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
UN Security Council passes resolution calling for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza, as US shifts position by abstaining from vote
So the months of coordinated efforts to by activists to disrupt Democratic meetings, harass Democratic politicians, chant genocide Joe, vote uncommitted in primaries, block traffic, support BDS efforts etc. was actually an effective method of protest that had a small but meaningful effect in changing foreign policy?
The methods of protest the state wants us to think are successful and the methods that can actually succeed are usually not the same. Please take note.
And will they reward Biden for listening or reinforce the idea that there's no point trying to please the progressive left by finding some other reason to get upset and not vote?
I think there's two sides to this. Criticizers shouldn't suddenly fall in line because we've made progress, but they also shouldn't pretend that nothing's happened.
The right answer is to give credit to Biden for listening this much, and continue to push for more. I agree though that overall, this action should earn him more progressive votes -- just not all of them, and not with all criticism disappearing.
2016 called
I don't think the progressive left is why Hillary lost. Certainly, people choosing not to vote because she was centrist had an impact, but I don't think there were really enough "Bernie or bust" folks to be solely responsible. You actually had a higher percentage of Bernie voters going for Hillary in 2016 than you did Hilary voters going for Obama in 2008.
You had like five different factors and a pretty tight final margin. No one factor was responsible. Comey's letter, Hilary being center, Russian meddling, online misinformation -- all of it is partially but not wholly responsible.
We told you she wouldn't win. We're telling you Biden won't win.
Either the libs open their damn eyes, or enjoy the dumbass orange fuhrer for the considerable future...
Ah, you must be a "progressive" who cares more about being right and owning the libs than actually advancing a progressive agenda. I much prefer prioritizing progressive goals and making progress towards them. This UN resolution is a step, and Netanyahu's petulant reaction to it only makes it more likely that we take more right steps in the future. I'll continue to celebrate those and hope Biden moves in the right direction, instead of scoffing about "how I was right" in 2016.
And for that matter, I seem to recall a lot of "progressives" saying Biden would lose in 2020 and Democrats would be destroyed in 2022 -- yet, i don't see you mentioning those predictions. You've only got 1 out of 3 right there. I'm sure however in 2026, regardless of how this year goes, you'll still mention how you were right about 2016, won't you?
Hillary still got the popular vote, it's gerrymandering and voter suppression bullshit that caused the loss more than anything
Yeah, but Sanders wouldn't win either.
He couldn't even beat Hillary Clinton.
If it wasn't for the undemocratic caucuses, he would have lost earlier.
And before someone says it, it wasn't "rigged". Sanders lost by millions of votes.
The electorate isn't as progressive as the echo chambers on Lemmy and Reddit are.
Just have your passport ready if you've decided to bury your head in the sand mate.
Not stabbing someone is better than stabbing them half way through and calling it a balanced view
Worthy and unworthy voters...
There's a flip side to the politics: criticism from the right-wing pro-Israel faction is quieter than usual because a separate group of anti-semites have gained power in the Republican party.
Normally, Biden wouldn't have much incentive listen much to the far left, but right now he's not paying much in costs from the other side.
Normally Biden wouldn't have much incentive to listen to millions of his voters during an election year?
DC brainrot has entered the chat.
No, he really doesn't, because of winner takes all elections and the two party system. The Nash equilibrium is for both major party candidates to align their platforms right on the 50% median voter. This maximizes the votes for both of them.
In this specific upcoming general election, Biden's base voters have nowhere to go to except the Cheeto fascist. Not much reason to cater to their policy preferences--they don't have a real choice. That's been reflected in the chatter on Lemmy as well.
You understand there is no such thing as a median voter. They are only issues and most voters have one or two issues they won't compromise on. Biden is alienating younger and Muslim voters. If Biden was converting 1+ Trump voter for every voter he loses, you might have a point. But there is no evidence he is netting votes from this. That makes no sense in an election that's fighting against authoritarianism.
Why can't we agree Biden that needs to go all out to win this thing?
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.
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.
Everyone who ridiculed the Uncommitted movement is real quiet now.
Most people I saw on here were critical of being uncommitted towards the general election and don't care about being uncommitted during the primary. Several states don't even hold a primary for the party if they are currently holding office.
To add to that, they mostly agreed that Trump would tell Israel to finish the job, and they were right, that is what he ended up saying. Voting against Biden would in fact doom Gaza to genocide.
The anti-left hasn't gone quiet, just shifting tactics and terminology.
Note how casually "progressive" is being used negatively, and not just here.
UN source: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147931
Timeline of discussion in link.
From the UN Summery:
But what about the Hamas that's hiding behind all the Humans, and not to mention the beheaded babies. Isn't it a bit too early for a ceasefire, since Israel hasn't gotten its vengeance?
Oh wait... it's elections year. Got it!
/s obviously
Hamas is more powerful than israel since even they invoke it for their own crimes.
They're at like 100kda right now, I highly doubt there are any shits given now that they're all dead..
You pulled that number straight out of your ass, didn't you? Even the Hamas controlled health authority isn't reporting a death toll that high.
Glad to see they finally reworded without all of the fuckery the previous one had.
End this bullshit.
The United States actually let it happen. This would've been a hard veto otherwise.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
UN Security Council passes resolution calling for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza, as US shifts position by abstaining from vote
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App.
You can also follow @BBCBreaking on Twitter to get the latest alerts.
The original article contains 69 words, the summary contains 69 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
So the ceasefire is only for two weeks. No wonder the US abstained.
Edit: the ceasefire is for the rest of Ramadan, the rest of Ramadan is about two weeks.
Meaning you genuinely think they'd have voted for it if it were....longer?
Absolutely not. That's why when i heard the US abstained i had to double check why, and predictably it was because of the length of the ceasefire.
Also, demanding the change of language from 'permanent' ceasefire to 'sustained' ceasefire was scummy and probably also part of the reason why they abstained and let the vote pass.
Nah man, the previous one gave Israel/USA impunity to "finish the war"
This one actually counts as a ceasefire, hence their vote.
Oh, i think i see what you mean? Yes, the fact that it does count as an actual ceasefire is a good thing.
Sorry if I'm not understanding, english isn't my first language.
Zhang Jun, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of China to the UN, thanked the E-10 Council members for their efforts on the draft.
Noting that his country’s negative vote on the US-led draft resolution last Friday, he stated that a comparison of the two drafts showed the differences:
“The current draft is unequivocal and correct in its direction, demanding an immediate ceasefire, while the previous one was evasive and ambiguous,” he said, adding that the present resolution also reflected the general expectations of the international community and enjoyed the collective support of Arab nations.
Ah i see what you mean, thanks for the clarification. Yes, i agree with you there on why they voted the way they did.
Great. Has Hamas released the hostages yet?
Has Israel stopped colonizing Palestine?
You should ask your nearest Hamas representative that question: Benjamin Netanyahu
What's the point israel would have bombed them indiscriminately anyway? Apparently killing tens of thousands of palestinians is justified for 1500 hostages.