- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
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
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.
deleted by creator
You don’t think that realizing he was pissing off his base, during an election year, has any impact on his choices?
Considering those people are not going to vote Trump over this, or probably any issue, I don’t think he cares, no.
But they may stay home, which is just as bad.
You say that but I think there’s a sizable number that already are voting for Trump
Certainly not, but he definitely cares about the 100,000 people that voted uncommitted in Michigan and the littany of polls that show a majority of Democratic and young voters not supporting current US foreign policy.
The uncommitted movement got 100K votes Michigan, and within days the Biden administration started a complete 180 on Israel. It’s more than a few Twitter users and he clearly cares very deeply.
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.
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 removed, 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?