I’m pretty sure Israel’s strategy here is "it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission (for genocide). They will completely destroy Palestine and essentially wipe out the people, and then say “sorry, but what are you gonna do, you’re capitalists, so now lets sign this trade deal and move on without those pesky Palestinians existing anymore.”
And then lecture the world on human rights when Russia do the same with Ukraine. What a shameless administration.
Nice username
deleted by creator
The UN is like the Michael Phelps of creating resolutions that involved parties won’t recognize.
They’re really great at singling out the bad guys though. We now know every country that vetoed or abstained supports genocide and is owned by israel.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a vain effort to press the Biden administration to drop its opposition to calling for a halt to the fighting, the foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey were all in Washington on Friday.
Along with the vote, the Arab diplomats’ mission served to shift responsibility more squarely onto the United States for protecting Israel from growing demands to stop the airstrikes that are killing thousands of Palestinian civilians.
Ambassador Nicolas De Rivière of France, a veto-wielding permanent council member who supported the resolution, lamented its lack of unity and pleaded “for a new, immediate and lasting humanitarian truce that should lead to a sustainable cease-fire.”
The council called the emergency meeting to hear from Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who for the first time invoked Article 99 of the U.N. Charter, which enables a U.N. chief to raise threats he sees to international peace and security.
Guterres said he raised Article 99 — which hadn’t been used at the U.N. since 1971 — because “there is a high risk of the total collapse of the humanitarian support system in Gaza.” The U.N. anticipates this would result in “a complete breakdown of public order and increased pressure for mass displacement into Egypt,” he warned.
And Louis Charbonneau, U.N. director at Human Rights Watch, said that by providing weapons and diplomatic cover to Israel “as it commits atrocities, including collectively punishing the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza, the U.S. risks complicity in war crimes.”
The original article contains 1,194 words, the summary contains 248 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The bot fails to present both sides of the argument.
???
It omits why the U.S. vetoed it, which is that no one was willing to condemn Hamas or address how a cease fire would only encourage Hamas to carry out more attacks against Israel because they have shown no desire to end their attacks. No one has presented any support to find and stop Hamas attacks, only for Israel to end their attacks.
So a cease fire would only last as long as the next Hamas attack.
Edit: downvoted for sharing the U.S. side. Interesting. Anyone have a solution for stopping Hamas let alone actually condemning them in a movee to stop Israel’s attacks?
What you are saying is the US vetoed it because they accept the false dichotomy in the Israeli narrative of the situation.
Oh no is this poor bot being antisemetic? :(
Just missing context, which is important and why we shouldn’t rely on bots for getting all the news that matters.
Yeah, I would agree if this comment had REALLY been about the bot’s performance. Instead it turns into ass kissing Israel.
So a cease fire would only last as long as the next Hamas attack.
Which we’ve literally observed several times before where Israel will sign a cease fire and hours later Hamas will attack… A ceasefire at this point is just signing up Israel for extra deaths and saves no one else.
Ceasefire without a plan is as useless as no ceasfire. There was a ceasfire on October 7th and that didn’t stop Hamas from slaughtering all those innocents or firing thousands of rockets. That’s the usual way all these ceasefires have ended.
Removed by mod
