Edit: It looks like the argument here is that the US is not calling for an instant ceasefire, but instead saying that one is very important to have. China and Russia say it should be immediate. The US also tied it to hostage talks.
Another resolution is in the works to call for an immediate ceasefire, but the US is expected to veto it because they believe it could endanger hostage talks.
America posturing by submitting Israel’s demand for a 6 week ceasefire in exchange for all hostages and then continuing their Genocide. Fuck Biden.
Let’s not forget the real story.
The United States had vetoed three previous resolutions demanding a stop to fighting in Gaza, arguing that the measures could disrupt hostage negotiations and staunchly defending Israel’s right to defend itself after the Hamas-led attack of Oct. 7. In each of those earlier Security Council votes, the United States was the only vote against the resolutions. Russia and Britain abstained from the first vote, in October, and Britain abstained from the votes in December and February.
New video by Democracy Now on this facade: https://youtu.be/Ggpc9QHc_vk
The US has veto’d 4 permanent ceasefire voting sessions in the UN so far.
Wow. According to the video this isn’t even a security council ceasefire call.
This is just an acknowledgement of the importance of a cease-fire. It’s a giant nothing burger.
Edit: interesting comment from ex UN member Craig Mokhaiber:
A draft that does not demand an immediate ceasefire, but instead suggests one might be negotiated if certain conditions are met, and that genocidal attacks can otherwise continue, is not a ceasefire resolution. It is a ransom note.
Not quite, it looks like the US resolution just calls for the importance of a ceasefire, and Russia/China are saying there should be an immediate ceasefire.
No, in the article it states the US resolution called for an “immediate” cease fire as well.
It looks the disagreement is over the word “sustained cease fire” vs “permanent cease fire.” The US resolution also calls for release of the hostages as a part of the ceasefire, whereas in the other version the hostages are not linked to the cease fire.
So I want to be upfront and say I don’t really agree with their argument, but I do understand it. What Russia and China are saying is by tying the ceasefire to the release of hostages is unfair to the Palestinian side. This is because they lose all leverage and then would be easy targets for Israel who doesn’t seem to mind bombing Palestinian civilians.
My issue is that technically the only reason their bombing is because of the hostages and perhaps if they release the hostages peace talks can begin. The opposite of that argument is it will allow Israel to be even more aggressive after the temporary cease fire is ended.
I don’t know, but that’s the argument.
They’re right, though. The proposed resolution put a ceasefire wholly contingent on Hamas giving up their only bargaining chip (hostages) instead of outright calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Had it passed, Hamas would have simply ignored it and Israel would have felt justified in continuing its murderous ethnic cleansing campaign.
You still fail to call HAMAS for what they are while arguing in defense for them. Why is it so hard? HAMAS are terrorists that rape and murder innocent people. There. Should not be too hard to agree with that, right?
I find it incomprehensible that anyone could justify the holding of innocent hostages.
Indeed. israel should release the 3000 hostages of which more than 140 children which they are torturing in their concentration camps.
Indeed they should. Which is why the resolution includes demanding the release of hostages held by Hamas and Israel.
It’s disgusting. Goes to show they don’t actually care about Palestinians and probably don’t even think this is a genocide.
I mean, if they genuinely cared or thought this was a genocide, why are they now defending China and Russia blocking an immediate ceasefire that would at least temporarily stop Palestinian suffering?
How entirely predictable that the same kind of people who make excuses for Russia’s role in the genocide in Darfur, Russia’s role in Syria, Russian war crimes in Ukraine, and China’s treatment of the Uyghurs, care more about scoring points against the US than ending the war in Gaza.
I mean, if they genuinely cared or thought this was a genocide, why are they now defending China and Russia blocking an immediate ceasefire that would at least temporarily stop Palestinian suffering?
Because freeing the hostages for a 6-week ceasefire would be effectively approving Israel’s planned attack of Rafah. They literally say that. There’s a reason Hamas has been rejecting this same deal over and over again.
I think you are confusing formal argument with actual reason. For Russia, there more turmoil is in Middle East, the less attention on Ukrainian war. China real reasons are more nuanced and is a combination of being US antagonist, supporting Russia and having something to distract US from Taiwan issue.
Israel’s also an important weapons manufacturer and importer.
If the deal Israel has with the US explodes, China would be more than happy to fill that void. Sell them some more weapons, import some fancy missile tech, etc. Their current stance belies years of cooperation, including weapons deals. Something the US was pressuring them on. (I say current stance, but they just blocked a cease fire, so it may be that they’re already making the pivot).
Not as if they actually give a shit about human rights of Gazans, despite the propaganda.
In international politics morality always comes second to real politik. There are no good guys.
No, I’m only stating their formal argument to the best of my ability to explain it and ignoring speculation. Now, if I WERE to speculate, I’d say what you’re saying is probably closer to the truth. For Russia at least I’m almost 100% certain that’s the reason. China is very different. I’d argue that China’s stance has nothing to do with Russia, USA or Taiwan. There’s this weird myopia when it comes to China and their interests. China’s interests span far greater than those three little pieces of land.
No, for China I’d argue we’d first need to ask who is their audience for this. That answer is the other nations in the middle east. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, etc… China has been trying to formulate a narrative that they are friends to Muslims regardless of the accusations of what they are doing in XinJiang. So, it’s almost certain China’s stance comes from conversations with those nations. So technically they are telling the truth in the sense that their saying what others are telling them. Reality is it’s just to win favor over the oil producing nations so they have stable supplies of energy.
*Edit. Essentially what I think China is saying to the middle eastern world is you have a veto with me, the same way India has with Russia.
Are those Muslim countries you mentioned against the cease-fire proposal?
I can understand it but treating the hostages as merely bargaining chips ignores that they are innocent civilians caught in this idiotic conflict through no fault of their own. Hamas has no right to use the hostages as a tool to protect themselves.
The real issue with this ceasefire is that linking the ceasefire to the release of the hostages tacitly endorses continued atrocities by IDF if and when the demand for release is ignored.
treating the hostages as merely bargaining chips ignores that they are innocent civilians caught in this idiotic conflict through no fault of their own.
The way I see it if we look at Hamas side - That’s the only bargaining chips that Hamas has. They’ve got nothing else, nil. Hamas is very dependent on the hostages and they know they would receive greater retaliation from the Israeli after the Oct 7 attack if they didn’t have any hostages. During the attack, the strategy is basically two prongs - get rid of the soldiers, and get as many hostages alive so we can still survive (yes, some hostages did get killed during the real due to some reasons such as miscommunication during the execution of their operations by separate fringe parties). For that very reason, they try to keep the hostages alive because the moment they lost their hostages without any meaningful peace deal, they are basically done.
Like I said, I understand the reasoning but it’s not morally acceptable. And I think it’s important to point that out.
Like it might be rational for a death row inmate to steal a nuclear bomb and demand a pardon by threatening to blow up a city.
But there is still a moral case that it is wrong to do so.
I can understand it but treating the hostages as merely bargaining chips ignores that they are innocent civilians caught in this idiotic conflict through no fault of their own. Hamas has no right to use the hostages as a tool to protect themselves.
They have the right to use the hostages to protect Gazans. Don’t blame the player, blame the game.
This is a slightly more interesting moral argument but I think in general I would have to disagree. Particularly because it doesn’t seem like the hostages have done much if anything to blunt Israel’s aggression.
Israel is bombing to exterminate the Palestinians so they can claim all the land. It’s pure genocide.
I think y’all are missing the elephant in the room here. This is a resolution that demands Hamas hand over all their hostages for a temporary ceasefire, with no mention of the 3000+ hostages Israel still holds.
My issue is that technically the only reason their bombing is because of the hostages and perhaps if they release the hostages peace talks can begin.
This might work somewhere else, but not with Israel. Hamas isn’t good, but they’re for better or worse one of the organizations with the most experience at negotiating with Israel and getting actual results (small as they may be). And Hamas knows there’s no way in hell Israel would just quietly leave after being handed over all the Palestinian side’s leverage when they’ve been very clear they want to re"settle" Gaza and rule it like (or worse than) they rule the West Bank.
BTW I’m relying on reporting so if anyone can find the whole thing please link it.
Removed, rule 5, if you’re going to disagree, don’t accuse the other user of supporting rape and murder.
Maybe they demand permanent instead of “sustained”
