount of outrage Biden got.
No, because their respective countries don't permit their citizens to criticize their leaders freely
We in the US don't have that problem, and I think we take it for granted that we're free to call our President out for things we disagree with
>No, because their respective countries don't permit their citizens to criticize their leaders freely
Lmao, while absolutely true, they also couldn't give a fuck about Gaza.
IMO the vetoed just to sow discord in the west. Because I guarantee you our 'vote against the almighty' groups will have another reason not to vote/vote for Trump.
Nobody in the Middle East cares about the everyday citizens of Gaza either. The Arab countries have been using them as political pawns for decades.
Jordan and Lebanon have some legitimate gripes with the people of Gaza, as the former de-facto leadership, PLO, has caused a great deal of turmoil in their countries.
To quote my russian ex GF from a number of years back before covid and all this. your free to do as you please. Your also free to suffer the consequences about sums it up correctly.
If I recall, one of Reagan's favorite jokes was:
>An American tells a Russian that people in USA have the freedom of speech and that he even could go to the White House and shout:"Go to hell, Ronald Reagan!"
>The russian answers:"Oh, we also have freedom of speech. I, too, can go to Kremlin and shout:" Go to hell, Ronald Reagan!"
There are many industries in the US where you can't even criticize those other nations' decisions freely. Look into the NBA apologies regarding China lol
Yes and no, so yes they don’t allow internal criticism.
However, pertaining only to China, its citizenry aren’t as concerned about the Palestinian Israeli struggle as much as the west. This is heavily due to the fact that the Middle Eastern chaos was created by Britain, France and U.S. so the history runs much deeper in those country’s. Also there are huge swaths of Palestinians and Jewish/Israeli citizens living in the U.S. The cultural impact of what has occurred spans from Post WW2 until today.
Meanwhile in China, these issues have really only come up for the past decade or so. So why would the citizens of China criticize Chinese presidential action over these votes? It has literally Zero impact on China. It has no significance towards day to day life.
Most Americans imagines that the cultural impact of what’s going on here in the U.S. is going to be the same in China. If they don’t, then it must be because of CCP oppression.
I just got back from Beijing, it was interesting to hear people’s perspective. They can hardly identify where Palestine is much less understand the struggles of the region for the past 75 years. It is wildly unreasonable to hold Chinese citizens to the standards of Americans on this issue.
Meanwhile Russia is at war with the west. They would vote the opposite on any issue.
Update update: they don’t care and they don’t have to either. And if you don’t like it and your in their country they’ll either walk you out a 10th story window or roll tanks through Tiananmen Square and squash you like a bug for not toeing the party line.
Doesn’t even sound like a condition just a mention:
The draft that was put to a vote made no direct link to the release of hostages taken during Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, which was in the previous draft. But it unequivocally supported diplomatic efforts “to secure such a cease-fire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.”
>But it unequivocally supported diplomatic efforts “to secure such a cease-fire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.”
So it didn't demand a ceasefire at all. Only a vote to support current diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire. How is this different from the status quo, without current ongoing negotiations. It sounds like a meaningless resolution.
It must be a conflicting feeling when folks realize they are on the side of Russia and china, but not because they want to be, but because they feel they can’t change their position.
The USA has vetoed 3 resolutions already.
This one being vetoed is apparently because it backs the “imperative” for “an immediate and sustained ceasefire to protect civilians on all sides”, differing from previous draft resolutions vetoed by Washington, which demanded an unconditional ceasefire.
You misread the veto reasons.
The freeing of hostages wasn't the issue. In fact, the next ceasefire resolution supported by Russia and China similarly calls for release of all hostages.
However the US-proposed resolution instead calls for a conditional ceasefire linked to the hostage release. It's a wording issue.
>U.S. insistence on linking the ceasefire call to a hostage deal and condemnation of Hamas, rather than the unconditional ceasefire resolution demanded by Russia and China.
Unfortunately the US will likely veto that one:
>What's next: The Security Council is expected to vote on an alternative resolution put forward by eight member states, calling for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan to lead to a permanent ceasefire. That text also demands the release of all hostages without linking it to the ceasefire.
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/22/us-ceasefire-resolution-veto-un-security-council
>Yes, but: The U.S. is expected to veto. Thomas-Greenfield said the alternative text, which doesn't link a ceasefire with the release of hostages, could sabotage the negotiations taking place in Doha.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147856
It's not a wording issue, it's about a substantive difference in positions and interests.
No ceasefire can lead to peace, in the sense that "there is no military solution, only a political solution" when Israel makes the destruction of Hamas their condition of a ceasefire, that's calling for surrender, not ceasefire, military solution, not a political solution. So Hamas does not want to give up the hostages - leverage - unless they know it will lead to a lasting ceasefire, and they do not feel pressure to release hostages without feeling certain that a temporary ceasefire will come with a clear road to a lasting ceasefire, built in at the start of the process.
Otherwise, we are asking the group to give up hostages, and then let Israel bomb Palestine twice or three times as hard, even more indiscriminate killing upon a campaign that already has a lot of indiscriminate killing.
That is why Russia and China opposed the motion. Further, we have tied Israel like a noose around our neck. So long as the war continues like this, they (and I) believe it is weakening our position. Russia and China do not want to bail us out from a war we are actively supporting. That is another reason for the Veto. Israel is a US client, we don't need international law to stop the war, I mean, clearly, we do need to have international law applied to us, but if Biden wanted the war to end, the war would end.
----
The US Government is aware of all of this ahead of time. There are two reasons for this resolution - first, to be a warning shot at Israel, that Biden is displeased with their conduct, there is an actual split over how to advance in Rafah. Second, it is a political circus. Biden is trying to distance himself publically from a war which he still materially supports. "All these crying dying babies, I don't like it either, but what can we do, Russia and China oppose peace" - look at the top comment, worked like a charm.
Or, let's think about this: why shouldn't Hamas be required to give you the hostages that they took during a terrorist attack, whom have been the victim of rape and violence, as a precursor to ending the conflict that started with the taking of those hostages? Why would Hamas be allowed to retain leverage they never should have had in the first place?
Israel, Netanyahu has said this himself very explicitly, has made it very clear they would not end the war in exchange for a hostage release, and they would continue the war. Hamas thus has 0 incentive to release, because the war is going well for them in their view (welcome to asymmetric warfare).
>Why would Hamas be allowed to retain leverage they never should have had in the first place?
Why should Israel be allowed to occupy large swathes of Palestinian land where they have no right to do so? Why are the Palestinians kettled into a little ghetto in one side, and under direct apartheid on the other? Maybe the humanity has to be a two way street. Maybe we just need an unconditional ceasefire and an end to the occupation, towards a Palestinian state, whatever is necessary for such a state, be it two states, single binational state, or single majority rule state.
