US vetoes UN resolution calling for Gaza ceasefire | Semafor
www.semafor.com
The vote came a day after the U.S. Secretary of State issued his strongest criticism of Israel since the war started.

The U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council resolution Friday calling for a ceasefire to the fighting in Gaza.

The U.S. and Israel have opposed calls for a ceasefire, saying it would strengthen Hamas.

The vote was delayed for several hours over worries the U.S. would veto it. Diplomats from several Arab nations met with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to try to convince the U.S. to abstain from voting.

As a permanent member of the council, the U.S. has veto power, and had signaled it planned to block the resolution. The U.K. abstained from the vote, while the 13 other members of the council voted for it.

read more: https://www.semafor.com/article/12/08/2023/un-security-council-votes-on-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-amid-israel-hamas-conflict

  • Zorque@kbin.social
    185·
    1 year ago

    The Afghanistan pullout was planned during the Trump admin, mind you, Biden basically just didn’t back out of it. Not saying it wasn’t a good thing, but using it as a comparison against the administration that planned it is a bit disingenuous.

    And the comparison of drone strikes under Obama is as much a Trumpism as “Genocide Joe”, so using it as a defense against using Trumpisms is also disingenuous.

    Not saying Biden isn’t a far sight better than Trump or anything else coming from the conservative camps, but he’s no less of a warhawk at this point.

        • تحريرها كلها ممكن@lemmy.ml
          121·
          1 year ago

          Bet you love that the US wasted 2.4 trillion dollars and 20 years with nothing to show for it. If the US wanted to help Afghan women, why was it bombing them? There are other, more productive ways to help.

        • Hyperreality@kbin.social
          22·
          1 year ago

          He’s Saudi. So probably.

          Not that his opinion matters anyway. He’s Saudi. He literally doesn’t get a vote.

    • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
      310·
      1 year ago

      I agree that Biden isn’t really much less of a warhawk, but the point I’m making is that there’s probably been if anything slightly less genocide by the US under Biden than other presidents, which just makes the nickname more ridiculous.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        65·
        1 year ago

        It’s not that he’s much less of a warhawk, he’s no less of a warhawk.

        Yes, the nickname is dumb, but that’s mostly because it’s a Trumpism, not that it doesn’t have a tinge of accuracy to it.

        • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
          25·
          1 year ago

          I dunno, I still think there’s a valid point to it. Previous presidents increased the amount of genocide, they continued and added to previous actions, Biden has done things to decrease it.

          Like, if you were to plot genocide on a logarithmic scale, the slope would be lesser under Biden.

          Like, if inflation has been really high, but then becomes a bit less high.

          It’s objectively better. Still definitely not good, but not as bad as before, but also still not getting better quickly enough.