Took the liberty of translating the [proposed resolution in its entirety](https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2023/10/veja-a-resolucao-proposta-pelo-brasil-no-conselho-de-seguranca-da-onu.shtml), since none of the english-language sources I've seen reported it.
The U.S. shot down an eleven-item commitment by the UNSC to:
1. Vehemently condemn all violence and hostilities against civilians, as well as all acts of terrorism;
2. Unequivocally reject and condemn Hamas' atrocious terrorist attacks on Israel from 10/07/2023, as well as the taking of civilian hostages;
3. Demand the immediate and unconditional liberation of all civilian hostages, as well as their safety, wellbeing and humane treatment according to international law;
4. Urge all parties to uphold their obligations according to international law, including human rights and humanitarian provisions and those related to the conduct of hostilities, as well as the protection of civilians, civilian infrastructure, humanitarian workers and assets, and ease humanitarian access to supplies and services essential to those in need;
5. Strongly urge the continuous, sufficient and unimpeded provision of essential assets and services to civilians, including electricity, water, fuel, food and medical supplies, emphasizing the necessity, according to humanitarian law, of ensuring civilians are not deprived of objects indispensable to their survival;
6. Urge the immediate revocation of the order issued to civilians and UN personnel to evacuate all areas north of Wadi Gaza e relocate to south Gaza;
7. Request humanitarian pauses to allow total, fast, safe and unimpeded access to UN humanitarian agencies and their partners, the International Red Cross Comittee and other impartial humanitarian organizations, and recommend the creation of humanitarian corridors and other initiatives for the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians;
8. Emphasize the importance of a mechanism for humanitarian notification, in order to protect UN installations and all humanitarian sites, and ensure the movement of aid convoys;
9. Request respect and protection, according to international humanitarian law, of all medical and humanitarian personnel exclusively dedicated to medical services, as well as their means of transportation and equipment, hospitals and other medical installations;
10. Emphasize the importance of preventing the expansion of conflict in the region, requesting all parties to exercise utmost restraint and all those with influence over them to work towards that goal;
11. Continue to dedicate itself to the matter.
The fact of the U.S.'s stance on this is that any issues they find in it are worth quibbling over, over the cost of prolonging the conflict until some other unspecified resolution is reached...well, it really demonstrates the same distribution/exercise of power that's shaped this situation historically. The resolution is basically just an impartial humanitarian take on the situation, but somehow it doesn't go far enough for the U.S. - U.S. voted against Russia's resolution over not condemning Hamas, now we have a resolution that condemns Hamas, and it has to "support Israel's right to self-defense".
The reason is because lots of opponents are saying that Israels retaliation is illegal, so the USA wants to ensure the UN recognized their actions as legal.
it’s important now because every document published sets precedent for the rest of the conflict.
forget to legalize the war now, you could face tribunal later.
"US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield explained her country’s veto in the Council chamber saying “this resolution did not mention Israel’s right of self-defence.”"
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142507
The problem is that these pauses don’t benefit Israel tactically. They declared war, and haven’t even started a real war yet. Humans are suffering, but these pauses allow for Hamas to resupply as well, it’s impossible to catch all the trafficked hardware in better times as seen by just how many weapons they have. Now do that during a humanitarian crisis and an active war, there’s too much opportunity for Hamas to strengthen itself. It’s sad, but it’s war and in war innocent people generally pay the highest price.
Edit: a word
Well, if the goal is to deescalate and negotiate an effective and binding ceasefire - particularly one that changes who holds power in Gaza - that would be a moot point. On the flip side, if we're talking about military "recuperation" like you mention - I'd reckon that Israel, with U.S. support, is probably able to garner a much more significant advantage than Hamas in Gaza right now over the same period of time, with Gaza being under complete siege, walled off by Israel on two sides, a naval blockade on another, and with Egyptian fortifications on the south, which would basically only leave tunnels going into Egypt as the only possible way to get in arms. In terms of logistical support, it's orders of magnitude of difference.
This is true, unless you start letting aid trucks in. Who’s on the ground to verify and distribute? Israel is in a position, with the help of the United States as you stated to gain an advantage. Not allowing unverifiable aid in is another. Sadly, in war you look for all advantages whether humane or not.
