cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/6327031
World leaders, international rights groups and United Nations officials have criticised the United States for vetoing a UN resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and failing to halt the war that has killed more than 17,400 Palestinians and about 1,100 people in Israel since October 7.
A UN resolution on the pause in hostilities failed to pass on Friday at the UN Security Council after the United States vetoed the proposal and Britain abstained.
The remaining 13 of the 15 current members of the UNSC voted in favour of the resolution put forward by the United Arab Emirates and co-sponsored by 100 other countries.
Here are some of the reactions:
Palestine
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the US’s veto made it “complicit” in war crimes in Gaza. “The president has described the American position as aggressive and immoral, a flagrant violation of all humanitarian principles and values, and holds the United States responsible for the bloodshed of Palestinian children, women and elderly people in the Gaza Strip,” a statement from his office said.
Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said the veto was “a disgrace and another blank cheque given to the occupying state to massacre, destroy and displace”.
Palestine’s UN envoy Riyad Mansour told the UNSC that the result of the vote was “disastrous”. “If you are against the destruction and displacement of the Palestinian people you must stand against this war. And if you support it then you are enabling this destruction and displacement regardless of your intentions … Millions of Palestinian lives hang in the balance. Every single one of them is sacred, worth saving.”
Hamas strongly condemned the US veto, saying it considers Washington’s move “unethical and inhumane”. “The US obstruction of the issuance of a ceasefire resolution is a direct participation with the occupation in killing our people and committing more massacres and ethnic cleansing,” Izzat al-Risheq, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, said in a statement.
. . .
Israel is finishing a war they did not start. Violence progressed to the terrorist attack but it didn't start there. Do you really expect them to accept going back to the status quo that was progressively getting worse? That was the result of the last three conflicts.
All anyone who's been involved in an urban conflict. This is what it looks like. There is literally no way around it outside of blockading and starving the people for longer. If you know of a better way to take a defended city, you are literally lying.
I do not envy the Israeli position here. They have no good moves that would be acceptable for the people in this forum and actually protect their people. The terror attack was the proof that restraint didn't do anything and narratives concerning the prior conflicts simply showed that you don't actually care.
This is comical because Israel is the attacker, and has been for its entire existence. Their goal is to conquer and ethnically cleanse more territory in order to create an enthnostate.
Hamas only exists as a reaction to israeli colonialism. That's litterally the only reason for their existence.
So, to be precise:
Maybe not in the narrow sense, but the colonial efforts of Israel are responsible for the broader conflict lasting since the 50's, which the current conflict is a chapter of.
It's not necessary for Israel to conquer Gaza. It would be enough to just not expand their territory and respect human rights and international law, which they never did at any point in 70 years, leading to the current situation where there are no good options anymore.
The terror attack is a consequence of lack of restraint. (i wouldn't normally word it like that, i'm just using the same words for rhetoric effect)
I think they're talking about this particular round, that started with the Hamas attack.
For the overall conflict, you can go back a century easy and even more, depending on how you interpret the conflict.
Yeah, but the further back you go the less useful it becomes. If you look before Israel you find the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Roman Empire; two of these don't exist anymore and the last doesn't really exist anymore.
The choice of which time range to include isn't that arbitrary, there are pretty significant markers that make the previous state of things a lot less relevant. When studying french politics, it's not useful to go back further than the 1789 revolution because that event changed so much that the previous reality doesn't matter anymore; similarly, the foundation of Israel changed the power dynamics in the area significantly enough that you can start there. Remembering the previous events is useful for context but won't change the conclusion.
The way they have been treating the Palestinians, that is a hard disagree right there.