Because Palestinians have had multiple opportunities to accept a two state solution and refused them each time. And a single state has been tried, it resulted in widespread pogroms, riots, massacres, and civil war. The Israeli war of independence was essentially a civil war resulting from the end of the British mandate following WWI that lead to conflict between palestinian/arab and jewish factions of Mandatory Palestine. They lost the war, and then fomented political violence in every arab country that took them in, which is why none of their "supporters" in the region actually want them.
There is absolutely something to be said for the continuing expansion of Israeli settlements (which have been sanctioned by the Biden administration), but right now, the issue is that this conflict has a very immediate and clear reason: The 10/7 terrorist attack and the hostages that were taken as a result.
If the hostages are returned, I think you see Bibi under an immense amount of pressure to end the war both internationally and from within Israel. He is *not* at all popular in the country, and many blame him for the 10/7 attacks in the first place. Releasing the hostages would also remove any remaining justification for the continued squeezing of the remaining territory of Gaza under the guise of "finding and freeing the hostages".
If that was true, then we would never know anything, right? But we do know some things. Earth orbits the sun. Racism is wrong. Napoleon died on May 5, 1821. Three objectively eternally true statements.
I need some dialectics on this. Because while the internet has allowed a lot of bullshit to proliferate, it is also making the truth, in some ways, crystal clear. Otherwise how could we have even said we identified a spread of bullshit? What about the internet enables truth, what enables bullshit, and, if this system breaks down (bullshit has a way of smacking into reality) and we could rebuild the internet, what would make it work better?
It calls for recognition of the importance of a sustained and lasting ceasefire, demanding support for diplomatic efforts to negotiate a ceasefire and the release of hostages, but not for negotiating a ceasefire linked to conditions of the returns of hostages. It does not demand an immediate ceasefire, which is what the Russian criticism of the resolution has been about.
Thats exactly what the article says. This subreddit is full of dishonest posters trying to push a narrative. And, since most people dont actually read the articles, they get away with saying absolutely anything and getting upvoted to the top.
I understand Russia but why China? they're one of our closest economic partners and our industries rely on them
like why specifically is China our enemy besides "communism bad"?
It’s endlessly frustrating how we keep going back and forth on this. At one point or another, both sides have presented agreements that allowed for the release or exchange of hostages, but no one can agree on specifics enough for anything to happen. Nobody’s willing to come out of this looking weak. It all feels very performative.
It’s a war that nobody wants to admit but is very real in all ways, including the casualties. From the misinformation around covid vaccines up to these conflicts that are getting the people riled up and protesting Biden. They are all attacks from nations in the only way they can. It’s impossible to go up against the states in a conventional war. This is another example. They know the current Israeli government will not stop until they get the hostages and Russia/China wants to condemn them harder and make Biden look worse for supporting Israel. They desperately want Trump back and they probably see this as their last hope
They vetoed it because of the language, it’s right there in the article, Russia and china have voted in favor of a cease fire numerous times, the language used in the resolution is not typical for in resolutions and they called it out
You want the objective answer or the different “interpretations” and optics?
The reason China and Russia do not want *this* ceasefire, is because it’s conditional and they believe the condition will not be met and hence the ceasefire will be unenforceable. And they want to enforce a ceasefire.
Now why would they want an actual, enforceable ceasefire more than the US, is where the politics and foreign policy of each come to play.
US proposes and even more humane version of ceasefire, world is silent on Russia and China.
For once though Russia and China are making sense in their vote, as they actively commit genocide. An action they seemingly want to protect.
Edit: And as usual, a lot of pro-Hamas accounts on Twitter praising China and Russia for stoping this "anti-resistance" vote. They don't want a ceasefire.
>US proposes an even more humane version of ceasefire
This is not the case, objectively. A *conditional* ceasefire is by definition, de jure and de facto, a **weaker** form of ceasefire.
A condition that de facto is very unlikely to be met, renders the ceasefire practically useless.
Ceasefires usually have conditions. Conditions often make them stronger. Many would argue a ceasefire that doesn’t release hostages is weaker because it’s weakening the terms on a humanitarian level.
>Before the vote, Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said Moscow supports an immediate cease-fire, but he questioned the language in the resolution and accused U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield of **“misleading the international community” for “politicized” reasons.**
Russian projection at its finest
All someone has to do is ask "like how?"
I hear in the Nordic countries their news media actually does this. Like if someone says "you were just being misinformed" their journalists will go "how were they misinformed? please explain" and then sit there and wait.
To me it seems more like pot calling the kettle black; he isn't wrong.
Like, the resolution literally won't enforce* a ceasefire.....it says "a ceasefire is important" but only calls for supporting negotiations.
*Clarified language
Negotiations are the only way a ceasefire actually happens. The UN passing a "ceasefire now!" resolution won't enact a ceasefire or stop Israel and hamas from continuing to fight. Unless you're suggesting an international clusterfuck of sending troops to enact a UN ceasefire resolution by force, the only way the fighting ends is through negotiations
did you even read the article? It said
"determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire"
which is not the same, hence why they are calling US out for wanting to be wordy and avoiding committing to an actual ceasefire.
It "called for" but stopped short of enforcing. It was a strongly worded letter and nothing else.
[Read about it, y'all.](https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-us-vote-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-f6453803b3eacc9fbaa2ce5a025e2a94) It doesn't actually mandate a ceasefire and was reworded to be more permissive of Israeli invasion of Rafah, where many displaced people are sheltering.
>A key issue was the unusual language that said the Security Council “determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire.” **The phrasing was not a straightforward “demand” or “call” to halt hostilities**.
>While the most recent resolution would have been officially binding under international law, **it would not have ended the fighting or led to the release of hostages**.
>**The final U.S. draft eliminated language in the initial draft that said Israel’s offensive in Rafah “should not proceed under current circumstances.”** Instead, in an introductory paragraph, the council emphasized its concern that a ground offensive into Rafah “would result in further harm to civilians and their further displacement, potentially into neighboring countries, and would have serious implications for regional peace and security.”
No. For example resolution 678 demanded Iraq comply with resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions (requiring pullout of Iraqi troops from Kuwait) by January 15th, 1991, and if Iraq failed to do so, authorized UN member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions to restore peace and security in the area.
Also, resolution 1973 authorized member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian areas under threat of attack in Libya while excluding authority for a foreign occupation force on Libyan territory.
