The US does have its long track record of doing the wrong thing to uphold.
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
28 points (96.7% liked)
UK Politics
3071 readers
101 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
why do all the people who use concern for hamas as a reason to avoid a ceasefire never point out that netanyahu and likud are the reason hamas were funded and in power
Because it is absolutely devastating to their argument for wonton retaliation.
Why the fuck should somewhere as unstable as the US be allowed to veto EVERY OTHER COUNTRY in the UN?
Because nukes.
Calling the US unstable is a massive stretch. You might not like what the politics of the US are (or will be after the next election) but the world's largest economy can hardly be called unstable. Lord knows I wish they would do things differently (universal health care, banning guns, a rapid shift away from their politics of intolerance) but that's for them to work out.
And I think you know the real reason why they (and we) have the veto. Hint: it rhymes with bunny.
The UK's actual reason. Sunak - Infosys - BP - Gaza Marine Gas Field - £££
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Dozens of other nations had also expressed support for an urgent cessation of hostilities, leaving Washington diplomatically isolated on the international stage.
Article 99 allows Antonio Guterres to raise threats that he sees to international peace and security, and he warned of a "humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza".
America's veto prompted criticism, with the UAE's deputy ambassador asking: "What is the message we are sending to Palestinians if we cannot unite behind a call to halt the relentless bombardment of Gaza?"
Barbara Woodward, the UK's permanent representative to the UN, made similar remarks - adding: "Calling for a ceasefire ignores the fact that Hamas has committed acts of terror and is still holding civilians hostage."
She said the UK is "gravely concerned" about the situation in Gaza and warned the scale of civilian deaths cannot continue - but said "further and longer" humanitarian pauses are the solution so Israel can defend itself.
It is unjustifiable that Security Council members would veto a resolution calling for a halt to fighting when the humanitarian case for a ceasefire is so clear."
The original article contains 629 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Jesus USA get your shit together