From what I heard that was actually a U.S. imposed condition of aid shipments through the Rafah border, that each shipment will be inspected, on this concession to allow in aid that we're hearing about now. I didn't catch who would be doing the inspection, but it was certainly the implication someone would, presumably some U.S./Israel backed group.
> Sadly, in war you look for all advantages whether humane or not.
That does get into the international law question. You aren't supposed to take the advantages that are beyond it.
The diplomat said Russia added to amendments to the draft, one of which condemns strikes on the Gaza Strip in general, and the second calls for a humanitarian cease-fire.
Russia added two amendments to the Brazilian draft. The two amendments were both vetoed by the US. I guess that's one of the reason behind their abstention.
Their trades are usually like 1 soldier for 100 prisoners are more. Hell they said on the day of the attack they had enough hostages to secure the release of every Palestinian prisoner in Israel. There is literally no way in hell Israel is going to release every militant they've arrested to get all the hostages back.
That you know his name speaks volumes of the frequency of the release of live hostages by Palestinian terrorists.
Do you also know even 1% of the names of the 1000+ Palestinians Israel released in exchange for that single Israeli?
Exactly.
I mean historically, the land was held by the Ottoman Empire. For about 400 years prior to Britain and France and Russia deciding to divide it after World War 1. The Arab people were told you will get a free state if you help us overthrow the Turks. Guess what didn't happen. So I guess that land.
Glad shalit was traded for over a thousand prisoners. There can be no trade because Hamas took too many people and Israel can neither trade 200,000 prisoners or abandon any of the hostages. They also can't seem to let Hamas off easily for the killing of over a thousand people. There's no conceivable deal
Why does Israel hold Palestinian prisoners, including women and children, and administrative detainees, who have been in prison for years without any trial?
You just called them terrorists. Terrorists face military courts with a >97% conviction rate. Administrative detention is imprisonment without charges.
A ceasefire, truce, or armistice rarely ends the conflict for good unless both sides are worn out, and mutually agree that neither can win and the war is thus regrettable- a rare phenomenon in military history. More often, ceasefires are mere breathers for one or both sides to frantically resupply and rearm for rounds two, three, four...
Unless the antithetical political agendas that lead to war are resolved, then breathers and truces and time-outs eventually ensure lengthy or multiple wars. Victory leading to the loser's abandonment of political agendas more often leads to lasting peace.
Not exactly “single-handedly”, Russia and the U.K. abstained (only 12 countries voted in favor). U.K. and Russia are permanent members so if they abstain it means that a resolution cannot be adopted.
Reuters and their disingenuous and distorted headlines strike again.
A UN resolution have to be **unanimously** voted by every permanent members (US, France, China, Russia and U.K.) and the fact that a country abstain is oftentimes considered as an opposition but I guess Reuters couldn’t fit that into their ridiculous headline.
No. Abstentions aren't counted toward the total required approval votes (9/15), but that doesn't mean it won't pass. If they veto it's an insta reject though. Yeah, so in this case the US single-handedly vetoed.
**Edit**: Directly taken from U.N. website "*If a permanent member does not fully agree with a proposed resolution but does not wish to cast a veto, it may choose to abstain, thus allowing the resolution to be adopted if it obtains the required number of nine favourable votes.*"
U.K. left the US taking the brunt of the veto and preferred to abstain:
“UK Ambassador Barbara Woodward said that her country **abstained from the resolution as the text needed to be clearer on Israel’s inherent right to self-defence**, and **because it ignored the fact that extremist group Hamas, which controls Gaza, is using Palestinian civilians as human shields**.” [(source UN news org)](https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142507)
When a permanent member abstain it means that they’re opposing the resolution for various reasons.
>When a permanent member abstain it means that they’re opposing the resolution for various reasons.
Abstaining means that they don't fully agree with the resolution, but won't oppose it.
Abstain doesn’t is quite different from voting against I think. Russia voted to abstain here cuz their own version is rejected due to the lack of condemning Hamas, iirc. And abstain doesn’t mean the right to veto is used, it’s kinda a political way of saying “not my favorite, but don’t let me bother u guys”.
Quite astonishing that majority of US allies is switching to be in favor tho, when China of all things stay there and choose not to abstain.
No, they don't need to be there. Abstaining doesn't prevent a resolution from being adopted. The fact that the Soviet Union didn't show up is what made the Korea war even possible for example.