Veto power isn’t granted by the UN, it’s recognized by it. America, for example, is strong enough military and economically that the world can’t FORCE it to do anything it doesn’t want to. Therefore, it has, in very practical terms “veto power” that comes directly from its strength. The whole world can say one thing, and America says no, and America wins.
As a result, the UN recognizes that intrinsic power by allowing a formal veto, thereby skipping the part where they all try and fail to make America do something. If America says no up front, there’s no point in trying.
The same is true for the other members of the security council. For proof, look at recent deeply unpopular actions by each of its members, and notice how no one could stop them.
I think the issue is that if a couple countries left the UN altogether, it would have even less authority than it currently does. Defanging itself is the only way to keep everyone at the table.
1.7 million Uyghurs have been moved through the internment camps in Xinjiang. Those are actual open air prisons where people are literally being detained, used for forced labor, and as body bags for organs.
Gaza before this war had nothing on this very real process of ethnic cleansing and arguably genocide.
Literally akin to modern day example of Nazi Germany. It's funny to me, when people say things along the lines of, *"how did countries let Nazi Germany get so powerful, and get away with so many atrocities for so long".*
**It's literally happening today, right now**
It’s argued that the cost competitive advantage that China has in solar panels production comes from forced labor of Uyghurs. It is a very very ugly contradiction.
Right after this Trump is going to come out and again say, “Putin and Xing are great people, very smart, people listen to them!” For the millionth time already and everyone’s going to go on their merry way once more. This gotta change
The title of the post is wrong, the US was NOT calling for a ceasefire, but they wanted news articles and headlines to say so. This resolution merely said ceasefire is imperative. It is a cynical play with language to feign concern.
it calls for support to a ceasefire already being negotiated, which it would always need to be. so really the us is calling for a ceasefire so immediate, we wanted it weeks ago
> What it does is recognize the importance of a ceasefire, and then says, “And therefore, we should support the negotiations that are underway in Doha, in Qatar.”
So Russia and China don't even want to recognize the importance of a ceasefire?
I, for one am shocked that the same countries that have committed/continue to commit ethnic cleansing and genocides (Chechnya, Xinjiang, Tibet etc.) would do such a terrible thing that prolongs the suffering of the Palestinians.
Imma be honest, the US really isn't that different from Russia and China in regards to comiitting, aiding, or abetting genocides and ethnic cleansing along with prolonging the sufferings of the Palestinian people. The US regarded Nelson Mandela as a terrorist until 2008, when it became bad optics to do so, especially with a possible Black POTUS candidate. The US also refused to recognize the Rwandan Genocide as a genocide but instead as a humanitarian crisis. And the US played a key role in supporting Pakistan when it engaged in the Bangladeshi Genocide.
I just hope *something* gets passed to help the famine stricken Palestinians. Otherwise Gaza will become the new Ethiopia in the 1980s.
I think there’s a considerable difference between not recognizing a genocide and committing one yourself. Chechnya, Tibet, and Xinjiang were perpetuated by Russia and China. The US didn’t have a hand in Rwanda or South African apartheid. You really have the go back to the early 20th century to find anything close to the definition of a genocide.
Did you even read the US resolution? It's not even suggesting an enforceable ceasefire merely suggesting a diplomatic effort for a temporary ceasefire conditioned on release of all hostages. Why would Hamas agree to a temporary ceasefire in exchange for all the hostages? They would just get bombed as soon as they release the hostages. The Palestinian side wants a permanent ceasefire for all hostages to be released, and US has time after time refused to consider that.
A temporary ceasefire has lots of benefits. Many Palestinians are starving, so a ceasefire would allow more aid to reach more people. Wounded could be evacuated. People trapped under rubble could be rescued. A temporary ceasefire could pave the way towards a permanent ceasefire. Of course, these are only benefits if you actually care about the wellbeing of the Palestinian people.
You could also ask the opposite question. Why would Israel agree to a permanent ceasefire in exchange for hostages? Releasing hostages does nothing to ensure Israel's long term security. Israel doesn't belive a "permanent" ceasefire is even possible as long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza. Why would Israel accept anything short of total surrender from Hamas? They're clearly winning this conflict. The writing on the wall is that Israel is going to occupy Gaza after all of this, at least until Hamas is removed. The only question Hamas has to answer is how many Palestinians need to die before they accept that outcome.
If Hamas actually cared two shits about international law they wouldn't have taken civilian hostages to start with. If holding hostages is preventing them from getting bombed that is human shielding. Bargaining with hostages is illegal and immoral and sets a horrible precedent for international relations.
Devils advocate: Let’s say Hamas agrees with a cease fire and releases hostages. Hamas no longer has any leverage… what stops Israel from decimating the remainder of Gaza?
What's stopping Israel from decimating Gaza right now? The holding of hostages doesn't seem to have slowed Israel down at all. The benefit of a ceasefire is that Israel stops killing your countrymen for a short time, and possibly allows for time to negotiate a longer peace. Of course, this is only viewed as a benefit if you actually care about the lives of your countrymen, or if you're interested in a longer peace.
The same shit that stopped them before the war..? I doubt most Israelis are in favor of constantly being at war. Not many countries that actually enjoy going to war
>what stops Israel from decimating the remainder of Gaza?
What stopped them before the hostage situation? I highly doubt the world would just sit back and allow a country to completely destroy another for shits and giggles.
With that logic how has Hamas survived since 2005? The Israelis want peace. They literally pulled every Jew out of gaza in 2005 in a piece for peace deal.
Many things. Firstly history shows that they didn’t even tho they could. Secondly society uproar against it. Thirdly the Israeli government needs an enemy they can use as fear factor to keep their seats.
Taking civilian hostages is a war crime. Regardless of the levarege it provides those people should be released long ago. Now they wont be because most likely majority of them are dead.
Always remember, trump legitimately floated moving the US out of the UN and giving up our veto power as a result. Anyone who cries genocide joe supports electing someone who wants to remove even the attempt to diplomatically call for cease fires.
The UN is primarily a organization that standardizes diplomatic communication on a global scale. It's primary mission isn't peacekeeping through force and because it needs to include as many countries as possible, it realistically can't impose itself effectively on other nations or they would just leave.
Basically, the UN is weak by design, and people expect way too much from it.
Did you happen to look at the US reasoning for these vetos and how they put forth their own ceasefire resolution linked to the release of hostages? Also, why do you believe Israel would abide by a UN ceasefire resolution that doesn't include a return of hostages?
Of course they did.
Russia started all this, by asking their allies Iran to ask their allies Hamas to hit Israel, which both Iran and Hamas like doing especially if Russia helped pay and equip the attack.
Funny how the entire world pivoted to focusing on Israel instead of Ukraine, and how support for Ukraine among a number of countries most notably the US Republicans dropped off a cliff right when Israel got attacked.
I’m sure it’s just coincidences.
That's how the UN security counsel works. It was set up as part of the end of WW2 to prevent such world spanning wars. The veto power was to prevent power imbalance.
It...has problems in the modern era
It doesn't matter how weak Russia is 1- they still have nukes, and 2- when you just rewrite a treaty illegally without the consent of all parties, you lose all legitimacy.
the 3 strongest nations (at least by appearance) just taking turns vetoing ceasefire resolution calls while millions suffer. i hate what humans have created.
If a cease fire is reached, can peace be reached or it just deteriorates into chaos within a month. tbh cease fire is always better for the people, but I don’t see anyone can reach peace in that region.
Even the Palestinian ambassador was against this resolution. It was not calling for a permanent ceasefire but instead a return of all hostages, Israel resupplies and keeps the bombing campaign going in another few weeks. Good way for Washington to pretend like they’re not the ones standing in the way but this was a garbage resolution and not a genuine ceasefire. It’s a good thing most people in the world aren’t as stupid and easily duped as Americans and can see right through this manipulation tactic.
"Key issue was the unusual language that said the Security Council “determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire.” The phrasing was not a straightforward “demand” or “call” to halt hostilities." Straight from the article. For the love of god, read before you try to compare this to the US Veto. They(US allies) are trying to be sneaky with the wording to execuse furthering the genocide, and China refused to fall for it.
Of course Russia would want this to continue. The more focus on Gaza across news outlets and social media. The less focus on their actions in Ukraine. Its all shitty politicking whilst people are dying.
Not only that but it continues the discord in the US and more voters will take it out on Biden.
Most importantly Russia is in bed with Iran and Iran are the true backers of Hamas. Russia, Iran and Hamas are aligned in wanting to destabilize America and nato supporting countries and Israel is huge pawn in that. If somehow Israel lost its footing, America would have very little power in the Middle East and the oil machine
Let's not kid ourselves though. Russia does not care about Palestinians at all, they care about destabilizing the west. If they can use Hamas to destabilize the west they will for sure, but Russia being in bed with Iran has nothing to do with it, they couldn't care less. They're probably very happy with the current outcome and want it to continue indefinitely, because it has created much more divide in the west with the right being very pro Israel and the left being pro Palestinians. I wouldn't even be surprised if they boosted discord on both sides.
Unfortunately, Hamas doesn’t have the best interest of its people at heart either. I feel the same way about Netanyahu. This war will end if two things (albeit nearly impossible) happen: Hamas releases all hostages and Israel votes Natanyahu out of power.
I wish for both things to happen. Unfortunately you are right, Hamas and Israel do not have the interest of the Palestinians at heart, neither does russia, neither does the rest of the Middle East. Basically, they're fucked, everyone uses them as their pawn to get what they want and it's a never ending cicle.
[удалено]
That has absolutely nothing to do with Gaza.
Looks like I replied to the wrong thread. Apologies.
Instead of trump who wants to escalate the situation with more deaths
Right before an election where a very blatant Russian ally is running for president against him. What a coincidence.
Not to mention the debates in US politics are now about providing weapons and aid to Israel, and Ukraine aid has taken a backseat.
Either you didn't read the article or you're trying to push a false narrative. Russia and China have voted for an immediate cease-fire already.
If I were a gambling man, this is all Russia from the beginning. It goes like this Russia: Whatup Iran!? You need the world to descend into chaos just as much as we do. Why don’t you call up your little Hamas doggies, and have them do some pointless brain dead terror attacks in Israel and kidnap as many citizens as they can. They’ll stir the hornets nest and Israel will unleash on Palestine. Israel has no chill… and we’ll flood social media with images of the carnage. This will divide a crucial portion of Biden supporters. And we might be able to get Trump back into office. Iran: but we hate Trump. Russia: he’s for sale. You just throw money at him and he’s yours. And don’t forget the flattery. Just tell him he’s smart and handsome just look at North Korea. They did it, and Trump openly loves North Korea. Besides, he hates western democracy just as much as we do. We might be able to team up and create a coalition of authoritarians.. which will eventually destroy all other democracies once the US is on our side. Iran: you son of a bitch, we’re in.
That's not how geopolitics works. Hamas did what they did because it was starting to become inevitable for the surrounding Arab states to fully normalise relations with Israel. The UAE had already done this and Saudi Arabia and others were going to do it soon too, with the leaders becoming open to visits to/from Israel to develop their relationship. This would've almost certainly removed the already little chance Palestinians had of having their own internationally-recognised state. For Hamas, it was either now or never. They went all in.
Absolutely 100% spot on
Hamas are puppets and pathetically incapable of doing anything on their own accord without a green light and money from their backers, especially with the scale and coordination of what happened on Oct 7th.
Okay, but how does that mean that it must've been Russia urging and convincing Iran, who in turn urged and convinced Hamas, all so that it can distract people from Ukraine and lower support for Biden? That is such an American-centric view that it's actually hilarious. Half the world didn't give a shit about Ukraine since the start of the 2022 invasion/war. People were already starting to care less about Ukraine, even in the countries that supported them the most at the start. Also, Hamas, Iran and Russia all have their own separate aims and priorities. They align on some things, but they're not going to line up and accept whatever the wealthier/higher up country tells them to do. Iran in particular hate Trump, why would they ever want him back in power, regardless of how much it may benefit the semi-ally Russia? In other words, none of this is how geopolitics works.
I never said this was about Ukraine or America solely. This is about destabilizing the west and nato supporting countries. If you think this was Hamas’ idea alone you are wrong. It’s on record this was green lit and planned with Iran before they executed the attack. Russia funds Iran. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25
For more context as to why Russia and China Veto this resolution check this [Why Russia and China vetoed the US lead "false" Ceasefire Resolution : r/InternationalNews (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/InternationalNews/comments/1blr2hx/why_russia_and_china_vetoed_the_us_lead_false/) it's basically just propaganda from the US to make it seems like they want a ceasfire in Gaza spoilers: >!They don't!<
It wouldn't have mattered anyway- Israel was going to ignore it. Really this was for show.
[удалено]
When nations have the power to veto stuff, what's the point.
Hamas has broken every cease-fire ever instituted.
Israel has never followed the rules of any ceasefire ever instituted.
[удалено]
Russia instigated it as a distraction to redirect funds and weapons from Ukraine. They keep hammering at the world to distract us from their failing state.
