US vetoes UN resolution calling for Gaza ceasefire
US vetoes UN resolution calling for Gaza ceasefire
The vote came a day after the U.S. Secretary of State issued his strongest criticism of Israel since the war started.
The U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council resolution Friday calling for a ceasefire to the fighting in Gaza.
The U.S. and Israel have opposed calls for a ceasefire, saying it would strengthen Hamas.
The vote was delayed for several hours over worries the U.S. would veto it. Diplomats from several Arab nations met with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to try to convince the U.S. to abstain from voting.
As a permanent member of the council, the U.S. has veto power, and had signaled it planned to block the resolution. The U.K. abstained from the vote, while the 13 other members of the council voted for it.
You're viewing a single thread.
15 countries voting, they lost 13-1 (UK abstained), literally only the US voted against the resolution and yet they can veto it.
It is clearly US and UK vs Gaza children.
"Oh hamas did this and that so lets kill them all, stop water food and aid and move 2 million around" is not justified ...
It is clearly US and UK
The UK abstained, that is explicitly not supporting the US. It's not objecting either, but it's not supporting.
What I find interesting is that the PM Rishi Sunak talks in full support of Israel in national politics, yet on the international stage the stance is now slightly more neutral.
It is a scam happened before, countries abstain because they know the US would veto. If UK didn't abstain I think the resolution would pass. That's why they did it, help to not let the resolution pass and it doesn't look bad as veto.
How is it a scam?
Its a desperate attempt not to piss off even more voters. While still supporting party funders ideals.
Does a "no" vote by the US automatically veto it? Or did they have to take an additional action? If the vote alone didn't veto it, that's the perfect place to hedge your bets. Vote no, then don't veto it. You can claim both sides then to appease everyone.
No by the US (or China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom) means veto.
Well that's dumb. But rules are rules.
aww shucks we have to allow genocide its the rules
It was more meant that they couldn't vote no then not veto. That being the case they should have at least abstained like the UK.
It's to prevent nuclear war. If everyone voted to invade or harshly punish a powerful country they could respond.
That is the explanation I was given, but these days I think that’s more of a rationalization than an explanation. Closer to the truth, I think, is that those are the countries that came out of WWII the victors, and so they wrote the rules.
Much like the US Constitution, the structure of the UN is built for a world that no longer exists.
oh so the only ones who ever used nukes now get to say what everyone should do with theirs?
Where are the vote results
Valid question, I got it from another article: https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-politics/ap-un-chief-and-many-nations-demand-immediate-humanitarian-cease-fire-in-gaza-but-us-remains-opposed/