UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States vetoed a United Nations resolution Friday backed by almost all other Security Council members and many other nations demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaz…
~70%of Americans want a cease fire. Another nail in the democracy coffin. Same thing in Canada less the veto. Our governments are beating to a different drum that is not the voice of the people they supposedly represent.
Correction. 70% of people no doubt prefer, in a very abstract way, that Israelis and Palestinians weren't killing each other. Because innocent civilians dying is bad. But 99% of people don't "want" a ceasefire if it involves even the slightest amount of effort or concession or cost on their part, nor do they want to dive into the complexities of the Middle East. The quality of that "want" is very, very low. It is more of an abstract preference, really.
Where did you get that 90% figure. Not going to disagree though as it is likely correct but the reality is it is already costing Americans money to not have a ceasefire so unsure your point.
There are lots and lots of polls about Americans wanting a cease fire which range in % but all around 70%. +- 10.
Where are you getting this 70% number from? Did they do a national vote on the topic? Or maybe it's just a pulling number you read somewhere and now parrot without source.
Hardly a nail in any coffin. This is exactly how representative democracy works. You vote for someone to represent you in the government. Those someone's collaborate to the best of their ability to make policies and decisions. Don't like their policies and decisions. Vote for someone else.
This is the important point. The "see your leaders didn't do perfectly so you should ditch them" is usually followed by "for right-wingers whom you will not need to question because shut up", and I am really worried when people so quickly give up "passable" solutions for horrible alternatives -- and while our governments are effectively two-party systems, the cruel far-right alternatives are usually the only option.
But why though? This is literally the only thing that the GOP and democrats agree on and it's a totally dysfunctional level of allegiance to Israel above any other nation. It doesn't make sense. Bibi is a total douche and they are clearly committing war crimes over there. Hamas sucks but should we really be standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel on this one?
Nationally, currently yes. But not completely. Granted they are trying to smear and attack every Democrat that has. But I think Talib and others. Are relatively safe at their local level.
Not supporting Israel goes against every profit incentive that the oil, military, and other megacorporations have. EU may not like to say it as openly, but they want this to continue too.
Human lives don't matter in the face of capitalist profit after all.
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone when people talk about this issue, like people watching all of this and still defending Israel are all living on another fucking planet. Some literally 1984 "war is peace/we've always been at war with East Asia" shit.
Remember all the countries that voted yes population and all these in the US and UK who don't agree with theirs government feel the same.
This is clearly a small interest group that own the US government and UK government and their military and these two will do anything to support thir interests regardless of what people want. It is a dictatorship but instead of one ruler you have a few rich people and companies...
Actual question: why in the fuck can the US veto actions by the UN? Can other countries veto as well? Or is it only the US that can do that with the implied threat we’d swing our militaristic dick around or something?
EDIT: Thank y’all for replying and informing me and any other readers about why this is a thing. You guys are da real MVPs 👊
Yes, the other countries are China, France, Russia and the UK. These are the Security Counsel states of the UN, seen by many as a peace-keeping organization.
Wikipedia notes that
They also happen to be the nuclear-weapon states (NWS) under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Also on a completely unrelated note, here is the list of the top 5 arms dealers:
For anyone else wondering "why did the US veto it?" rather than jumping to an emotional reaction, the article explains the US's position:
U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood called the resolution “imbalanced” and criticized the council after the vote for its failure to condemn Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel in which the militants killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, or to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend itself. He declared that halting military action would allow Hamas to continue to rule Gaza and “only plant the seeds for the next war.”
“Hamas has no desire to see a durable peace, to see a two-state solution,” Wood said before the vote. “For that reason, while the United States strongly supports a durable peace, in which both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security, we do not support calls for an immediate cease-fire.”
"We will not be supporting a call for a full cease fire as it would allow the democratically elected government currently in charge to continue to be in charge, potentially jeopardizing the future peace"
Putting aside the fact that I don't think Hamas would win an election today (if they'd allow one), how is Israel not just as likely to break this "durable peace".
Calling for an end to violence on an immediate basis and being upset when your own government is again going against the will of it's citizens, choosing to back a military that's vastly superior to their enemies and barely even whispering a comment on the brutality they're committing on the civilian population of their adversary, isn't jumping to an emotional reaction because we all already figured that was the reason anyway
We will not be supporting a call for a full cease fire as it would allow the democratically elected government currently in charge to continue to be in charge
Putting aside the fact that I don’t think Hamas would win an election today (if they’d allow one)
You really wrote this out and thought it made sense.
US gas a long history of single-handedly bullying entire UN with their veto power.
Many of the US's vetos would've been voted against by other countries and/or vetoed by France/UK if the US weren't there. The US is a convient country to take the fall.