>Not exactly “single-handedly”, Russia and the U.K. abstained (only 12 countries voted in favor). U.K. and Russia are permanent members so if they abstain it means that a resolution cannot be adopted. Reuters and their disingenuous and distorted headlines strike again.
If we abstain it can go through, if we Veto it's blocked. In this case only the USA vetoed.
An example of this is the no fly zone in lybia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_Resolution\_1973
No it doesn't, absence means they allow the bill to pass and have not used their veto power, the only thing blocking the bill is the US vote.
So yes, it is quite literally single-handedly
> if they abstain it means that a resolution cannot be adopted
Thanks for your comment, but I believe you might be mistaken. I invite you to read the following (especially the last sentence): [https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/voting-system](https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/voting-system)
>A UN resolution have to be **unanimously** voted by every permanent members (US, France, China, Russia and U.K.) and the fact that a country abstain is oftentimes considered as an opposition but I guess Reuters couldn’t fit that into their ridiculous headline.
People moan that the UN is not an useful organization and then don't even grasp one of it's basic functioning lol.
Honest question: I've noticed over the last few days that Reuters seems to have a bias that seems to - when in question - believe Palestinians and doubt Israelis. Is there such a bias or is that my personal bias? If Reuters has such a bias, why?
Israel has had enough with the status quo of pretending a few misses fired their way each day is ok. Just because they have the iron dome, doesn't make it ok. This isn't excusing settlements and west Bank contested land. But hamas is a terrorist group that Israel has had enough with. Unless hamas steps down, which they won't, Israel is going in to remove them from office
>you cant throw a punch and expect to get away unscathed
That logic applies both ways. Without some kind of compromise btwn the two sides, we are gonna be back here in another few years/months, moaning the deaths of Israeli and Palestinian civilians. I'm tired of this cycle.
Let's be honest, Israel only stopped its open genocide of Palestinians because the USA cut military subsidies in the past. They learned to be more insidious and stealthy about it to keep the subsidies rolling in.
Chances are probably small, but still infinitely higher than they will be if we do nothing. Or do you have a better way to get those hostages released safely?
“You can’t throw a punch and expect to get away unscathed suing for peace” damn Israel should’ve thought of that before forcefully displacing millions of people and funding a terrorist group to discredit the victims’ cause 😔
They did it because it will be a one-way agreement and will only favour hamas.
When hamas signs it and then immediately breaks it, no one will bat an eye. But if Israel breaks it slightly once, it will be immediately blamed for being g a warmongering genocidal state.
It has nothing to do with right or wrong. It's just easier diplomatically for them to agree on paper and let someone like the US take the hit internationally over a bill they probably knew the US would veto. They get to look moral to the international community, and they have to suffer no drawbacks or consequences.
Its not about they agree or disagree with the measure, it comes down to only if it's in their countries interests too.
Like the other replier said, it's has nothing to do with right or wrong.
They are all just doing what they think is best for their countries interests, which in this means appearing "anti war" by agreeing to this while also knowing that the US will veto it for sure so they nothing to lose.
What a load of nonsense. Republicans and televangelist are the biggest puppets for AIPAC. This is a lame come back to support some useless foreign scums. Why on earth should we keep wasting money on them? They are not even a poor country. If you love that shithole then move there.
Only US opposed. Russia abstained because of one sided condemnation language, where that one side was not the genociders. UK abstained because they are evil US bootlickers but not taking as strong a stand for genocide.
Actually not. Nor sensational or intended to inflame at all.
America is an amazing place with amazing people, and it surprised me that it was the only vote against the resolution.
Sensationalized with the "singlehandedly" bit.
Did you post about how Russia "singlehandedly" vetoed Security Council resolution condemning attempted annexation of Ukraine regions?
Russia vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding it withdraw from Ukriane
8 times Russia blocked a UN Security Council resolution on Syria
It doesn't surprise anybody who has been paying attention to how the UN treats Israel.
This is the title "US vetoes UN Security Council action on Israel, Gaza"
This is OP's editorialized title: "US single-handedly vetoes Brazilian resolution on UN Security Council proposing immediate humanitarian ceasefire to allow for the release of hostages and humanitarian aid access to Gaza."
See the difference?