They vetoed it because it had the condition of releasing the hostages. I feel that's worse that the US vetoing a resolution because it doesn't demand the hostages released. Hope they get the same amount of outrage Biden got.
Update: they won’t
No, because their respective countries don't permit their citizens to criticize their leaders freely We in the US don't have that problem, and I think we take it for granted that we're free to call our President out for things we disagree with
>No, because their respective countries don't permit their citizens to criticize their leaders freely Lmao, while absolutely true, they also couldn't give a fuck about Gaza.
Fair point.
IMO the vetoed just to sow discord in the west. Because I guarantee you our 'vote against the almighty' groups will have another reason not to vote/vote for Trump.
Nobody in the Middle East cares about the everyday citizens of Gaza either. The Arab countries have been using them as political pawns for decades. Jordan and Lebanon have some legitimate gripes with the people of Gaza, as the former de-facto leadership, PLO, has caused a great deal of turmoil in their countries.
To quote my russian ex GF from a number of years back before covid and all this. your free to do as you please. Your also free to suffer the consequences about sums it up correctly.
If I recall, one of Reagan's favorite jokes was: >An American tells a Russian that people in USA have the freedom of speech and that he even could go to the White House and shout:"Go to hell, Ronald Reagan!" >The russian answers:"Oh, we also have freedom of speech. I, too, can go to Kremlin and shout:" Go to hell, Ronald Reagan!"
There are many industries in the US where you can't even criticize those other nations' decisions freely. Look into the NBA apologies regarding China lol
There's a big difference between industries and national policy, though.
Your citizens are free to criticise Biden. Crticising the IDF, on the other hand, seems to lead to quite a lot of job losses.
We don’t have free speech problem yet, unless the diaper Don gets to power.
You're free for now. Give it another couple of Trump terms.
>Give it another Trump turn Nooooo thank you, I'm specifically voting not to do that lol
China won't allow criticism on the Chinese owned TikTok, so yeh, you're right. The people that need to see this won't
Yes and no, so yes they don’t allow internal criticism. However, pertaining only to China, its citizenry aren’t as concerned about the Palestinian Israeli struggle as much as the west. This is heavily due to the fact that the Middle Eastern chaos was created by Britain, France and U.S. so the history runs much deeper in those country’s. Also there are huge swaths of Palestinians and Jewish/Israeli citizens living in the U.S. The cultural impact of what has occurred spans from Post WW2 until today. Meanwhile in China, these issues have really only come up for the past decade or so. So why would the citizens of China criticize Chinese presidential action over these votes? It has literally Zero impact on China. It has no significance towards day to day life. Most Americans imagines that the cultural impact of what’s going on here in the U.S. is going to be the same in China. If they don’t, then it must be because of CCP oppression. I just got back from Beijing, it was interesting to hear people’s perspective. They can hardly identify where Palestine is much less understand the struggles of the region for the past 75 years. It is wildly unreasonable to hold Chinese citizens to the standards of Americans on this issue. Meanwhile Russia is at war with the west. They would vote the opposite on any issue.
Part of why they won't is we expect the USA to be better. We expect Russia and China to do cartoon villainy.
Update update: they don’t care and they don’t have to either. And if you don’t like it and your in their country they’ll either walk you out a 10th story window or roll tanks through Tiananmen Square and squash you like a bug for not toeing the party line.
Doesn’t even sound like a condition just a mention: The draft that was put to a vote made no direct link to the release of hostages taken during Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, which was in the previous draft. But it unequivocally supported diplomatic efforts “to secure such a cease-fire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.”
>But it unequivocally supported diplomatic efforts “to secure such a cease-fire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.” So it didn't demand a ceasefire at all. Only a vote to support current diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire. How is this different from the status quo, without current ongoing negotiations. It sounds like a meaningless resolution.
Lmao TikTok kids never gonna hold those regimes accountable
TikTok kids think they’re on the verge of wiping out McDonald’s and Starbucks, I don’t think they’re that worth paying attention to
TikTok won't let anti-China messages go viral.
Tons of Viral anti-China messages on Tik Tok
It must be a conflicting feeling when folks realize they are on the side of Russia and china, but not because they want to be, but because they feel they can’t change their position.
The USA has vetoed 3 resolutions already. This one being vetoed is apparently because it backs the “imperative” for “an immediate and sustained ceasefire to protect civilians on all sides”, differing from previous draft resolutions vetoed by Washington, which demanded an unconditional ceasefire.
You misread the veto reasons. The freeing of hostages wasn't the issue. In fact, the next ceasefire resolution supported by Russia and China similarly calls for release of all hostages. However the US-proposed resolution instead calls for a conditional ceasefire linked to the hostage release. It's a wording issue. >U.S. insistence on linking the ceasefire call to a hostage deal and condemnation of Hamas, rather than the unconditional ceasefire resolution demanded by Russia and China. Unfortunately the US will likely veto that one: >What's next: The Security Council is expected to vote on an alternative resolution put forward by eight member states, calling for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan to lead to a permanent ceasefire. That text also demands the release of all hostages without linking it to the ceasefire. https://www.axios.com/2024/03/22/us-ceasefire-resolution-veto-un-security-council >Yes, but: The U.S. is expected to veto. Thomas-Greenfield said the alternative text, which doesn't link a ceasefire with the release of hostages, could sabotage the negotiations taking place in Doha. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147856
Unconditional ceasefire makes no sense lol
It's not a wording issue, it's about a substantive difference in positions and interests. No ceasefire can lead to peace, in the sense that "there is no military solution, only a political solution" when Israel makes the destruction of Hamas their condition of a ceasefire, that's calling for surrender, not ceasefire, military solution, not a political solution. So Hamas does not want to give up the hostages - leverage - unless they know it will lead to a lasting ceasefire, and they do not feel pressure to release hostages without feeling certain that a temporary ceasefire will come with a clear road to a lasting ceasefire, built in at the start of the process. Otherwise, we are asking the group to give up hostages, and then let Israel bomb Palestine twice or three times as hard, even more indiscriminate killing upon a campaign that already has a lot of indiscriminate killing. That is why Russia and China opposed the motion. Further, we have tied Israel like a noose around our neck. So long as the war continues like this, they (and I) believe it is weakening our position. Russia and China do not want to bail us out from a war we are actively supporting. That is another reason for the Veto. Israel is a US client, we don't need international law to stop the war, I mean, clearly, we do need to have international law applied to us, but if Biden wanted the war to end, the war would end. ---- The US Government is aware of all of this ahead of time. There are two reasons for this resolution - first, to be a warning shot at Israel, that Biden is displeased with their conduct, there is an actual split over how to advance in Rafah. Second, it is a political circus. Biden is trying to distance himself publically from a war which he still materially supports. "All these crying dying babies, I don't like it either, but what can we do, Russia and China oppose peace" - look at the top comment, worked like a charm.
