- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Washington traditionally shields its ally Israel from any Security Council action.
The rest of the article is extra.
Came here to say this… The US has been doing this for decades.
Oh but its a problem when Russia does it?
Yeah, honestly the Superpower Vetoes have been the biggest flaw in the UN since its conception.
Call it a flaw if you want, but it is also probably contributing to no more world wars
I think it’s less effective than it could be with the ability to check world powers and their allies with financial incentives among other things.
The US would veto via military action if we couldn’t veto by voting. It’s a bad system, but better than going to war (more than we already do).
And then they would face massive economic repercussions as the UN could vote against them for a change.
No - they’re why the UN exists.
The purpose of the UN is to prevent global war. The Security Council veto keeps the UN from taking sides in a military conflict against the interests of a county that can maintain that level of warfare.
Lmao
The UN was not created to maintain peace. They were the result of a massive conflict. The ability to give financial incentives for peace by restricting powerful nations would make the UN a thousand times more effective.
Of fucking course we did…
I understand why the first proposal from Russia was rejected, but this one should have been pretty uncontroversial. This is really a WTF moment for US diplomacy.
Unfortunately not. If you’ve been paying attention, this aligns pretty well with their behavior in the past.
Saying it’s status quo doesn’t contradict how WTF it is.
This is really a WTF moment for US diplomacy.
Not really, considering the US’s past actions and decisions, especially regarding Israel.
Don’t forget we’re the good guys, everyone!
WW2 was a long time ago.
And waited until it was already clear that the Nazis we going to lose before entering the European theatre.
deleted by creator
Your source talks about events prior to 1939. Poland and France had not been attacked yet. Most people didn’t know what Nazi Germany’s plans were.
“We believe we need to let that diplomacy play out.”
Is that what we’re calling it now?
Russia veto: GENOCIDAL MANIACS
US veto: Go Go Israel <3
Time to kick the US to the curb. Fuck em and their Christian BS. Do what must be done rest of the world. Permanent trade sanctions for Israel!
I’m shocked. Shocked. Well not that shocked.
I’m not clear on what the action proposed to do. I read both the article and the bot summary. Sort of lost on the jargon I guess. Could anyone explain, perhaps with a quote?
Time to kick the US to the curb. Fuck em and their Christian BS. Do what must be done rest of the world. Permanent trade sanctions for Israel!
“We are on the ground doing the hard work of diplomacy,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told the 15-member council after the vote. “We believe we need to let that diplomacy play out.”
“Yes, resolutions are important. And yes, this council must speak out. But the actions we take must be informed by the facts on the ground and support direct diplomacy efforts. That can save lives. The council needs to get this right,” she said.
US not only want to play hero, they want to play THE hero it seems.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The vote on the Brazilian-drafted text was twice delayed in the past couple of days as the United States tries to broker aid access to Gaza.
Ambassador Zhang Jun accused the United States of leading council members to believe that the resolution could be adopted after it did not comment or express opposition during negotiations.
Thomas-Greenfield said the United States was disappointed the draft resolution made no mention of Israel’s rights of self defense and she blamed Hamas for the Gaza humanitarian crisis.
The draft resolution also urged Israel - without naming it - to rescind its order for civilians and U.N. staff in Gaza to move to the south of the Palestinian enclave and condemns “the terrorist attacks by Hamas.”
It has vowed to annihilate Hamas after the Islamist militant group killed 1,400 people and seized hostages in an Oct. 7 attack on Israel.
The draft U.N. resolution condemned all violence and hostilities against civilians and all acts of terrorism and called for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.
The original article contains 518 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This article glosses over why the US officials representing USA vetoed and this kind of journalism sucks fat cock, so I’m going to claim my own made up reason and you all have to agree with it; USA vetoes due to the Uzbekistan official sitting nearby not share this mornings apple sauce cup at their UN daycare.
“We are on the ground doing the hard work of diplomacy,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told the 15-member council after the vote. “We believe we need to let that diplomacy play out.”
That is a political not-reason reason in my opinion.
It is. It says nothing at all and can mean anything. But they did give a reason.
So why are US officials really vetoing these? Is there like, a better article? You got a hunch? I’ll take anything. Well except a morning without applesauce.
My uneducated thoughts are that because Hamas are too embedded into Palestinian society and have essentially infiltrated every aspect of their government, the correct strategic maneuver is to eliminate the Palestinian government and install another puppet government as a replacement in order to destroy Hamas.
They cannot do this without carte blanche approval from the major world superpowers to invade and target civilians who are involved in Islamic terrorism. The ultimate goal, I believe is to absorb more land into Israel and deny Palestinians Gaza completely by the next decade.
Again, this is my uneducated thoughts.
… You might wanna do some more reading. This take is hot like lava from a volcano.
