322
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

The text, co-sponsored by Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia – collectively known as the E-10 – received 14 votes in favour, with the US casting the lone vote against.

As one of the council’s five permanent members, the US holds veto power – a negative vote that automatically blocks any resolution from going forward.

Had it been adopted, the draft would have demanded “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza” to be respected by all parties.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago

Thought exercise: the US government has greatly enabled the Gaza genocide. If another 9/11 happened in the US and it was attributed to Palestinians, would anyone feel like we weren't all reaping exactly what we've sown? Or that it was at all unfair? I cant imagine newscasters would be analyzing "why did they attack us?"

[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago

Would anyone feel like we weren’t all reaping exactly what we’ve sown? Or that it was at all unfair? I cant imagine newscasters would be analyzing “why did they attack us?”

Are you being coy? I would bet my life savings that the majority of Americans would feel unjustly attacked, that it was unfair, and every news station would be drumming up support for a military conflict. Pro-Gaza support in the US would disappear overnight (either silenced or fear of being silenced), Pro-Israel support would multiply, and the US would be flying drones down Gaza and the West Bank.

Remember that when 9/11 happened the US had been meddling in the Middle East for well over a decade already and had meddled with the Israel-Palestine conflict plenty. When 9/11 happened a majority of the world jumped on the side of the US. It's possible that if another attack occurred it wouldn't play out the same way (most likely because of Trump), but my guess is that it would.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That's what people said about 9/11 before 9/11 happened

I recommend reading Blowback. The author had to adjust the forward to say "I told you so" after 9/11 happened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#Blowback:_The_Costs_and_Consequences_of_American_Empire

this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
322 points (98.8% liked)

politics

24228 readers
3575 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS