World News

32282 readers

685 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 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

jackmarxist@lemmy.ml

zephyreks@lemmy.ml

OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml

365

US vetoes UN resolution calling for Gaza ceasefire (www.semafor.com)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by tree@lemmy.zip to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

104 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council resolution Friday calling for a ceasefire to the fighting in Gaza.

The U.S. and Israel have opposed calls for a ceasefire, saying it would strengthen Hamas.

The vote was delayed for several hours over worries the U.S. would veto it. Diplomats from several Arab nations met with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to try to convince the U.S. to abstain from voting.

As a permanent member of the council, the U.S. has veto power, and had signaled it planned to block the resolution. The U.K. abstained from the vote, while the 13 other members of the council voted for it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 48 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No by the US (or China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom) means veto.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Well that's dumb. But rules are rules.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

aww shucks we have to allow genocide its the rules

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] Neato@kbin.social -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's to prevent nuclear war. If everyone voted to invade or harshly punish a powerful country they could respond.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 41 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago

oh so the only ones who ever used nukes now get to say what everyone should do with theirs?