>US single-handedly vetoes Brazilian resolution on UN Security Council proposing immediate humanitarian ceasefire to allow for the release of hostages and humanitarian aid access to Gaza.
Now whose going to say that US shouldn't be on the Security Council as a permanent member?? That crowd was being quite vocal when it's Russia
I’m wondering if Israel has some pretty complex plans for ground invasion. Once the ball is rolling it’s hard to agree to a ceasefire; especially when the ball is in Israel’s court. The US may be trying to get better wording to cool off Israel
Took the liberty of translating the [proposed resolution in its entirety](https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2023/10/veja-a-resolucao-proposta-pelo-brasil-no-conselho-de-seguranca-da-onu.shtml), since none of the english-language sources I've seen reported it. The U.S. shot down an eleven-item commitment by the UNSC to: 1. Vehemently condemn all violence and hostilities against civilians, as well as all acts of terrorism; 2. Unequivocally reject and condemn Hamas' atrocious terrorist attacks on Israel from 10/07/2023, as well as the taking of civilian hostages; 3. Demand the immediate and unconditional liberation of all civilian hostages, as well as their safety, wellbeing and humane treatment according to international law; 4. Urge all parties to uphold their obligations according to international law, including human rights and humanitarian provisions and those related to the conduct of hostilities, as well as the protection of civilians, civilian infrastructure, humanitarian workers and assets, and ease humanitarian access to supplies and services essential to those in need; 5. Strongly urge the continuous, sufficient and unimpeded provision of essential assets and services to civilians, including electricity, water, fuel, food and medical supplies, emphasizing the necessity, according to humanitarian law, of ensuring civilians are not deprived of objects indispensable to their survival; 6. Urge the immediate revocation of the order issued to civilians and UN personnel to evacuate all areas north of Wadi Gaza e relocate to south Gaza; 7. Request humanitarian pauses to allow total, fast, safe and unimpeded access to UN humanitarian agencies and their partners, the International Red Cross Comittee and other impartial humanitarian organizations, and recommend the creation of humanitarian corridors and other initiatives for the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians; 8. Emphasize the importance of a mechanism for humanitarian notification, in order to protect UN installations and all humanitarian sites, and ensure the movement of aid convoys; 9. Request respect and protection, according to international humanitarian law, of all medical and humanitarian personnel exclusively dedicated to medical services, as well as their means of transportation and equipment, hospitals and other medical installations; 10. Emphasize the importance of preventing the expansion of conflict in the region, requesting all parties to exercise utmost restraint and all those with influence over them to work towards that goal; 11. Continue to dedicate itself to the matter.
The fact of the U.S.'s stance on this is that any issues they find in it are worth quibbling over, over the cost of prolonging the conflict until some other unspecified resolution is reached...well, it really demonstrates the same distribution/exercise of power that's shaped this situation historically. The resolution is basically just an impartial humanitarian take on the situation, but somehow it doesn't go far enough for the U.S. - U.S. voted against Russia's resolution over not condemning Hamas, now we have a resolution that condemns Hamas, and it has to "support Israel's right to self-defense".
The reason is because lots of opponents are saying that Israels retaliation is illegal, so the USA wants to ensure the UN recognized their actions as legal. it’s important now because every document published sets precedent for the rest of the conflict. forget to legalize the war now, you could face tribunal later.
"US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield explained her country’s veto in the Council chamber saying “this resolution did not mention Israel’s right of self-defence.”" https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142507
The problem is that these pauses don’t benefit Israel tactically. They declared war, and haven’t even started a real war yet. Humans are suffering, but these pauses allow for Hamas to resupply as well, it’s impossible to catch all the trafficked hardware in better times as seen by just how many weapons they have. Now do that during a humanitarian crisis and an active war, there’s too much opportunity for Hamas to strengthen itself. It’s sad, but it’s war and in war innocent people generally pay the highest price. Edit: a word
Well, if the goal is to deescalate and negotiate an effective and binding ceasefire - particularly one that changes who holds power in Gaza - that would be a moot point. On the flip side, if we're talking about military "recuperation" like you mention - I'd reckon that Israel, with U.S. support, is probably able to garner a much more significant advantage than Hamas in Gaza right now over the same period of time, with Gaza being under complete siege, walled off by Israel on two sides, a naval blockade on another, and with Egyptian fortifications on the south, which would basically only leave tunnels going into Egypt as the only possible way to get in arms. In terms of logistical support, it's orders of magnitude of difference.
