this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
175 points (94.9% liked)

World News

39165 readers
2396 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
quinten@lemmy.world
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
175
Russia and China Veto U.S.-Led Cease-Fire Resolution at U.N. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 42 points 8 months ago (15 children)

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.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 41 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Israel is bombing to exterminate the Palestinians so they can claim all the land. It's pure genocide.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MxM111@kbin.social 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Are those Muslim countries you mentioned against the cease-fire proposal?

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Well we can only speculate, which is why I said IF I WERE TO SPECULATE. However, Algeria also vetoed, a primarily Muslim nation and Washington is calling them out as representing Arab nations.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/algeria-takes-seat-un-security-council#:~:text=Twenty%20years%20after%20its%20last,term%20that%20begins%20this%20month.

So there is evidence towards but I'm not seeing anything definitive. But again, that's the definition of speculation.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

Very much yes. The US's proposal was actually worse than nothing. There's a reason Hamas has been demanding a permanent ceasefire before they turn over any more hostages. There's also a reason Algeria voted no.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 11 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 months ago

technically the only reason their bombing is because of the hostages

That's not the reason, it's just the excuse

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] boyi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] boyi@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sadly that's the way things are done when their own survival are at stake. Emotion and moral are not much considered in (their) strategic decision making. People are just pawns on the chessboard.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The same can be said of Bibi and the IDF. They see Palestinians as 'vermin' that must be eradicated and not people who, according to the creation of Israel post-WW2 by the UN, have a right to live on the land as well.

Until Israel is forced to follow the UN's original intention and Hamas is completely dismantled, there will be no peace in the ME.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Let me add that there is a lot more shit hitting fans in the ME than just the Palestine-Israel conflict

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Until Israel is forced to follow the UN’s original intention and Hamas is completely dismantled, there will be no peace in the ME.

Why is only one of these getting dismantled?

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because I believe Israel should exist in conjunction with Palestinian lands.

Just my opinion.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Israel the modern state shouldn't exist, not at all. It's an Apartheid settler colonialist state and much more of a terrorist organization than Hamas. Now whether Palestine should be partitioned with one part given to Jews that's a different debate, but even then that should be a new state built from the ground up with an actually fair constitution and international supervision. I say even then because I believe one democratic state is a lot better than two states that are likely to go to war with each other and much more liable to become Apartheid states.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

They haven't, but we're not talking about now. We're talking about later when this mess dies down. The hostages are likely to make a difference in Gaza's post-war fate. And given the stakes (Israel has been pretty clear they want to re"settle" Gaza) I'd say while the hostages are victims and deserve better we can't blame Hamas for holding onto them.

Edit: The hostages are also likely to be involved in things like how much food and other goods Gazans are allowed through the blockade, trying to get Israel to not do random airstrikes and other such things.

[–] Kalysta@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Do we honestly think any of the hostages are still alive at this point? Gaza has already been reduced to a pile of rubble, and there is widespread starvation in Gaza already. And we know Israel shot three of the hostages a couple months back.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I find it incomprehensible that anyone could justify the holding of innocent hostages.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Agreed, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, including Children, have been taken hostage and tortured by Israels Military Courts

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Indeed. israel should release the 3000 hostages of which more than 140 children which they are torturing in their concentration camps.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Indeed they should. Which is why the resolution includes demanding the release of hostages held by Hamas and Israel.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

The urging of an “immediate” cease-fire was a shift from a draft Security Council resolution that the United States circulated last month, which had called for a temporary cease-fire “as soon as practicable.”

It's calling for a temporary ceasefire, similar to the temporary ceasefires Israel has called for. The US has veto'd the last three calling for a permanent ceasefire and release of hostages, similar to how Israel has rejected every permanent ceasefire and hostage release deal Hamas has called for for months.

Israel continues to prioritize the extended bombing and famine in Gaza over getting the hostages released.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

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

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

You're correct, it just outlines the importance of one

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

geee it's almost as if things changed from october 7th to now that could lead to the us changing their position.

[–] Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago

Maybe they demand permanent instead of “sustained”

load more comments
view more: next ›