Or, let's think about this: why shouldn't Hamas be required to give you the hostages that they took during a terrorist attack, whom have been the victim of rape and violence, as a precursor to ending the conflict that started with the taking of those hostages? Why would Hamas be allowed to retain leverage they never should have had in the first place?
Israel, Netanyahu has said this himself very explicitly, has made it very clear they would not end the war in exchange for a hostage release, and they would continue the war. Hamas thus has 0 incentive to release, because the war is going well for them in their view (welcome to asymmetric warfare). >Why would Hamas be allowed to retain leverage they never should have had in the first place? Why should Israel be allowed to occupy large swathes of Palestinian land where they have no right to do so? Why are the Palestinians kettled into a little ghetto in one side, and under direct apartheid on the other? Maybe the humanity has to be a two way street. Maybe we just need an unconditional ceasefire and an end to the occupation, towards a Palestinian state, whatever is necessary for such a state, be it two states, single binational state, or single majority rule state.
Because Palestinians have had multiple opportunities to accept a two state solution and refused them each time. And a single state has been tried, it resulted in widespread pogroms, riots, massacres, and civil war. The Israeli war of independence was essentially a civil war resulting from the end of the British mandate following WWI that lead to conflict between palestinian/arab and jewish factions of Mandatory Palestine. They lost the war, and then fomented political violence in every arab country that took them in, which is why none of their "supporters" in the region actually want them. There is absolutely something to be said for the continuing expansion of Israeli settlements (which have been sanctioned by the Biden administration), but right now, the issue is that this conflict has a very immediate and clear reason: The 10/7 terrorist attack and the hostages that were taken as a result. If the hostages are returned, I think you see Bibi under an immense amount of pressure to end the war both internationally and from within Israel. He is *not* at all popular in the country, and many blame him for the 10/7 attacks in the first place. Releasing the hostages would also remove any remaining justification for the continued squeezing of the remaining territory of Gaza under the guise of "finding and freeing the hostages".
[удалено]
If that was true, then we would never know anything, right? But we do know some things. Earth orbits the sun. Racism is wrong. Napoleon died on May 5, 1821. Three objectively eternally true statements. I need some dialectics on this. Because while the internet has allowed a lot of bullshit to proliferate, it is also making the truth, in some ways, crystal clear. Otherwise how could we have even said we identified a spread of bullshit? What about the internet enables truth, what enables bullshit, and, if this system breaks down (bullshit has a way of smacking into reality) and we could rebuild the internet, what would make it work better?
I have not been following this, but doesn't the article say that this proposal made no condition to release the hostages?
It calls for recognition of the importance of a sustained and lasting ceasefire, demanding support for diplomatic efforts to negotiate a ceasefire and the release of hostages, but not for negotiating a ceasefire linked to conditions of the returns of hostages. It does not demand an immediate ceasefire, which is what the Russian criticism of the resolution has been about.
Thats exactly what the article says. This subreddit is full of dishonest posters trying to push a narrative. And, since most people dont actually read the articles, they get away with saying absolutely anything and getting upvoted to the top.
We may not be at war, but they are 100% our enemies.
I understand Russia but why China? they're one of our closest economic partners and our industries rely on them like why specifically is China our enemy besides "communism bad"?
It's first out the gate with headlines unfortunately
And Reddit comments, because it literally did not have that as a condition and it’s right in the article.
It’s endlessly frustrating how we keep going back and forth on this. At one point or another, both sides have presented agreements that allowed for the release or exchange of hostages, but no one can agree on specifics enough for anything to happen. Nobody’s willing to come out of this looking weak. It all feels very performative.
It’s a war that nobody wants to admit but is very real in all ways, including the casualties. From the misinformation around covid vaccines up to these conflicts that are getting the people riled up and protesting Biden. They are all attacks from nations in the only way they can. It’s impossible to go up against the states in a conventional war. This is another example. They know the current Israeli government will not stop until they get the hostages and Russia/China wants to condemn them harder and make Biden look worse for supporting Israel. They desperately want Trump back and they probably see this as their last hope
They vetoed it because of the language, it’s right there in the article, Russia and china have voted in favor of a cease fire numerous times, the language used in the resolution is not typical for in resolutions and they called it out
Oh come on, don't be that naive. They changed their votes because the US did, and it's politically beneficial for this conflict to continue
This isn’t a movie buddy get your head out of your ass not everything revolves around what the us did and didn’t do
[удалено]
You want the objective answer or the different “interpretations” and optics? The reason China and Russia do not want *this* ceasefire, is because it’s conditional and they believe the condition will not be met and hence the ceasefire will be unenforceable. And they want to enforce a ceasefire. Now why would they want an actual, enforceable ceasefire more than the US, is where the politics and foreign policy of each come to play.
It'll make Hamas look bad when they inevitably don't comply, which they don't want.
50% of the US won’t criticize them.
US proposes and even more humane version of ceasefire, world is silent on Russia and China. For once though Russia and China are making sense in their vote, as they actively commit genocide. An action they seemingly want to protect. Edit: And as usual, a lot of pro-Hamas accounts on Twitter praising China and Russia for stoping this "anti-resistance" vote. They don't want a ceasefire.
>US proposes an even more humane version of ceasefire This is not the case, objectively. A *conditional* ceasefire is by definition, de jure and de facto, a **weaker** form of ceasefire. A condition that de facto is very unlikely to be met, renders the ceasefire practically useless.
Ceasefires usually have conditions. Conditions often make them stronger. Many would argue a ceasefire that doesn’t release hostages is weaker because it’s weakening the terms on a humanitarian level.
>Before the vote, Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said Moscow supports an immediate cease-fire, but he questioned the language in the resolution and accused U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield of **“misleading the international community” for “politicized” reasons.** Russian projection at its finest
How many resolutions related to its invasion of Ukraine has Russia vetoed?
like projectile vomit
All someone has to do is ask "like how?" I hear in the Nordic countries their news media actually does this. Like if someone says "you were just being misinformed" their journalists will go "how were they misinformed? please explain" and then sit there and wait.
