UN Security Council passes resolution calling for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza, as US shifts position by abstaining from vote

  • AdeptusPrimaris@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    So the ceasefire is only for two weeks. No wonder the US abstained.

    Edit: the ceasefire is for the rest of Ramadan, the rest of Ramadan is about two weeks.

      • AdeptusPrimaris@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Absolutely not. That’s why when i heard the US abstained i had to double check why, and predictably it was because of the length of the ceasefire.

        Also, demanding the change of language from ‘permanent’ ceasefire to ‘sustained’ ceasefire was scummy and probably also part of the reason why they abstained and let the vote pass.

        • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nah man, the previous one gave Israel/USA impunity to “finish the war”

          This one actually counts as a ceasefire, hence their vote.

          • AdeptusPrimaris@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Oh, i think i see what you mean? Yes, the fact that it does count as an actual ceasefire is a good thing.

            Sorry if I’m not understanding, english isn’t my first language.

            • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Zhang Jun, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of China to the UN, thanked the E-10 Council members for their efforts on the draft.

              Noting that his country’s negative vote on the US-led draft resolution last Friday, he stated that a comparison of the two drafts showed the differences:

              “The current draft is unequivocal and correct in its direction, demanding an immediate ceasefire, while the previous one was evasive and ambiguous,” he said, adding that the present resolution also reflected the general expectations of the international community and enjoyed the collective support of Arab nations.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Passed. US Abstaining with no veto. BTW it also calls for immediate and unconditional release of hostages.

          • catloaf@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            They’ve been vetoing, the proper action would have been to vote to pass.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            The best time to abstain would have been decades ago, but the second-best time is now. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good; this was a good choice.

            Edit: The downvotes are hard to interpret. Do people think the US abstaining (and thus allowing the resolution to pass) was not a good choice?

            • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              this was a good choice.

              Abstention is, by definition, the refusal to make a choice. And if you are not against oppression, then you favor the status quo.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                That’s not how it actually works, though. They knew that by not opposing it would result in the measure passing. Choosing to abstain is a choice.

  • soratoyuki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    So the months of coordinated efforts to by activists to disrupt Democratic meetings, harass Democratic politicians, chant genocide Joe, vote uncommitted in primaries, block traffic, support BDS efforts etc. was actually an effective method of protest that had a small but meaningful effect in changing foreign policy?

    The methods of protest the state wants us to think are successful and the methods that can actually succeed are usually not the same. Please take note.

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      And will they reward Biden for listening or reinforce the idea that there’s no point trying to please the progressive left by finding some other reason to get upset and not vote?

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t think the progressive left is why Hillary lost. Certainly, people choosing not to vote because she was centrist had an impact, but I don’t think there were really enough “Bernie or bust” folks to be solely responsible. You actually had a higher percentage of Bernie voters going for Hillary in 2016 than you did Hilary voters going for Obama in 2008.

          You had like five different factors and a pretty tight final margin. No one factor was responsible. Comey’s letter, Hilary being center, Russian meddling, online misinformation – all of it is partially but not wholly responsible.

          • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            We told you she wouldn’t win. We’re telling you Biden won’t win.

            Either the libs open their damn eyes, or enjoy the dumbass orange fuhrer for the considerable future…

            • sirboozebum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, but Sanders wouldn’t win either.

              He couldn’t even beat Hillary Clinton.

              If it wasn’t for the undemocratic caucuses, he would have lost earlier.

              And before someone says it, it wasn’t “rigged”. Sanders lost by millions of votes.

              The electorate isn’t as progressive as the echo chambers on Lemmy and Reddit are.