this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
365 points (97.4% liked)
World News
32076 readers
1085 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
15 countries voting, they lost 13-1 (UK abstained), literally only the US voted against the resolution and yet they can veto it.
It is clearly US and UK vs Gaza children.
"Oh hamas did this and that so lets kill them all, stop water food and aid and move 2 million around" is not justified ...
This was always the plan.
People are wising up but I doubt anything can stop it now.
Cat is out of the bag.
Username checks out.
No but seriously, you're right.
The UK abstained, that is explicitly not supporting the US. It's not objecting either, but it's not supporting.
What I find interesting is that the PM Rishi Sunak talks in full support of Israel in national politics, yet on the international stage the stance is now slightly more neutral.
It is a scam happened before, countries abstain because they know the US would veto. If UK didn't abstain I think the resolution would pass. That's why they did it, help to not let the resolution pass and it doesn't look bad as veto.
How is it a scam?
Not to a scam but clever politics... Let US to take the hit, since supporting Israel is becoming hard as people are wising up to their goals and policies vis a vis Palestinians. The people more educated people get on the topic, the harder it is support Israel at all.
Politicians know that domestic support esp among younger people is down.
Its a desperate attempt not to piss off even more voters. While still supporting party funders ideals.
Does a "no" vote by the US automatically veto it? Or did they have to take an additional action? If the vote alone didn't veto it, that's the perfect place to hedge your bets. Vote no, then don't veto it. You can claim both sides then to appease everyone.
No by the US (or China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom) means veto.
Well that's dumb. But rules are rules.
aww shucks we have to allow genocide its the rules
It was more meant that they couldn't vote no then not veto. That being the case they should have at least abstained like the UK.
It's to prevent nuclear war. If everyone voted to invade or harshly punish a powerful country they could respond.
That is the explanation I was given, but these days I think that’s more of a rationalization than an explanation. Closer to the truth, I think, is that those are the countries that came out of WWII the victors, and so they wrote the rules.
oh so the only ones who ever used nukes now get to say what everyone should do with theirs?
Where are the vote results
Valid question, I got it from another article: https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-politics/ap-un-chief-and-many-nations-demand-immediate-humanitarian-cease-fire-in-gaza-but-us-remains-opposed/