aboblaVoting on ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict
NobodyI don’t doubt for a second that Biden isn’t trying to get a second ceasefire going, but at the same time, this vote is hypocritical. There’s no denying that.
ZoboomafooI hope it’s a “See, we’ve got your back, now let’s make our own ceasefire” kind of play
tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺I don’t believe that the US is interested in a ceasefire aside from appearance necessary to keep the muslim world and the muslims in the US and Europe from revolting against the injustice.
The US always worked to destabilize the Middle East and with Israel being armed to its teeth and countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt happy to sell out, this is perfect to sow division, despair and violence.
LinkerbaanYou don’t doubt Genocide Joe, the guy single handedly funding the genocide, announcing his full support for the genocide, and vetoing the stopping of the genocide…
about wanting to stop the genocide?
This is America. Come to terms with it.
Wherein 'abstained' = 'we want to veto it but fear the political backlash so we'll leave it to the US'
Well, in fact only the 5 permanent members can veto a decision…
Annoyed_🦀 Can’t believe PNG voted against, there’s no transparency in it.
Transient PunkI hate you. Take your upvote
Peter1986CI needed your reply to “get” their comment.
I still don’t get it…
GiganI’m surprised Russia voted for the ceasefire. I would expect them to appreciate the distraction.
They appreciate being seen as opposing the west even more. Especially when it comes to toothless UN resolutions.
It’s solely due to US being the bad side along with Israel, they’re trying to shift the narrative.
They don’t want Hamas to be eliminated. Russia is always for ceasefire when its side is loosing.
Optics. Israel and Russia are both on massacre sides
FireTowerDmitriy Polyanskiy, Russia’s representative, said US diplomacy was “leaving scorched earth in its wake”. He said if an immediate ceasefire was blocked by the US again, how could the country look its partners in the eye? He called on the US to “make the right choice” and support the demand for an end to violence.
Funny from a country currently invading its neighbor
The russian hypocricsy should not distract from the truth therein. What happens now is the US foreign policy dream.
Instead of having to destabilize the middle east by themselves, they just need to supply Israel with more weapons and money, so they will do it for them.
Muyal_HixPeople when they find out geopolitics is complex and there ano real bad guys like in the movies.
ArxCyberwolfPretty sure a country that’s committing mass genocide with imperial ambitions who commits daily war crimes and meddles in other countries’ affairs to sow division and distrust is very clearly “the bad guy”. How can you claim otherwise? You can’t “both sides” the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Yeah. And who keeps giving all those weapons and money to Israel while they are carrying out a genocide?
Let’s face it. A single country can be the bad guy in one situation and the good guy in another.
Also, it’s always funny when the US accuses other countries of foreign interference and genocide, because they surely had no problem doing that to Latin America.
I can’t think of a lot of situations where Russia would be the good guy tbh
You need to research about African decolonization movements back in the 60’s.
When African countries declared themselves independent they mostly got support from the USSR, while the US and the west in general acted in a very hostile way.
Anti-apartheid movements got labelled as “terrorists” by the US, but on the contrary, received a lot of support from Russia.
Ir certainly says something that nobody in the west opposed apartheid until socialism was no longer a threat in the 90’s
That is kinda funny, because the USSR was incredibly racist and you’re still not very welcome in Russia as a person of color.
You need to research about African decolonization movements back in the 60’s.
“Despite the widely reported Soviet support for the ANC and otherwise liberation movements, the Soviet Union also engaged in some trade with South Africa during the apartheid era, mostly involving arms and some mineral resources.”
So, they delivered weapons to the Apartheid regime?
I’ve seen an interesting article stating this: " Less well appreciated is the role that external authoritarian actors have played in facilitating this deterioration. Russia stands out in this regard. Among other aims, undermining democracy has been a strategic objective of Russia’s Africa policy for the past two decades. " africacenter.org/…/russia-interference-undermine-…
When it comes to racism, that still doesn’t change the fact that the west has a terrible history of it. There is a reason why you see the AK-47 in a few African flags.
How is the west treating Africans and Palestinians right now?
And again, they have also no problem dealing with (and in some cases supporting) African authoritarian regimes. So how are they morally superior to Russia in that regard?
