Evan Prodromou
I am so deeply saddened to see this opportunity to save lives passed over.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144562
I do not see an explanation of the reasoning for why a condemnation of the Hamas attacks was not included. If that was the sticking point for the US and UK, why would they leave it out?
Evan Prodromou
@nus If it's the sticking point on a resolution to call for a ceasefire, it seems like a counterproductive thing to cling to.
nus
@evan saying "I condemn Hamas" has become an empty gesture at this point because anyone who says they want to hear it, won't listen
Evan Prodromou
Also, I can't understand why anyone would say that a ceasefire would "only help Hamas".
I don't know if it would help Hamas. But it would definitely help the 1.8M internally displaced Palestinians, without access to food, water, shelter, or medical supplies.
A ceasefire would almost definitely hinge on the return of the hostages. So it would help them and their families, too.
Tim Bray
@evan Well, hostage negotiations have broken down and I doubt Hamas has any interest in returning hostages who are in the military unless they get a huge payback, which Bibi won’t want to do.
But, there should be a ceasefire ANYHOW to stop the slaughter of the innocents, fuck all the other issues.
<obligatory>Hamas are scum who deserve to die.</obligatory>
GNU Too
n8 Doesn't follow you 🇺🇦
@evan Well, that link is a press release (despite the hostname); one would not expect a press release to make attempts to present the set of differing viewpoints or to explore the background/rationale/contexts of parties who are in disagreement.
As a press release, it's actually not bad at all. But it's not reportage.
Evan Prodromou
@n8 oh, absolutely. If you've seen some more detailed coverage, I would appreciate it.
The only explanation I can see is that the US came in knowing it would veto, and it was going to pick something in the resolution to critique.
n8 Doesn't follow you 🇺🇦
@evan There were some comments on news podcasts from Robert Wood about the US rationale; the council and the wording of the resolution not (1) condemning the Hamas attack and (2) not affirming Israel's right to defend itself. I found this print link in the news feeds: https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-12-08/un-chief-and-many-nations-demand-immediate-humanitarian-cease-fire-in-gaza-but-us-remains-opposed which seems to be the same comments, plus this about the UK abstaining: https://news.sky.com/story/israel-hamas-war-un-security-council-resolution-to-demand-ceasefire-in-gaza-fails-13025836
The latter implies that the resolution had details in it ("the proposal") which might be relevant. ?
n8 Doesn't follow you 🇺🇦
@evan Obviously the specific-wording complaints could be a cover; if a resolution condemning both parties was put forward, would the US and UK have voted for it? Dunno. But it does sound like the wording included condemnation of IDF, rather than just calling for a truce, so maybe that's a real red line?
Also you gotta suspect all the other SC members knew beforehand that the US would use its veto; the resolution wasn't a surprise. Probably the point was more to apply big pressure in public.
Evan Prodromou
@n8 yes, the reasons for the US veto were stated in the live blog I linked. The reason I'm looking for is: if those were demands of the US why weren't they put in the proposal? The Secretary General condemned the attacks in his opening remarks, as did other members. The right to self defense is part of the UN Charter. These seem like relatively uncontroversial additions, or at least worth getting a resolution through.
n8 Doesn't follow you 🇺🇦
@evan
I also definitely heard a longer news story last month about how Hamas (and the broader Israel/Palestinian conflict) is viewed differently between the governments and populations of the gulf region, which talked about those regional governments taking public stances that are more, say, absolutist than their policies are, which seems relevant in retrospect as well, but so far I haven't been able to locate it again 😕....
Evan Prodromou
@n8 so, maybe that was it. The US asked for a change to denounce the Hamas attacks, and the UAE wouldn't do it. It seems like a historic mistake on both sides.
n8 Doesn't follow you 🇺🇦
@evan Ah; good clarification, thanks. Several things I read said that UAE had sponsored the resolution. I've never heard anything about how that works procedurally (now or previously), in drafting or in amendments, but if it was authored by UAE, it doesn't sound surprising that they would refuse/decline altering the wording that way, at least not to me.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.