- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
The US representative at the UN, Robert Wood, has said that they wouldn’t support an immediate ceasefire.
“While the United States strongly supports a durable peace, in which both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security, we do not support calls for an immediate ceasefire.”
“This would only plant the seeds for the next war because Hamas has no desire to see a durable peace,” he told the UN Security Council.
The US is one of the permanent members which has the right to veto resolution.
You must log in or register to comment.
sigh
America’s blind adherence to insanity just goes on and on and on.
At this point, it most definitely isn’t blind; which makes me think its calculated. Which in turn, sends a very cold shiver down my spine…
I used the word “insanity” as a play on the adage … The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
It just seems to me that’s what America has been doing for years now in regards to Israel’s zionist gov’t.
Oh i totally got that when i read your comment; what i’m saying is that at this point, and with how blatant it is, its starting to look like this may actually be the result they’ve been working towards. So it’s starting to not look like insanity anymore. And THAT sends chills down my spine
Well for biden the calculation in practice seems to be “back Israel publicly so they’ll listen to us privately”
Some major breakthroughs that haven’t been getting coverage has been hostage swaps negotiated by the US as well as getting an agreement from Israel to end the blockade of Palestine’s natural resource wealth. Folks on those threads are joking that reopening the airport in Gaza could become a possibility for the post war picture now.
UNSC is undemocratic, not reflective of the world (no Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, any in Africa etc) and has only served the interests of few (with freaking veto powers) - it needs to be retired or majorly revamped. Or we will keep getting crap like this.
Yeah but the alternative any individual power being able to argue all the others are ganging up on it and withdrawing
That exact scenario is what killed the league of nations, Germany, Italy, and Japan all invoked accusations of being singled out before withdrawing and becoming rogue states in the leadup to WWII.
There does need to be some reforms, India, Pakistan, Germany, Brazil, Nigeria, Japan, and at least a few others need to be added to the SC for example as full members, for either economic, demographic, millitary technical, or some combination thereof making them unignorable factors on the geopolitical stage.
There also needs to be a requirement that UNSC members are obligated to provide a contribution of aid in the form of material support or volunteers up to a certain margin. UNSC membership should carry responsibility to go along with the power, and tying UN aid directly to an extraction from the world’s powers makes taking aim at those resources for your own agenda a MUCH more dangerous prospect.
With enough larger powers in the room, would Israel be willing to bet that every single one of them would back down from retaliation if it turned out that the UN refugee camp you just bombed now has a foreign national casualty list from all the world’s biggest players? America might not be sending a carrier over dead US citizens, but I’m not so sure Brazil and India won’t be calling for Netenyahu’s head if he killed anyone they sent to the aid camps.
When both Palestine and Israel continue to shoot at each other, is the UN going to have some stern words for them?
deleted by creator
Excited to see a single no vote, yet again.
