219

Arabs put to vote a UN resolution demanding an immediate Gaza cease-fire, knowing US will veto it (apnews.com)

submitted 8 months ago by CollisionResistance@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] febra@lemmy.world 55 points 8 months ago

Nothing wrong with that. It’s a good way to keep accountability and see where every country stands.

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago

And the US is going to veto it because....?

[-] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

They did already. They are Israel's bitches.

[-] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

US was actually the only country to veto. Does not look good tbf

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

And now China is condemning it. Like, wtf. I honestly don't know why we are blocking U.N. action on this. It's brazenly pro-ethnic cleansing. It's not like there's wiggle room to debate, there's no room. It's just plainly a mass killing of a minority population that was already living under apartheid conditions.

Are our political leaders just religious enough to quake in fear at the thought of angering their abrahamic diety? Or is this confirmation that there really IS a powerful zionist cabal that can manipulate US foreign policy?

I mean, both are conspiratorial stretches, but wtf else could biden hang this decision on?

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

If they didn't veto it what would happen? Is there an article like NATO that would stipulate that the UN counties would go to war... I didn't think there was. So I am unsure if would have any change.

[-] Muehe@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

Resolutions made by the UN security council (which this would have been) can be enforced through the UN peacekeeping mission (aka the blue helmets) by stationing UN troops along the contact line to prevent hostilities from resuming. This has had mixed success in the past, there is actually a peacekeeping mission stationed right now on the Israel/Lebanon border which hasn't prevented either side from shooting at each other after the October 7 attack.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

That's good to know. So does that just require a majority vote? (Which if this wasn't vetoed would have been a landslide). Or does it require some other percentage?

[-] outrageousmatter@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

UN general assembly majority vote, but security council, the permanent members all need to agree as even one nay is a veto.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

So that would mean if the U.S. eventually doesn't veto it, Russia might as it has clearly been to their benefit.

What a stupid world we live in.

[-] snake_case_guy@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 8 months ago

The UN is not a military defense organisation la NATO. It has military efforts, but they are all Pacific in the sense that they don't take part and only help the civilian population (e.g.: running medical and food supplies, or protecting hospitals, etc.)

The UN could go for economic and political sanctions, or try to move this in the Hague Courts in case the request goes unheard.

this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024

219 points (93.3% liked)

World News

38956 readers

1662 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.