politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The reason is right there in the article, but glossed over. Th US UN Ambassador complained of no inclusion of Israel's right to defense. This is a reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter which reads:
Basic stuff.
Obviously, all those other countries can’t read and didn’t know what they were voting on. Was it all an elaborate plan to make the US look bad on the world stage? Or maybe America just throws it’s weight around and does what it wants. Then, justifies it after the fact. Kind of like your comment. Basic stuff.
Obviously every country deserves the rights in the UN Charter except for Israel is closer to what you mean.
The bombing and forced migration of a captive civilian population is not self defense. It is the textbook definition of genocide.
How would you deal with Hamas? I know what you don't want to do, but what would you do given Hamas uses human shields. Would you try to get those shields to move?
Maybe improve the the material conditions of the average Palestinian with an influx of money to make Hamas obsolete?
This will not stop Hamas or Israel
The other option is if one side becomes extinct.
It’s the only thing that will stop both.
War is immenat. Promises are dependant on long term goals.
If Blackrock went into Gaza and invested into a bank for the people of Palestine. This war would end real quick.
Dreams are just that
You sound like you actively want war
I actively understand reality
Keep telling yourself that! Youd take the word of a US diplomat over the combined voices of the rest of the international community. You must understand very little indeed
The rest of the international community ...
I would understand that Hamas is a symptom of the repression and poverty of Palestinians, and endeavour towards a diplomatic two state solution.
That is the same as saying al Qaeda was a symbol of oppression. It's not true.
Hamas and al Qaeda are not equivalent. One is the democratically represented governent of a people. However unpalatable their motives, they must be taken seriously, because they are the only game in town. Ignoring them, as Israel and the Western governments have, will lead them resorting to violence to be heard.
Al Qaeda are fringe radicals committed to religious war. They will always choose violence, and there is no point negotiating with them.
Conflating the two is a mistake, rooted in ignorance.
Oh? And when was the last time Hamas was elected?
More often than Palestinians have been able to vote for the Israeli leadership, i.e. never.
"Khaled Mashaal, its leader, has publicly affirmed the movement's readiness to accept the borders of 1967. When Hamas won a majority in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Haniyeh, the then president-elect, sent messages both to George W. Bush and to Israel's leaders, asking to be recognized and offering a long-term truce (hudna), along the 1967 border lines. No response came."
"In November 2011, Hamas leader Khaled Mishal made an agreement with Mahmoud Abbas in Cairo, in which he committed to respecting the 1967 borders."
"In February 2012, according to the Palestinian authority, Hamas forswore the use of violence. Evidence for this was provided by an eruption of violence from Islamic Jihad in March 2012 after an Israeli assassination of a Jihad leader, during which Hamas refrained from attacking Israel. "Israel—despite its mantra that because Hamas is sovereign in Gaza it is responsible for what goes on there—almost seems to understand," wrote Israeli journalists Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, "and has not bombed Hamas offices or installations".
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)
Of course there should be more elections in Palestine. But there should be a Palestine first, something that Israel's actions are not facilitating.
In other words, Hamas has never been elected.
Don’t put words in my mouth and try to address the article in the post.
Then why not write the article into humanitarian pause proposal?
Don’t know what you mean, I didn’t write the article.
The article refers to Article 51 of the UN charter, which I quoted. You don't seem to think it matters. To member nations of the UN it matters very much. Why wasn't article 51 included? Because it is a right denied by those that wrote theproposal.
I get what you’re saying now. And I think it wasn’t included because the resolution deals with humanitarian aid not _self defense _ . The fact that it wasn’t included is just an excuse for the US to vote no. Why didn’t the US introduce a new resolution with that language included? Because it gives them plausible deniability.
It doesn't work that way. You can't ask for a pause once Article 51 is invoked, and it was. It's not up to the US to write proper declarations for others. I don't see them denying anything, they in essence vetoed it.
Your crybully appeals to procedure are deeply unserious. The US have obviously vetoed a humanitarian measure intended to help over a million civilians.
I know that's what you want to promote, but that's not what the ambassador said.
What I'm "promoting" is the analysis provided by top humanitarian organisations:
'"Once again the U.S. cynically used their veto to prevent the U.N. Security Council from acting on Israel and Palestine at a time of unprecedented carnage," said Human Rights Watch'
What you are promoting is pure spin. You cannot possibly be so naive, so you must be deliberately obtuse.
Rather than your spin, I actually read the article. Saw what was quoted, pointing out what it meant.
@TokenBoomer I agree with this. As well as being a bit off topic, quoting chapter and verse of the UN charter in every resolution would be redundant.
It's already in the charter.
It's not normally a requisite for resolutions and making it an excuse not to sign seems disingenuous to me.