Comment

That’s equivocation. [Reuters - “Russia, China veto US-led UN resolution on Gaza ceasefire”(]reuters.com/…/un-security-council-fails-pass-us-r…)

source

Sort:hotnew top

graymess@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
No, the US resolution was distinctly bullshit and did not call for an immediate ceasefire. The previous resolutions that the US vetoed did. Let’s not pretend the US proposed this version of a resolution out of humanitarian interest.

source
- lennybird@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  “Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in Gaza”
  
  ???
  
  source
  - graymess@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    It’s a misleading headline, whether deliberate or not. Read the context of the resolution. It was a highly conditional ceasefire proposal that would require Gaza to give up all hostages while Israel would be permitted to continue controlling the region. Not immediate and clearly untenable for Palestinians. The US submitted the proposal knowing it would not pass just so they can act like they’re trying to negotiate peace, only being shot down by the usual bad guys. It’s a propaganda tactic and it’s clearly working.
    
    source
    lennybird@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I acknowledge your point and agree there is contradiction in AP and Reuters’ headline. On the other hand release of hostages is kind of a given to accept a sustained ceasefire. Hamas must come to the table in some capacity. After all, it isn’t really even the hostages that are preventing Israel from bombing Gaza into oblivion. And it isn’t the hostages that is spurring public outcry, but rather the death of Palestinian civilians already occurring. So anything that advances the protections of those civilians should be paramount, and that includes hostages.
    
    Regardless it’s a moot point, for a ceasefire resolution did pass days later:
    
    The text demanded “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire”. It also demanded the release of hostages but did not make a truce dependent on them being freed, as Washington had previously demanded.
    
    Not sure I agree with that personally, nor that China and Russia are some sort of concerned humanitarian forces in the region, but alas.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments