US vetoes UN resolution backed by many nations demanding immediate humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza
US vetoes UN resolution backed by many nations demanding immediate humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States vetoed a United Nations resolution Friday backed by almost all other Security Council members and many other nations demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaz…
~70%of Americans want a cease fire. Another nail in the democracy coffin. Same thing in Canada less the veto. Our governments are beating to a different drum that is not the voice of the people they supposedly represent.
America is owned by AIPAC it's not a democracy.
In before the "Um AkShUaLlY iT's A rEpUbLiC nOt A dEmOcRaCy" drones that know what neither a democracy or a Republic is.
Where are you getting this 70% number from? Did they do a national vote on the topic? Or maybe it's just a pulling number you read somewhere and now parrot without source.
Hardly a nail in any coffin. This is exactly how representative democracy works. You vote for someone to represent you in the government. Those someone's collaborate to the best of their ability to make policies and decisions. Don't like their policies and decisions. Vote for someone else.
This has some interesting numbers. Says 61% want a permanent ceasefire. But after hearing arguments for and against, the number moved down to 52%.
Hardly a nail in any coffin
This is the important point. The "see your leaders didn't do perfectly so you should ditch them" is usually followed by "for right-wingers whom you will not need to question because shut up", and I am really worried when people so quickly give up "passable" solutions for horrible alternatives -- and while our governments are effectively two-party systems, the cruel far-right alternatives are usually the only option.
I'd prefer direct voting.
Correction. 70% of people no doubt prefer, in a very abstract way, that Israelis and Palestinians weren't killing each other. Because innocent civilians dying is bad. But 99% of people don't "want" a ceasefire if it involves even the slightest amount of effort or concession or cost on their part, nor do they want to dive into the complexities of the Middle East. The quality of that "want" is very, very low. It is more of an abstract preference, really.
Where did you get that 90% figure. Not going to disagree though as it is likely correct but the reality is it is already costing Americans money to not have a ceasefire so unsure your point.
There are lots and lots of polls about Americans wanting a cease fire which range in % but all around 70%. +- 10.
"Can't they all just...like...get along?"
It is my sincere hope that one day, the USA may gain Independence from Israel.
It's impossible for a politician to win if they criticize Israel.
But why though? This is literally the only thing that the GOP and democrats agree on and it's a totally dysfunctional level of allegiance to Israel above any other nation. It doesn't make sense. Bibi is a total douche and they are clearly committing war crimes over there. Hamas sucks but should we really be standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel on this one?
Nationally, currently yes. But not completely. Granted they are trying to smear and attack every Democrat that has. But I think Talib and others. Are relatively safe at their local level.
Not supporting Israel goes against every profit incentive that the oil, military, and other megacorporations have. EU may not like to say it as openly, but they want this to continue too.
Human lives don't matter in the face of capitalist profit after all.
🙄
Israel is the 51st state. Everything Israel does is done with US support because they're part of the same settler-colonial project.
Gross
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone when people talk about this issue, like people watching all of this and still defending Israel are all living on another fucking planet. Some literally 1984 "war is peace/we've always been at war with East Asia" shit.
Remember all the countries that voted yes population and all these in the US and UK who don't agree with theirs government feel the same.
This is clearly a small interest group that own the US government and UK government and their military and these two will do anything to support thir interests regardless of what people want. It is a dictatorship but instead of one ruler you have a few rich people and companies...
I feel like there should be a limit on how many times a country can exercise their veto rights, at least.
US has a long history of single-handedly bullying entire UN with their veto power.
US gas a long history of single-handedly bullying entire UN with their veto power.
Many of the US's vetos would've been voted against by other countries and/or vetoed by France/UK if the US weren't there. The US is a convient country to take the fall.
Would be a great bonus to unmask them all
Uh. No. The US is second only to Russia in vetoing the UNSC. Own it, don't make excuses
I wish my crystal ball would predict what would have happened with the certainty of yours. What brand is yours?
Of course the US would
Actual question: why in the fuck can the US veto actions by the UN? Can other countries veto as well? Or is it only the US that can do that with the implied threat we’d swing our militaristic dick around or something?
EDIT: Thank y’all for replying and informing me and any other readers about why this is a thing. You guys are da real MVPs 👊
The US is a part of the security council, which gets automatic veto power.
Yes, the other countries are China, France, Russia and the UK. These are the Security Counsel states of the UN, seen by many as a peace-keeping organization.
Wikipedia notes that
They also happen to be the nuclear-weapon states (NWS) under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Also on a completely unrelated note, here is the list of the top 5 arms dealers:
Source: SIPRI Arms Transfers Database
Generated: 09 December 2023
@Poggervania
All the states in this council can do it. But when you're a permanent member like US, it's much easier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council?wprov=sfla1
@return2ozmaI want you to think about how, when you posted this, jou were swearing and upset about this thing you admittedly knew nothing about.
That's your lizard brain swearing and reacting. Then your human brain took over and you asked good follow on questions.
Might is right. Money is power.
Equality is a myth and the rich never lost their control.
Lmao you clearly don’t understand how the UN works, they’re part of the committee they all get to vote for or against
You’re right - I don’t.
That’s why I asked instead :)
Russia has been vetoing peacekeeping forces in Novorossiya since 2014, for example. China has been vetoing investigations into Uyghur genocide too. Also this particular resolution is fucking stupid as is the whole Arab-world sponsored money laundering machine of Palestine rights council of the UN. People don't understand that "supporting Palestine" is literally the same as supporting Vova, Xi, Kim, Assad and Khamenei since they're all the same totalitarian terrorist axis.
Of fricking course.
Come the fuck on. A UN resolution demanding a ceasefire is just symbolic anyway.
Not if it's from the security council. Security council resolutions are legally binding, whereas GA resolutions are more like suggestions.
This would matter if UN resolutions actually did anything
For anyone else wondering "why did the US veto it?" rather than jumping to an emotional reaction, the article explains the US's position:
U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood called the resolution “imbalanced” and criticized the council after the vote for its failure to condemn Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel in which the militants killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, or to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend itself. He declared that halting military action would allow Hamas to continue to rule Gaza and “only plant the seeds for the next war.”
“Hamas has no desire to see a durable peace, to see a two-state solution,” Wood said before the vote. “For that reason, while the United States strongly supports a durable peace, in which both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security, we do not support calls for an immediate cease-fire.”
So some total bullshit.
the United States strongly supports a durable peace,
we do not support calls for an immediate cease-fire.”
Come the fuck on.
Hamas has no desire to see a durable peace, to see a two-state solution
Because Israel does? What a fucking joke. I'm so fucking embarrassed of this country and so fucking sick of being stuck in it.
I'll translate for those that doesn't speak US foreign policy-ese.
"We fully support our pet genocidal white supremacist settler-colonialist state in their genocidal ventures."
Oh yeah that totally convinces me to justify the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Gaza.
"We will not be supporting a call for a full cease fire as it would allow the democratically elected government currently in charge to continue to be in charge, potentially jeopardizing the future peace"
Putting aside the fact that I don't think Hamas would win an election today (if they'd allow one), how is Israel not just as likely to break this "durable peace".
Calling for an end to violence on an immediate basis and being upset when your own government is again going against the will of it's citizens, choosing to back a military that's vastly superior to their enemies and barely even whispering a comment on the brutality they're committing on the civilian population of their adversary, isn't jumping to an emotional reaction because we all already figured that was the reason anyway
We will not be supporting a call for a full cease fire as it would allow the democratically elected government currently in charge to continue to be in charge
Putting aside the fact that I don’t think Hamas would win an election today (if they’d allow one)
You really wrote this out and thought it made sense.
Did it include releasing hostages?
Maybe they should try demanding the full unconditional surrender of Hamas and the release of all hostages first...
Don't you think the lives of 2.3 million starving people is more pressing now than that? A ceasefire would also allow hostages out.
As for Hamas surrendering, it won't matter. I think Bibi is delusional and just wants this for power-tripping. Hamas will never really even be able to surrender simply because they are born from the oppression that Israel pours on Palestinians, and as long as Israel maims and kills and buries full families under their own homes, Hamas by that name or any other will ALWAYS emerge within a year.
Even with handling an extremist group, Israel poured fuel on the fire and is pouring some more. Everyone knows this, everyone is appalled and shocked at how fucking dumb Israel is being right now.
The "unconditional surrender of Hamas" is Bibi's kinky fantasy. It means nothing in the practical sense.
But yes good luck getting people who were killed and tortured and kept in poverty by Israel to surrender...
You would never expect Israel to surrender to a more powerful enemy.
Well, Israel isn't going into some random village to rape torture and mutilate women, children, and babies. Israel also treats prisoners with dignity and don't just forgets where they put them, starve them, and neglect to give them needed medicine. Israel also doesn't just fire randomly into heavily populated areas for the sole purpose of killing as many civilians as possible. So there's that.
The devil is in the details that you choose to ignore.
I think UN was being antisemitic, so they had to
/s looks like this is needed here
Didn't Hamas break the last two ceasefires? How does the UN expect to enforce such with a literal terrorist organization?
No israel violated the ceasefires right at the start by shooting civilians returning north.
And israel was the party that refused to extend the ceasefire.