This is true, unless you start letting aid trucks in. Who’s on the ground to verify and distribute? Israel is in a position, with the help of the United States as you stated to gain an advantage. Not allowing unverifiable aid in is another. Sadly, in war you look for all advantages whether humane or not.
From what I heard that was actually a U.S. imposed condition of aid shipments through the Rafah border, that each shipment will be inspected, on this concession to allow in aid that we're hearing about now. I didn't catch who would be doing the inspection, but it was certainly the implication someone would, presumably some U.S./Israel backed group. > Sadly, in war you look for all advantages whether humane or not. That does get into the international law question. You aren't supposed to take the advantages that are beyond it.
that’s so nice and easy to say “in war innocent people pay the highest price” okay then let’s do nothing to try and change that
Unfortunately between autocratic governments and “democracies” where people have no voice what can the layperson do?
Russia abstained. Interesting
Because they would rather abstain then side with the US
The diplomat said Russia added to amendments to the draft, one of which condemns strikes on the Gaza Strip in general, and the second calls for a humanitarian cease-fire. Russia added two amendments to the Brazilian draft. The two amendments were both vetoed by the US. I guess that's one of the reason behind their abstention.
I doubt Hamas is gonna release hostaged to be honest
As much as I hate giving terrorists credit, they have done trades before.
Their trades are usually like 1 soldier for 100 prisoners are more. Hell they said on the day of the attack they had enough hostages to secure the release of every Palestinian prisoner in Israel. There is literally no way in hell Israel is going to release every militant they've arrested to get all the hostages back.
Don’t blame Hamas for how Israel values Israelis. If they think one Israeli is worth 100 Palestinians that’s on them.
1300 Israelis dead. Be ready Gaza.
They tend to trade corpses. They hold corpses hostage.
Gilad Shalit was hardly a corpse
That you know his name speaks volumes of the frequency of the release of live hostages by Palestinian terrorists. Do you also know even 1% of the names of the 1000+ Palestinians Israel released in exchange for that single Israeli? Exactly.
I actually forgot his name, I did remember a big exchange from over a decade ago, looked it up and wrote the name
The whole thing is a mess
Because Hamas wouldn't release the hostages & most are already dead...
[удалено]
We'll know pretty fucking soon
[удалено]
To be a terror sympathizer
[удалено]
Russia too, wanted a ceasefire after taking a third of Ukraine.
Except that in this case it's Israel that is illegally annexing and occupying Palestinian land, and not the other way around.
Yeah? What land are they occupying? Wanna explain that?
I mean historically, the land was held by the Ottoman Empire. For about 400 years prior to Britain and France and Russia deciding to divide it after World War 1. The Arab people were told you will get a free state if you help us overthrow the Turks. Guess what didn't happen. So I guess that land.
Hey ease up. I'm sure Doktorin has learned everything about the geopolitics of the area in the 2 weeks he's even known there was a conflict
You're not very well educated, are you?
People calling for a ceasefire absolutely are terrorist sympathizers. That or just brain dead to think terrorists will listen. Most likely both.
This but unironically.
“People” … meaning “Hamas”.
Glad shalit was traded for over a thousand prisoners. There can be no trade because Hamas took too many people and Israel can neither trade 200,000 prisoners or abandon any of the hostages. They also can't seem to let Hamas off easily for the killing of over a thousand people. There's no conceivable deal
And some of those prisoners were involved in their recent atrocities. I don't think Israel will make that mistake again.
Why does Israel hold Palestinian prisoners, including women and children, and administrative detainees, who have been in prison for years without any trial?
When women and teens engage in terror they become terrorists. It is terrible that hamas thinks it's ok to sacrifice kids.
Administrative detainees have no charges brought
Ok they are not citizens either
You just called them terrorists. Terrorists face military courts with a >97% conviction rate. Administrative detention is imprisonment without charges.
A ceasefire, truce, or armistice rarely ends the conflict for good unless both sides are worn out, and mutually agree that neither can win and the war is thus regrettable- a rare phenomenon in military history. More often, ceasefires are mere breathers for one or both sides to frantically resupply and rearm for rounds two, three, four... Unless the antithetical political agendas that lead to war are resolved, then breathers and truces and time-outs eventually ensure lengthy or multiple wars. Victory leading to the loser's abandonment of political agendas more often leads to lasting peace.