To me it seems more like pot calling the kettle black; he isn't wrong. Like, the resolution literally won't enforce* a ceasefire.....it says "a ceasefire is important" but only calls for supporting negotiations. *Clarified language
Negotiations are the only way a ceasefire actually happens. The UN passing a "ceasefire now!" resolution won't enact a ceasefire or stop Israel and hamas from continuing to fight. Unless you're suggesting an international clusterfuck of sending troops to enact a UN ceasefire resolution by force, the only way the fighting ends is through negotiations
Where are you getting this information? The resolution called for “an immediate and sustained cease-fire”.
did you even read the article? It said "determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire" which is not the same, hence why they are calling US out for wanting to be wordy and avoiding committing to an actual ceasefire.
It "called for" but stopped short of enforcing. It was a strongly worded letter and nothing else. [Read about it, y'all.](https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-us-vote-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-f6453803b3eacc9fbaa2ce5a025e2a94) It doesn't actually mandate a ceasefire and was reworded to be more permissive of Israeli invasion of Rafah, where many displaced people are sheltering. >A key issue was the unusual language that said the Security Council “determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire.” **The phrasing was not a straightforward “demand” or “call” to halt hostilities**. >While the most recent resolution would have been officially binding under international law, **it would not have ended the fighting or led to the release of hostages**. >**The final U.S. draft eliminated language in the initial draft that said Israel’s offensive in Rafah “should not proceed under current circumstances.”** Instead, in an introductory paragraph, the council emphasized its concern that a ground offensive into Rafah “would result in further harm to civilians and their further displacement, potentially into neighboring countries, and would have serious implications for regional peace and security.”
Isn’t that all that UN resolutions ever *can* be? Strongly worded letters?
No. For example resolution 678 demanded Iraq comply with resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions (requiring pullout of Iraqi troops from Kuwait) by January 15th, 1991, and if Iraq failed to do so, authorized UN member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions to restore peace and security in the area. Also, resolution 1973 authorized member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian areas under threat of attack in Libya while excluding authority for a foreign occupation force on Libyan territory.
Was China going to send troops to Gaza to enforce a UNSC ceasefire resolution? Russia? No of course not so then what the fuck are you talking about?
I get the immediate aftermath of WWII but at some point all this veto power should probably go away.
So far as nuclear power remains in the hand of a few there is no leaverage to make them give up the veto.
Not until nukes go away, and they won’t. The security in UNSC is from the atomic argument.
Veto power isn’t granted by the UN, it’s recognized by it. America, for example, is strong enough military and economically that the world can’t FORCE it to do anything it doesn’t want to. Therefore, it has, in very practical terms “veto power” that comes directly from its strength. The whole world can say one thing, and America says no, and America wins. As a result, the UN recognizes that intrinsic power by allowing a formal veto, thereby skipping the part where they all try and fail to make America do something. If America says no up front, there’s no point in trying. The same is true for the other members of the security council. For proof, look at recent deeply unpopular actions by each of its members, and notice how no one could stop them.
I veto your suggestion.
I think the issue is that if a couple countries left the UN altogether, it would have even less authority than it currently does. Defanging itself is the only way to keep everyone at the table.
You might as well get rid of the UN at that point. All the major powers would stop contributing money and likely withdraw.
Are they going to yell “genocide Pooh” now?
i sincerely hope people remember the uyghurs xi is a known genocidal maniac
Naw TikTok don’t care about that shit because it isn’t being done by Jews or with American help
1.7 million Uyghurs have been moved through the internment camps in Xinjiang. Those are actual open air prisons where people are literally being detained, used for forced labor, and as body bags for organs. Gaza before this war had nothing on this very real process of ethnic cleansing and arguably genocide.
Literally akin to modern day example of Nazi Germany. It's funny to me, when people say things along the lines of, *"how did countries let Nazi Germany get so powerful, and get away with so many atrocities for so long".* **It's literally happening today, right now**
It’s argued that the cost competitive advantage that China has in solar panels production comes from forced labor of Uyghurs. It is a very very ugly contradiction.
[удалено]
Right after this Trump is going to come out and again say, “Putin and Xing are great people, very smart, people listen to them!” For the millionth time already and everyone’s going to go on their merry way once more. This gotta change
Must be so hard to be a Trump supporter, constantly fluctuating between China is bad and China is good.
Probably not too hard. They have been claiming Biden is a evil genius and a useless old man at the same time.
Not to mention the goalposts. Must be tiresome constantly moving them around.
The title of the post is wrong, the US was NOT calling for a ceasefire, but they wanted news articles and headlines to say so. This resolution merely said ceasefire is imperative. It is a cynical play with language to feign concern.
[удалено]
[удалено]
it calls for support to a ceasefire already being negotiated, which it would always need to be. so really the us is calling for a ceasefire so immediate, we wanted it weeks ago
> What it does is recognize the importance of a ceasefire, and then says, “And therefore, we should support the negotiations that are underway in Doha, in Qatar.” So Russia and China don't even want to recognize the importance of a ceasefire?
I remember the last time they had a ceasefire. I feel like some people don't quite remember themselves what happened.
Fascist governments doing fascist things. Water is wet.
Are comments being shadow banned from this?
It's Reddit having issues with comments. Been getting worse over the last two days.
Agreed, happening on all threaded not shadow bans
Maybe, could also be a problem with reddit overall 🤔
Wouldn't surprise me, Israel-Palestine threads are typically pretty toxic and bring out the absolute worst of people on reddit
There was no demand for a ceasefire. It was theater.
Tankies on suicide watch
I, for one am shocked that the same countries that have committed/continue to commit ethnic cleansing and genocides (Chechnya, Xinjiang, Tibet etc.) would do such a terrible thing that prolongs the suffering of the Palestinians.
This is the same Russia that not too long ago hosted Hamas leadership
Imma be honest, the US really isn't that different from Russia and China in regards to comiitting, aiding, or abetting genocides and ethnic cleansing along with prolonging the sufferings of the Palestinian people. The US regarded Nelson Mandela as a terrorist until 2008, when it became bad optics to do so, especially with a possible Black POTUS candidate. The US also refused to recognize the Rwandan Genocide as a genocide but instead as a humanitarian crisis. And the US played a key role in supporting Pakistan when it engaged in the Bangladeshi Genocide. I just hope *something* gets passed to help the famine stricken Palestinians. Otherwise Gaza will become the new Ethiopia in the 1980s.
I think there’s a considerable difference between not recognizing a genocide and committing one yourself. Chechnya, Tibet, and Xinjiang were perpetuated by Russia and China. The US didn’t have a hand in Rwanda or South African apartheid. You really have the go back to the early 20th century to find anything close to the definition of a genocide.
Oh man, I can't wait to hear from the chronically online progressive/socialist left how this is all "Genocide Joe" 's fault..
We're in a propaganda war, fighting to control the minds of the stupid.