You realize that it was the Sovjets that turned WW2 around and paid most of the blood for Europe to be freed from the Nazis? About 20 Million of the victims of WW2 were Sovjets. About another 10 Million were Chinese. The western Allies had a very chill WW2 compared to what these countries and their people sacrificed against the Germans and Japanese.
You realize that the Soviets were in Hitler’s side when shit started and wanted to annex a chunk of Poland and the east?
You also realize that your prime example dates back 80 years?
The Sovjets never were on Hitlers side. Hitler was very clear from the beginning what he thinks of the communists, that he mingled into a “jewish bolshevik” world conspiracy. The Hitler Stalin pact was to buy the SU time to prepare for an attack from the Nazis.
Also 80 years is not a long times in historical terms, when the measure is “ever”. Incidently a lot of the turning two blind eyes unconditional support for Israel now is justified with the Holocaust that was in exactly the same period of time.
They only paid a human price because the soviets literally threw people at the problem. We can see the same problem today in the war in Ukraine. They actively either don’t arm, or barely arm soldiers and then expect them to take positions against well armed and trained soldiers. The allies were supplying tanks, small arms and other supplies to the Soviets. Let’s also not wash over the fact that the soviets literally allowed hitler to develop weapons in their territory as long as they benefited from it. They only lost as many troops because their leadership was stupid and ineffective.
They know America is going to veto it because they’re israel’s bitches. And it looks way better for countries like Iran which supply Russia with drones to bomb Ukraine with.
Ironically Russia is winning support with their stance on human rights over America in this conflict. Zelensky sucking Netanyahu off also doesn’t promote the Arabs views of Ukraine.
Even China dunked on America yesterday at the UN, that’s when you know it’s bad
China expresses regret over U.S. veto of Gaza ceasefire resolution
Abstain = We’re against a cease fire but we don’t really want to say that out loud, people might think we’re horrible…
I was thinking more: We’re for a cease fire but we’re afraid America might be salty about it,
It’s both at the same time. This conflict has caused populations of the yellow countries to be divided more than ever before.
This has caused many politicians to slip up in their first reactions, in which they declared unconditional support for Israel after the attacks by Hamas.
Even at that point more people than they anticipated took the stance that “self defence” should not automatically include fighting beyond your own borders and there was outrage. People felt their heads of state needed to represent ALL citizens, which means full support for the Israeli cause was unacceptable.
This has put several world leaders in an awkward position where they have to carefully balance protecting human rights within Gaza and simultaneously condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization. Abstaining from voting for a ceasefire is a direct result of that. Voting either way might open up new discussion with supporters of either side.
This is very obviously the cowardly way out and we as a people need to push for a resolution to this conflict that is morally just and protects human rights on both sides.
Should just go for the simple option of “doesn’t concern us” and leave it at that
While Germany abstained it was purely for economic reasons in not enraging the “global south” that sees the imperialist regime brutalizing the occupied territories, like the European countries did in so many countries before.
In Germany now people without german citizenship are demanded to sign a paper pledging support to Israel or otherwise facing repercussions like deportation.
Germany and Apartheid name a better combination.
fastandcuriousWait is this actually true?
In Germany now people without german citizenship are demanded to sign a paper pledging support to Israel or otherwise facing repercussions like deportation.
It was in one of 16 German states, it was an acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist, not a pledge of support, and there was no threat of deportation, but otherwise your claim is spot on.
I remember that at least the Finnish reason for abstaining is that Hamas was not mentioned nor their attack condemned in any way in the cease fire resolution. Canada started a petition to change the wording of the resolution and most countries who abstained voted for this.
Ah yes of course; “let some more people die because we don’t like the wording”. They better come with a revised version within 24hrs, every hour that passes results in many murdered civilians.
I don’t think you know what “abstain” means
This is the same bullshit excuse America used to veto the first ceasefire.
Then when a bill with condemnation was introduced America still vetoed it.
It’s just a pretentious troll. Every country that abstained is owned by the israeli lobby. That said the veto is far worse.
Some countries like Canada, are neutrally aligned, and simply don’t answer questions like this. Same with Denmark, I believe.
I get what you’re saying and that might very well be the case but you can’t be neutral in a case like this. Neutral means supporting Israel.
