The article refers to Article 51 of the UN charter, which I quoted. You don't seem to think it matters. To member nations of the UN it matters very much. Why wasn't article 51 included? Because it is a right denied by those that wrote theproposal.
I get what you’re saying now. And I think it wasn’t included because the resolution deals with humanitarian aid not _self defense _ . The fact that it wasn’t included is just an excuse for the US to vote no. Why didn’t the US introduce a new resolution with that language included? Because it gives them plausible deniability.
It doesn't work that way. You can't ask for a pause once Article 51 is invoked, and it was. It's not up to the US to write proper declarations for others. I don't see them denying anything, they in essence vetoed it.
Your crybully appeals to procedure are deeply unserious. The US have obviously vetoed a humanitarian measure intended to help over a million civilians.
I know that's what you want to promote, but that's not what the ambassador said.
What I'm "promoting" is the analysis provided by top humanitarian organisations:
'"Once again the U.S. cynically used their veto to prevent the U.N. Security Council from acting on Israel and Palestine at a time of unprecedented carnage," said Human Rights Watch'
What you are promoting is pure spin. You cannot possibly be so naive, so you must be deliberately obtuse.
Rather than your spin, I actually read the article. Saw what was quoted, pointing out what it meant.
@TokenBoomer I agree with this. As well as being a bit off topic, quoting chapter and verse of the UN charter in every resolution would be redundant.
It's already in the charter.
It's not normally a requisite for resolutions and making it an excuse not to sign seems disingenuous to me.
The article refers to Article 51 of the UN charter, which I quoted. You don't seem to think it matters. To member nations of the UN it matters very much. Why wasn't article 51 included? Because it is a right denied by those that wrote theproposal.
I get what you’re saying now. And I think it wasn’t included because the resolution deals with humanitarian aid not _self defense _ . The fact that it wasn’t included is just an excuse for the US to vote no. Why didn’t the US introduce a new resolution with that language included? Because it gives them plausible deniability.
It doesn't work that way. You can't ask for a pause once Article 51 is invoked, and it was. It's not up to the US to write proper declarations for others. I don't see them denying anything, they in essence vetoed it.
Your crybully appeals to procedure are deeply unserious. The US have obviously vetoed a humanitarian measure intended to help over a million civilians.
I know that's what you want to promote, but that's not what the ambassador said.
What I'm "promoting" is the analysis provided by top humanitarian organisations:
'"Once again the U.S. cynically used their veto to prevent the U.N. Security Council from acting on Israel and Palestine at a time of unprecedented carnage," said Human Rights Watch'
What you are promoting is pure spin. You cannot possibly be so naive, so you must be deliberately obtuse.
Rather than your spin, I actually read the article. Saw what was quoted, pointing out what it meant.
@TokenBoomer I agree with this. As well as being a bit off topic, quoting chapter and verse of the UN charter in every resolution would be redundant.
It's already in the charter.
It's not normally a requisite for resolutions and making it an excuse not to sign seems disingenuous to me.