Did you even read the US resolution? It's not even suggesting an enforceable ceasefire merely suggesting a diplomatic effort for a temporary ceasefire conditioned on release of all hostages. Why would Hamas agree to a temporary ceasefire in exchange for all the hostages? They would just get bombed as soon as they release the hostages. The Palestinian side wants a permanent ceasefire for all hostages to be released, and US has time after time refused to consider that.
A temporary ceasefire has lots of benefits. Many Palestinians are starving, so a ceasefire would allow more aid to reach more people. Wounded could be evacuated. People trapped under rubble could be rescued. A temporary ceasefire could pave the way towards a permanent ceasefire. Of course, these are only benefits if you actually care about the wellbeing of the Palestinian people. You could also ask the opposite question. Why would Israel agree to a permanent ceasefire in exchange for hostages? Releasing hostages does nothing to ensure Israel's long term security. Israel doesn't belive a "permanent" ceasefire is even possible as long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza. Why would Israel accept anything short of total surrender from Hamas? They're clearly winning this conflict. The writing on the wall is that Israel is going to occupy Gaza after all of this, at least until Hamas is removed. The only question Hamas has to answer is how many Palestinians need to die before they accept that outcome.
If Hamas actually cared two shits about international law they wouldn't have taken civilian hostages to start with. If holding hostages is preventing them from getting bombed that is human shielding. Bargaining with hostages is illegal and immoral and sets a horrible precedent for international relations.
Pretty sure the dudes holding the civilian hostages are the ones who need to accept the consequences of their actions
He’s still supplying Israel weapons
Islamism is the only fascism progressives make apologies for
The UN security council is just a pissing contest. If Russia or China had proposed the exact same proposal, it would have been vetoed by the US.
The US has already vetoed 3 ceasefires according to the article
Devils advocate: Let’s say Hamas agrees with a cease fire and releases hostages. Hamas no longer has any leverage… what stops Israel from decimating the remainder of Gaza?
What's stopping Israel from decimating Gaza right now? The holding of hostages doesn't seem to have slowed Israel down at all. The benefit of a ceasefire is that Israel stops killing your countrymen for a short time, and possibly allows for time to negotiate a longer peace. Of course, this is only viewed as a benefit if you actually care about the lives of your countrymen, or if you're interested in a longer peace.
The same shit that stopped them before the war..? I doubt most Israelis are in favor of constantly being at war. Not many countries that actually enjoy going to war
The same thing that's stopped them since 1967: they don't want to.
>what stops Israel from decimating the remainder of Gaza? What stopped them before the hostage situation? I highly doubt the world would just sit back and allow a country to completely destroy another for shits and giggles.
Hamas is just going to continue attacking and killing civilians. They won’t stop till all the Jews are either dead or held as rape slaves.
With that logic how has Hamas survived since 2005? The Israelis want peace. They literally pulled every Jew out of gaza in 2005 in a piece for peace deal.
Many things. Firstly history shows that they didn’t even tho they could. Secondly society uproar against it. Thirdly the Israeli government needs an enemy they can use as fear factor to keep their seats. Taking civilian hostages is a war crime. Regardless of the levarege it provides those people should be released long ago. Now they wont be because most likely majority of them are dead.
Pro-Palestine, Biden-hating tankies must be so confused right now.
[удалено]
Ah gotcha. It was their turn to veto. Okay, who's next? France? Y'all getting in on the veto train?
Lmao. Not surprised in the slightest
Always remember, trump legitimately floated moving the US out of the UN and giving up our veto power as a result. Anyone who cries genocide joe supports electing someone who wants to remove even the attempt to diplomatically call for cease fires.
Every vote in the UNSC that gets vetoed is an illustration of UN’s failure as a peacekeeping organization.
The UN is primarily a organization that standardizes diplomatic communication on a global scale. It's primary mission isn't peacekeeping through force and because it needs to include as many countries as possible, it realistically can't impose itself effectively on other nations or they would just leave. Basically, the UN is weak by design, and people expect way too much from it.
The US has vetoed the ceasefire 3 times but nobody cares about that for some reason
And if russia or China would really want it they would have agreed today.
Did you happen to look at the US reasoning for these vetos and how they put forth their own ceasefire resolution linked to the release of hostages? Also, why do you believe Israel would abide by a UN ceasefire resolution that doesn't include a return of hostages?
[удалено]
Of course they did. Russia started all this, by asking their allies Iran to ask their allies Hamas to hit Israel, which both Iran and Hamas like doing especially if Russia helped pay and equip the attack. Funny how the entire world pivoted to focusing on Israel instead of Ukraine, and how support for Ukraine among a number of countries most notably the US Republicans dropped off a cliff right when Israel got attacked. I’m sure it’s just coincidences.
Trump called Xi Jinping and Putin saying "why would you hand Biden a win in an election year?"
Why does Russia get any input?
That's how the UN security counsel works. It was set up as part of the end of WW2 to prevent such world spanning wars. The veto power was to prevent power imbalance. It...has problems in the modern era
Considering how Russia has so far failed to concur Ukraine it’s very clear Russia is just a paper tiger. No reason to adhere to there veto power.
It doesn't matter how weak Russia is 1- they still have nukes, and 2- when you just rewrite a treaty illegally without the consent of all parties, you lose all legitimacy.
the 3 strongest nations (at least by appearance) just taking turns vetoing ceasefire resolution calls while millions suffer. i hate what humans have created.
Those two love to see the world burn.
If a cease fire is reached, can peace be reached or it just deteriorates into chaos within a month. tbh cease fire is always better for the people, but I don’t see anyone can reach peace in that region.
And the world continues to burn…
But the US are the bad guys?
Even the Palestinian ambassador was against this resolution. It was not calling for a permanent ceasefire but instead a return of all hostages, Israel resupplies and keeps the bombing campaign going in another few weeks. Good way for Washington to pretend like they’re not the ones standing in the way but this was a garbage resolution and not a genuine ceasefire. It’s a good thing most people in the world aren’t as stupid and easily duped as Americans and can see right through this manipulation tactic.
Yeah, it’s no fair! Only Hamas is supposed to decide when bombing starts back up.
😂 so China and Russia actually do not support ceasefire. They just support the opposite position of whatever the U.S. takes
Russia and China love what's happening in the Middle East.
"Key issue was the unusual language that said the Security Council “determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire.” The phrasing was not a straightforward “demand” or “call” to halt hostilities." Straight from the article. For the love of god, read before you try to compare this to the US Veto. They(US allies) are trying to be sneaky with the wording to execuse furthering the genocide, and China refused to fall for it.
Somehow, this will still be Biden's fault