UN Security Council resolution calls for Gaza ceasefire
bbc.co.uk
UN Security Council passes resolution calling for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza, as US shifts position by abstaining from vote
You are viewing a single comment
UN Security Council passes resolution calling for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza, as US shifts position by abstaining from vote
Passed. US Abstaining with no veto. BTW it also calls for immediate and unconditional release of hostages.
This is a pretty big shift for the US, and it means the pressure is finally starting to really register with Biden. If the "uncommited" results in the Michigan primary were enough to get his attention, recent polling that puts him 8 points behind Trump likely changed the debate for the foreseeable future.
Biden is playing diplomatic chess. Netanyahu warned the US before the vote that Israel would not participate in a meeting if the US didn't use its veto. So, now the US didn't. BTW, Hamas launched rockets at Ashdod right before the Security Council voted confirming its status as an equal fighting party in the war before a ceasefire.
What you mean to tell me geopolitical diplomacy is more complicated and delicate than the people screaming "genocide Joe" think it is???? Shocking.
No. It means enough people screaming genocide Joe loudly enough had a small but tangible impact on American foreign policy.
So you're unironically arguing that geopolitical diplomacy IS actually simple? Really?
I recommend you read the second sentence that you declined to quote.
That sentence isn't relevant though is it?
Do you think geopolitics is that simple or nah?
Of course the sentence is relevant. I'm not sure why I should bother writing a reply to you when you apparently stop reading them after the first word. Have a good day.
JFC you aren't even denying it. you guys actually unironically believe it's that simple.
Selective reading makes you look ridiculous.
It's not selective reading. If I make a statement and you say "No" that mea s you're refuting that statement.
Then their second sentence had nothing to do with wether they think these politics are simple or not, hence why I didn't quit it.
The OP is just using bad faith arguments to distracts from that. Which is why they don't even attempt to deny it and just criticise the fact I didn't quote their entire comment instead of responding.
No, you didn't read it properly, and I'd say you're arguing in bad faith or you just cannot read properly as everyone else seems to have done just fine. Ignoring so much of their comment then their intention afterwards makes you look silly. You are wrong, your understanding is wrong.
Do you suppose that Bibi believes there are ramifications for going into Rafah now?
So you're saying that Biden had another motivation here: telling Netanyahu, "the US ain't nobody's bitch, and you don't tell me what to do."
Multiple polls had Biden ahead of Trump before this happened too.
Not in Michigan.
I said elsewhere, "just in time for November." Didn't be fooled.
Don't be fooled by what?
My country is coward.
Which one and why?
USA because it took this many decades to merely abstain and and not veto.
They've been vetoing, the proper action would have been to vote to pass.
Abstaining has exactly the same effect.
Sends a different message though.
The best time to abstain would have been decades ago, but the second-best time is now. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good; this was a good choice.
Edit: The downvotes are hard to interpret. Do people think the US abstaining (and thus allowing the resolution to pass) was not a good choice?
Abstention is, by definition, the refusal to make a choice. And if you are not against oppression, then you favor the status quo.
That's not how it actually works, though. They knew that by not opposing it would result in the measure passing. Choosing to abstain is a choice.
No such thing as neutrality on a moving train. Don't be dense.
I'm not saying there is. Obviously not.
To be absolutely clear for those who for some reason still aren't understanding it at this point, choosing to abstain from voting on this resolution was the same as voting to support it. The US could have blocked this resolution and instead decided "no, we'll let this one through." Given that they could have blocked it but made a conscious decision not to block it, knowing that by not blocking it the resolution would pass, that was a decision in favor of this resolution.
What do people think I am saying, if not that?
Voting for it would have been "voting to support it," that must make sense to you, yeah?
Do you understand the political mess involved in the ties between USA and Israel? There's multiple factions whose support is conditional on WH supporting Israel. Biden isn't just negotiating with Netanyahu, he's negotiating with the rest of his own party and donors. He wouldn't be able to vote for in UN without consequences, like political factions and donors moving to R instead.
They chose a course of action that allowed the right thing to happen.
As I said above, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.