What kind of shady shit are you pulling to try to side-step the fact that this was, by definition, a ceasefire? Yes, China and Russia vetoed a ceasefire.
Also let’s not pretend Russia and China are acting out of humanitarian interest.
(Also, choosing between no ceasefire and Israel committing collective punishment, or a ceasefire and israel committing collective punishment — welp, I’d surmise the latter is better.)
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.
“Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in Gaza”
Russia and China on Friday vetoed a U.S.-sponsored United Nations resolution supporting “an immediate and sustained cease-fire” in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza
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.
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.
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.
I agree with much of what you’re saying, as well. With Israel holding all the cards, I just find it worrying that Gaza would be forced to give up its one and only leverage. We’ve already seen that Israel does not care if hostages are involved when attacking a location. It’s hard to imagine how much more aggressive they will be when the risk of Israeli collateral damage is removed from the equation.
That’s equivocation.
Reuters - “Russia, China veto US-led UN resolution on Gaza ceasefire”
AP - “Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in Gaza”
What kind of shady shit are you pulling to try to side-step the fact that this was, by definition, a ceasefire? Yes, China and Russia vetoed a ceasefire.
Also let’s not pretend Russia and China are acting out of humanitarian interest.
(Also, choosing between no ceasefire and Israel committing collective punishment, or a ceasefire and israel committing collective punishment — welp, I’d surmise the latter is better.)
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.
???
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.
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:
Not sure I agree with that personally, nor that China and Russia are some sort of concerned humanitarian forces in the region, but alas.
I agree with much of what you’re saying, as well. With Israel holding all the cards, I just find it worrying that Gaza would be forced to give up its one and only leverage. We’ve already seen that Israel does not care if hostages are involved when attacking a location. It’s hard to imagine how much more aggressive they will be when the risk of Israeli collateral damage is removed from the equation.