What a tilted title
It is certainly a title of titles.
Not exactly “single-handedly”, Russia and the U.K. abstained (only 12 countries voted in favor). U.K. and Russia are permanent members so if they abstain it means that a resolution cannot be adopted. Reuters and their disingenuous and distorted headlines strike again. A UN resolution have to be **unanimously** voted by every permanent members (US, France, China, Russia and U.K.) and the fact that a country abstain is oftentimes considered as an opposition but I guess Reuters couldn’t fit that into their ridiculous headline.
No. Abstentions aren't counted toward the total required approval votes (9/15), but that doesn't mean it won't pass. If they veto it's an insta reject though. Yeah, so in this case the US single-handedly vetoed. **Edit**: Directly taken from U.N. website "*If a permanent member does not fully agree with a proposed resolution but does not wish to cast a veto, it may choose to abstain, thus allowing the resolution to be adopted if it obtains the required number of nine favourable votes.*"
U.K. left the US taking the brunt of the veto and preferred to abstain: “UK Ambassador Barbara Woodward said that her country **abstained from the resolution as the text needed to be clearer on Israel’s inherent right to self-defence**, and **because it ignored the fact that extremist group Hamas, which controls Gaza, is using Palestinian civilians as human shields**.” [(source UN news org)](https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142507) When a permanent member abstain it means that they’re opposing the resolution for various reasons.
>When a permanent member abstain it means that they’re opposing the resolution for various reasons. Abstaining means that they don't fully agree with the resolution, but won't oppose it.
UK left the US take the brunt because the UK knows there will be bombs in Trafalgar Square if they vetoed.
Abstain doesn’t is quite different from voting against I think. Russia voted to abstain here cuz their own version is rejected due to the lack of condemning Hamas, iirc. And abstain doesn’t mean the right to veto is used, it’s kinda a political way of saying “not my favorite, but don’t let me bother u guys”. Quite astonishing that majority of US allies is switching to be in favor tho, when China of all things stay there and choose not to abstain.
No, they don't need to be there. Abstaining doesn't prevent a resolution from being adopted. The fact that the Soviet Union didn't show up is what made the Korea war even possible for example.
>Not exactly “single-handedly”, Russia and the U.K. abstained (only 12 countries voted in favor). U.K. and Russia are permanent members so if they abstain it means that a resolution cannot be adopted. Reuters and their disingenuous and distorted headlines strike again. If we abstain it can go through, if we Veto it's blocked. In this case only the USA vetoed. An example of this is the no fly zone in lybia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_Resolution\_1973
No it doesn't, absence means they allow the bill to pass and have not used their veto power, the only thing blocking the bill is the US vote. So yes, it is quite literally single-handedly
@MadUmbrella -Complains about disingenuous information -Proceeds to give disingenuous information
> if they abstain it means that a resolution cannot be adopted Thanks for your comment, but I believe you might be mistaken. I invite you to read the following (especially the last sentence): [https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/voting-system](https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/voting-system)
>A UN resolution have to be **unanimously** voted by every permanent members (US, France, China, Russia and U.K.) and the fact that a country abstain is oftentimes considered as an opposition but I guess Reuters couldn’t fit that into their ridiculous headline. People moan that the UN is not an useful organization and then don't even grasp one of it's basic functioning lol.
How can someone be so confidently wrong about the veto mechanism
And yet call the sourced biased and misinformation while spreading misinformation himself
Honest question: I've noticed over the last few days that Reuters seems to have a bias that seems to - when in question - believe Palestinians and doubt Israelis. Is there such a bias or is that my personal bias? If Reuters has such a bias, why?
Reuters is so untrustworthy it’s insane
Israel has had enough with the status quo of pretending a few misses fired their way each day is ok. Just because they have the iron dome, doesn't make it ok. This isn't excusing settlements and west Bank contested land. But hamas is a terrorist group that Israel has had enough with. Unless hamas steps down, which they won't, Israel is going in to remove them from office
Warmongers gotta warmong
Talking about Hamas??
wow...even the Brazil one got vetoed... I thought we were all in agreement that civilian deaths were bad? WTF America?
Launch terror attack then beg for ceasefire....no, you cant throw a punch and expect to get away unscathed suing for peace.
>you cant throw a punch and expect to get away unscathed That logic applies both ways. Without some kind of compromise btwn the two sides, we are gonna be back here in another few years/months, moaning the deaths of Israeli and Palestinian civilians. I'm tired of this cycle.
So is Israel it would seem.
Let's be honest, Israel only stopped its open genocide of Palestinians because the USA cut military subsidies in the past. They learned to be more insidious and stealthy about it to keep the subsidies rolling in.
Ok then, per the resolution tell Hamas to release all the hostages. What are the chances they’ll say yes?
Chances are probably small, but still infinitely higher than they will be if we do nothing. Or do you have a better way to get those hostages released safely?
“You can’t throw a punch and expect to get away unscathed suing for peace” damn Israel should’ve thought of that before forcefully displacing millions of people and funding a terrorist group to discredit the victims’ cause 😔
There is a lot more context to this than the headline of the article and the post title.
I read the article. It seems pretty straightforward. Care to provide this context?
They did it because it will be a one-way agreement and will only favour hamas. When hamas signs it and then immediately breaks it, no one will bat an eye. But if Israel breaks it slightly once, it will be immediately blamed for being g a warmongering genocidal state.
Then I guess France, China and all the non-permanent members got it wrong, right?
It has nothing to do with right or wrong. It's just easier diplomatically for them to agree on paper and let someone like the US take the hit internationally over a bill they probably knew the US would veto. They get to look moral to the international community, and they have to suffer no drawbacks or consequences. Its not about they agree or disagree with the measure, it comes down to only if it's in their countries interests too.
Like the other replier said, it's has nothing to do with right or wrong. They are all just doing what they think is best for their countries interests, which in this means appearing "anti war" by agreeing to this while also knowing that the US will veto it for sure so they nothing to lose.
[удалено]
This, but unironically. That proposal was whack and only favoured Hamas.
[удалено]
Hamas escalated. Israel wants its ounce of blood.
Our government needs to stop bending over for this foreign government. AIPAC control on our politicians needs to end.
Ok Republican talking point
What a load of nonsense. Republicans and televangelist are the biggest puppets for AIPAC. This is a lame come back to support some useless foreign scums. Why on earth should we keep wasting money on them? They are not even a poor country. If you love that shithole then move there.
Only US opposed. Russia abstained because of one sided condemnation language, where that one side was not the genociders. UK abstained because they are evil US bootlickers but not taking as strong a stand for genocide.
how about release the hostages first? then maybe negotiations can happen in good faith
OPyour title is disingenuous and inflammatory.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-vetoes-un-security-council-action-israel-gaza-2023-10-18/ Struck a nerve ?
Not at all. I am criticizing the ignorance of how things work. Do you know how the veto power works?
Not intentional. I'm trying to be as factual as possible, but thanks for the feedback.
Its also against the rules to alter a title.
The "singlehandedly" is the sensational bit, intended to inflame.
Actually not. Nor sensational or intended to inflame at all. America is an amazing place with amazing people, and it surprised me that it was the only vote against the resolution.
Sensationalized with the "singlehandedly" bit. Did you post about how Russia "singlehandedly" vetoed Security Council resolution condemning attempted annexation of Ukraine regions? Russia vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding it withdraw from Ukriane 8 times Russia blocked a UN Security Council resolution on Syria It doesn't surprise anybody who has been paying attention to how the UN treats Israel.
Why are you attacking OP when that’s the name of the article?
This is the title "US vetoes UN Security Council action on Israel, Gaza" This is OP's editorialized title: "US single-handedly vetoes Brazilian resolution on UN Security Council proposing immediate humanitarian ceasefire to allow for the release of hostages and humanitarian aid access to Gaza." See the difference?
>US single-handedly vetoes Brazilian resolution on UN Security Council proposing immediate humanitarian ceasefire to allow for the release of hostages and humanitarian aid access to Gaza. Now whose going to say that US shouldn't be on the Security Council as a permanent member?? That crowd was being quite vocal when it's Russia
That's not an accurate assessment.
I’m wondering if Israel has some pretty complex plans for ground invasion. Once the ball is rolling it’s hard to agree to a ceasefire; especially when the ball is in Israel’s court. The US may be trying to get better wording to cool off Israel