I have zero respect for countries voting no, but abstaining is no better. You (as a country) are literally preventing others to help by doing so. Someone is getting stabbed in front of you and you go “no, no, don’t help, we shouldn’t interfere”.
Just let them die I guess, they’re only Palestinians after all.
Shame on you Canada and all other yellows.
I get what you’re saying, I really do.
I’m from Canada and I support our position. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t know enough about what going on to make an informed decision on the matter. I don’t live there, I’m not a part of any of their culture or religion, regardless of which side you’re referring to. Fact is, any information I get won’t tell the full story, and having zero stake in the matter, I could not possibly know what to say.
A ceasefire sounds good on the surface, people should use their words when trying to solve their problems, not guns and bombs. However, some situations can become impossible to escape without violence, and putting an end to the violence prematurely, could allow an unreasonable situation to thrive. I purely do not know what’s happening, so I don’t want a vote in what happens. Further, I won’t be affected by the outcome, good or bad, so whatever I would vote, I wouldn’t experience any consequences from that.
At this point, I’m not even asking anyone to tell me about it because there’s a lot of misinformed people and/or people with an agenda that are going to just jump at me to tell me one way or another; simply, I cannot differentiate someone speaking about the matter from bias, from someone who is simply explaining the facts, because I have so little context.
Additionally, news media have not helped the situation. They go for the catchy, attention grabbing headline, regardless of what it may imply. So even the news could simply be putting something up that will drive engagement without telling the whole story (and bluntly, they often do).
At this point the issue seems to go much deeper than the actions of the current conflict, and as far as I can tell, this, or something like it, has been brewing on and off in that area for entire life.
I don’t know what’s right or factual, I don’t know what to believe for correct information, I’m not involved, nor is my country (not like we have any significant military to enforce anything anyways), and we have no stake in the outcome.
Why would we vote on this?
To be clear, personally, I don’t like conflicts, especially large scale ones. I don’t want anyone to die for “the cause” at all. I don’t like warmongers, and I don’t want anyone (especially the innocent) to suffer and die because of some warmonger. I recognise that sometimes it’s required, but I am not in favor of violence in any form. Same as self defense. If you’re defending yourself against someone, violence is sometimes required, and legitimate.
To reiterate: I don’t know about the conflict, and I don’t know if I can trust anyone, even here, to give me accurate information about what’s happening. Please don’t lecture me about it.
I’ll finish with this: I am hoping that the innocent in any, every, and especially this conflict, to be safe, and sound. I know not all of them will be, but I’m hoping for it anyways.
Still a million times better than vetoing it. We should be ashamed here in the US…
I read that completely differently to you. I see it as "we want a ceasefire but bullshit politics means we can’t vote for it "
This map will go down in the history books when they will speak about the Palestinian Genocide.
Future generations will ask how we let that happen.
I would bet some amount of money that Palestinians will exist in that area in the year 2043.
It’s most definitely absolutely a genocide even if they don’t kill every last Palestinian you fucking ghoul
No it’s not you donkey
In the present Convention, genocide means **any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group**, as such:
That’s directly from the UNs genocide convention.
Ok, so pretty much everything in that area is a genocide, including everything Hamas does? I think this dilutes the meaning of the word somewhat, and especially makes it practically impossible to condemn anybody of it in this particular conflict.
The map looks very similar to others during the cold war (US supporting apartheid, a variety of dictatorships and colonial movements and genocidal regimes) yet, you don’t really see anyone asking how the US people let that happen.
The current generation isn’t asking lots of questions about Uigurs, Armenians, etc.
So x for doubt
America isn’t genociding Uyghurs though. Everyone thought the west was above this shit by now with all the decades of talk about equality.
Now everyone has to come to terms that thev West is stil on 1940’s Ubermensch genocide level of moral standards.
America isn’t genociding anyone right now.
Also, America has been rather ruthless in its external policies since WWII. See Vietnam for example.
Also, the USA aren’t the entire West.
This is some crazy genocide denial.
It’s like denying the holocaust when the internet exists and videos of it are out there and you can see it happening right in front of your eyes.
Europe is aiding in the genocide as well though you are right there are still countries like Ireland, Spain and Belgium that at least call for ceasefire.
This is some crazy genocide denial.
What a rubbish take
How many people have the US killed in Palestine? Because if the answer is zero then they aren’t committing genocide.
Same for Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK.