|
Mischievous Mink posted:It seems like a very big leap to assume that. Fair, since another possibility is they could have been told that any adult looking person should be considered hostile because of Israel’s conscription laws. But, to any rational person, that should also read as an open call to murder civilians E: I forgot they actually called out conscription on point #6 on page 9 of that Hamas plan PDF they released: quote:When speaking about Israeli civilians, it must be known that conscription applies to all Israelis above the age of 18 – males who served 32 months of military service and females who served 24 months – where all can carry and use arms. This is based on the Israeli security theory of an “armed people” which turned the Israeli entity into “an army with a country attached.” So, yes, according to their words, it was open season for whom nearly everyone else would consider civilians. That, I would state, is evidence of them advocating to kill civilians. Also, it reminds me of how much of a bunch of loving assholes they are. Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Mar 22, 2024 |
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
repent, repent, repent, repent, repent, repent (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
Esran posted:Isn't this the exact same bullshit pitch for a deal that the US has been pushing all along, and which Hamas has already rejected? First paragraph: Not immediately clear to me. https://apple.news/AM8B1vQSmS2CdJnr36qfikw Guardian article says it's pushier than before, using words like "immediate" and "sustained", but I can't immediately find the text so I can't really add anything much to the article. Smells like it's still temporary-ish so who knows if Hamas will budge on any hostages releases with Israel threatening to invade Rafah and make things much, much worse than they already are. also aid situation which I'm like a week behind on the details of
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 01:53
|
|
|
The reality is that Netanyahu will never accept a deal in which Hamas keep power, and Hamas will never accept a deal which results in them being taken out of power. The vast majority of Palestinians in both the west bank and Gaza stand with Hamas in resistance to the genocide, so unless Israel is forced by internal pressure to accept a deal they don't want, it isn't going to happen. Netanyahu also doesn't want the hostages to be rescued, as that would take out the main justification for continuing the genocide, and his goal is to prolong it at all costs You can safely ignore anything except the words of Hamas officials at this point in regards to any kind of deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 02:59
|
|
|
Yeah unless I see otherwise I think it's safe to assume this is more of the terrible deal where Hamas just surrenders essentially
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 03:32
|
|
|
Your Brain on Hugs posted:The reality is that Netanyahu will never accept a deal in which Hamas keep power, and Hamas will never accept a deal which results in them being taken out of power. The vast majority of Palestinians in both the west bank and Gaza stand with Hamas in resistance to the genocide, so unless Israel is forced by internal pressure to accept a deal they don't want, it isn't going to happen. Netanyahu also doesn't want the hostages to be rescued, as that would take out the main justification for continuing the genocide, and his goal is to prolong it at all costs You can safely ignore anything except the words of Hamas officials at this point in regards to any kind of deal. Citation needed on the underlined bit. I don't think Netanyahu's primary goal is genocide, I think his primary goal is to stay in power and out of jail and he will do literally anything in order to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 03:45
|
|
|
That's true, I could have said continuing the war instead. It amounts to the same thing though. He needs to keep the fight against Hamas going as a goal, as it's the only reason the people who want his head won't make any moves yet. If the hostages get exchanged for a removal of IDF forces in Gaza, he's in big trouble. As long as IDF forces are in Gaza, they'll be carrying out the genocide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 05:02
|
|
|
Your Brain on Hugs posted:That's true, I could have said continuing the war instead. It amounts to the same thing though. He needs to keep the fight against Hamas going as a goal, as it's the only reason the people who want his head won't make any moves yet. If the hostages get exchanged for a removal of IDF forces in Gaza, he's in big trouble. As long as IDF forces are in Gaza, they'll be carrying out the genocide. Agreed. If the hostages get exchanged for a removal of IDF forces in Gaza and he ends up in big trouble, that would be the best possible option.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
Your Brain on Hugs posted:Netanyahu also doesn't want the hostages to be rescued, as that would take out the main justification for continuing the genocide, and his goal is to prolong it at all costs This all sounds backward to me because the families of the hostages are basically the only force within Israeli politics motivating a deal, ceasefire, or any restraint - because they desperately want their family members back and because they know that each IDF attack has a chance to kill more hostages. And Netanyahu/the Israeli public's "main justification for continuing the genocide" isn't rescuing hostages, it's "attacks like October 7 can never be allowed to happen ever again." Which rhetorically justifies bombing Gaza to dust even if all the hostages are recovered. If Netanyahu could wave a magic wand and bring all the hostages home, he'd do it in a heartbeat, because it would actually remove an obstacle to carrying out the horrific genocidal war that is keeping him in power. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Mar 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 12:57
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Citation needed on the underlined bit. I don't think Netanyahu's primary goal is genocide, I think his primary goal is to stay in power and out of jail and he will do literally anything in order to do so. This is why Schumer or anyone else saying Israel needs to get Netanyahu out is just covering their own asses. Whoever replaces him is going to be doing the genocide because they want to rather than to keep himself out of prison. His most likely replacement threw a fit when a journalist asked him about civilian casualties in Gaza early on. And I don't buy that if Oct 7 had only been attacks on the military this would've gone much differently. Palestinian resistance is not seen as legitimate by Israel or its allies. They killed over 100 Palestinians when two soldiers were killed and one was captured. Had 10/7's casualties been the 400ish soldiers and cops alone (with dozens kidnapped) I don't see why Israel would act any less bloodthirsty. poo poo they still lump them in with the total when talking about how awful it was as if they were innocents along with the civilians. I don't know how many tweets I saw lamenting so and so the 20 something commander of some Gaza envelope base treating them the same they would a festival goer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 13:26
|
|
|
Anyone got a clue why Russia and China would veto the UN ceasefire proposal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:11
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Anyone got a clue why Russia and China would veto the UN ceasefire proposal? Because it's by America, their geopolitical adversary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:12
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Anyone got a clue why Russia and China would veto the UN ceasefire proposal? Because the UN as an institution fails miserably at dealing with important issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:15
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Anyone got a clue why Russia and China would veto the UN ceasefire proposal? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/22/un-security-council-does-not-pass-us-resolution-calling-for-gaza-ceasefire quote:Moscow accused Washington of a “hypocritical spectacle” that does not pressure Israel. You can find more updates here: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147856 To me, this all reads as political theater on all sides, especially since UN resolutions are nonbinding anyways. Even if something passed, Israel would ignore it, just as Russia did a couple years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:24
|
|
|
go play outside Skyler posted:Because the UN as an institution fails miserably at dealing with important issues. UN as a institution is working as intended. If UN had any actual power to force things through over objections of others, no one would want to be a part of it because then they'd be at risk of their geopolitical rivals using that power against them. Hence UN is a venue for international co-operation (NGO's, IMO etc.) and diplomacy (General Assembly, Security Council). Security council is supposed to work with consensus, and when it fails to do so, it is not the failure of the institution, it is about the failure of international relations and diplomacy. UN is a vehicle designed to fail when there's no consensus, because there's really no realistic way to create something like UN if it didn't work like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:24
|
|
|
go play outside Skyler posted:Because the UN as an institution fails miserably at dealing with important issues. The UN as an institution exists so that everyone can air their grievances and then any superpower can say "nah"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:27
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:The UN as an institution exists so that everyone can air their grievances and then any superpower can say "nah" Now now, sometimes Britain says "nah."
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:31
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Now now, sometimes Britain says "nah." fine, any superpower plus some ex-superpowers that held onto their nukes
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:37
|
|
|
Does anyone have a copy of the actual resolution that was vetoed? I can't find it on the UN website but it's a pain to search. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147856 quote:After weeks of behind the scenes negotiations among Security Council members in New York, the US draft marks a shift in position from the last time members met on 20 February when the US used its veto to quash an Algerian resolution which demanded an immediate ceasefire. This summary page made it seem like the resolution doesn't even call for a ceasefire completely but rather the imperative for one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
The distinction is subtle but important. Wordings that the US has previously rejected would potentially hold Israel at fault if a ceasefire is not reached, while this one supports the idea of a ceasefire in principle but would not hold Israel responsible if/when negotiations fail to produce one. e: also worth noting that this would theoretically be binding if it passed the security council. The UN obviously has no way to enforce its will on states directly though
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
People complain over the tone policing in D&D but lmao the UN puts us all to shame. The difference between stating something "is imperative" and "demanding" is so minimal but seems to be the core point of divergence between the two drafts? I honestly can't buy this veto is actually about the wording unless there's something I'm missing. It's basically the IR version of payback for the fact the US shamefully vetoed the Arab nation's proposal imo. Not like either would've done anything anyway. E: was writing when this got posted Irony Be My Shield posted:The distinction is subtle but important. Wordings that the US has previously rejected would potentially hold Israel at fault if a ceasefire is not reached, while this one supports the idea of a ceasefire in principle but would not hold Israel responsible if/when negotiations fail to produce one. Oh maybe this is what I'm missing. That's a pretty real difference in meaning then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 15:58
|
|
|
I am not at all surprised that the specific language used by a legal body filled with lawyers for the purposes of determining international law is more pedantic than a debate subforum on a comedy website.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:The difference between stating something "is imperative" and "demanding" is so minimal but seems to be the core point of divergence between the two drafts? I honestly can't buy this veto is actually about the wording unless there's something I'm missing. "[__] demand an immediate ceasefire" is a positive statement which explicitly defines a goal which is actionable. It describes that a party intends to take action to achieve a particular goal. Passing the US resolution results in no change to the ongoing genocide whatsoever. It is even worse than passing no resolution, because it apparently shifts responsibility away from the perpetrators of a genocide. The US resolution is very obviously just another stalling tactic for Israel to continue their genocide unabated, which lines up perfectly with all of the US' actions to this day. If the US had any intention of stopping the genocide, they would have stated the need for an immediate ceasefire, given that any other suggestion simply allows the Israeli's to continue their genocide. It appears that the other members of the UN understand rudimentary logic and have consequently told the US to go gently caress themselves for trying to propose another diversion to protect Israel. Irony Be My Shield posted:The distinction is subtle but important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:The distinction is subtle but important. Wordings that the US has previously rejected would potentially hold Israel at fault if a ceasefire is not reached, while this one supports the idea of a ceasefire in principle but would not hold Israel responsible if/when negotiations fail to produce one. That still doesn't explain the vetos though. If what ot does is necessary but not sufficient, why not approve it and keep working? It isn't like this precludes any future resolution. Paladinus posted:Because it's by America, their geopolitical adversary. This seems like a far more likely explanation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:That still doesn't explain the vetos though. If what ot does is necessary but not sufficient, why not approve it and keep working? It isn't like this precludes any future resolution. Diffusing pressure; if it goes through, the US can say that it's already done its part in the UN and that everything else is political theater/anti-Israel bias. Pretty common, making small concessions in the hope of peeling off support for something. I'd say that China & Russia are correct that the resolution is compromised by the Biden administration's reluctance to demand anything of Israel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Anyone got a clue why Russia and China would veto the UN ceasefire proposal? To kick in an exciting period of rationalization
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 17:47
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:This seems like a far more likely explanation. This reasoning is idiotic, and is basically circular: Russia and China must have rejected the deal for a bad reason, and we think this explanation holds water because we know these countries are Bad, so let's just terminate thought here. Here's the actual reason: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2024/03/the-middle-east-including-the-palestinian-question-vote-on-a-draft-resolution-4.php posted:While the US still opposes unconditional demands for an immediate ceasefire, it recently introduced a qualified use of this term during the negotiations on its draft resolution and in its political messaging. The US has retained its position that any product adopted by the Council must not be in contradiction with the outcome it seeks from the indirect talks between Hamas and Israel, namely, that a halt in the fighting be tied to the release of the hostages. Basically the US were pushing a resolution calling for temporary ceasefire (with some handwaving about maybe getting real peace later via negotiations) in exchange for the hostages, language that could be interpreted to condone an attack on Rafah, and also language that tells UN member states to suppress financing for Hamas as a terrorist group. We know that Hamas have already rejected a deal that requires them to give up the hostages without a full end to the war, and the rest of what was in there is just the US running errands for Israel. You're free to think China and Russia are just bad people and so end your line of reasoning there, but there are good reasons to object to a resolution that looks like this. Especially since some of the other UNSC members are advancing an alternate resolution that demands an immediate permanent ceasefire in exchange for the hostages. When there's a more palatable resolution on the table, why wouldn't you vote against something that's this obviously compromised? Edit: I think the full text of what was voted on is not available online yet. Once it is, it should be possible to find here. Currently the only draft available is for the resolution advanced by Algeria, which is the alternative resolution I mentioned. Edit 2: And just a further reminder of what the US role is in this: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-spending-plan-backs-israel-extends-anti-aids-program-2024-03-21/ posted:As Reuters reported on Tuesday, the State Department appropriations bill continues a ban on U.S. funding for UNRWA, the main U.N. agency for Palestinians, for at least a year. It also eliminates funding for the UN Commission of Inquiry against Israel and fully funds the annual U.S. security commitment of $3.3 billion for Israel. The US is spending billions more to help Israel continue this genocide, solidifying the defunding of the UNRWA for "at least" a year, and defunding a commission that's supposed to investigate Israel's crimes against humanity. They really seem like they want peace though, too bad Russia is getting in the way. Esran fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Mar 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
the US trying to sell the same 6 week "pause in fighting" garbage that got canned in Feb as new progress is beyond cynical pure theatre
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 21:06
|
|
|
Esran posted:This reasoning is idiotic, and is basically circular: Russia and China must have rejected the deal for a bad reason, and we think this explanation holds water because we know these countries are Bad, so let's just terminate thought here. It's idiotic to think that the geopolitical rivalry better Russia, China, and the US is not a factor in vetoing security council resolutions. You seem to be under the assumption that the US is the sole bad faith actor and that other members of the security council are motivated entirely by heartfelt concern for the Palestinian people and nothing else. The argument that it's indirectly approving an offensive in Rafah seems tortured to me, but I need to go through and read it in detail. Maybe the draft resolution they might vote on soon will be better and pass. I certainly hope so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:e: also worth noting that this would theoretically be binding if it passed the security council. The UN obviously has no way to enforce its will on states directly though Very minor clarification that I feel is worth making: It’s correct that Security Council resolutions are binding on states - General Assembly resolutions are not. Legally, the Security Council does have the power to enforce its will on states directly - Articles 39-51 of the UN Charter describe the processes in detail. . I’m working off the top of my head, so fact-check would be appropriate and welcome , but my recollection is that the US has historically often been the sole veto allowing Israel to continue its decades-long ethnic cleansing project. Without that, I think it’s entirely possible that the UN could have gone in ages ago, dismantled illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, and enforced a two-state solution. It if you mean “no way to enforce” in the sense that the US would never actually allow it to happen, entirely agree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 23:15
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It's idiotic to think that the geopolitical rivalry better Russia, China, and the US is not a factor in vetoing security council resolutions. You seem to be under the assumption that the US is the sole bad faith actor and that other members of the security council are motivated entirely by heartfelt concern for the Palestinian people and nothing else. That is not what I claimed, nor the assumption I made, so you can put the strawman away. I did not say that geopolitical rivalry was not a factor at all. I said there are other good reasons to oppose this resolution, which explain the actions of China and Russia just fine on their own. I'm saying there is no reason to invent your own explanation for why Russia and China vetoed the resolution, when they'll just tell you, and their explanation is very straightforward: They don't like what the resolution says. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147856 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147856 posted:China’s Ambassador Zhang Jun said that the most urgent action the Council should take is calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, in line with the wishes of the UN General Assembly and the UN Secretary-General. The US resolution advocates a conditional ceasefire only. quote:Algeria’s Ambassador Amar Bendjama said that had the Council passed its resolution of late February, thousands of innocent lives could have been saved. The US resolution contains concerning language regarding Rafah, and advocates a conditional ceasefire. quote:Before the vote, Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said the US had promised an agreement to end the fighting time and time again. There's another resolution on the table which advocates an unconditional ceasefire, and Russia likes that one better. We can choose to believe that China and Russia (and Algeria for some reason) don't want to hand the US a win, or come up with some other dumb theory for why they would reject a good peace deal, or we can accept the much more straightforward explanation: The resolution the US is pushing is seriously compromised for the reasons I outlined, and China and Russia vetoed it because there's a much better resolution being advanced by Algeria, who also vetoed the US deal for the same reasons. The resolution the US advanced literally condemns Hamas, advocates the release of the hostages in exchange for only a temporary ceasefire (This is equivalent to telling Hamas to give up leverage in exchange for nothing), and pushes countries to treat Hamas as a terrorist group. It also condemns the Houthis. Why is it any surprise that countries not aligned with the genociders would maybe not be cool with some of these things? Do we really need to invent an ulterior motive here? Edit: Something else that should support my point of view that this resolution was a piece of poo poo: The Israeli ambassador is whining about how it was not passed. If this resolution was any good, I guarantee Israel would not be in favor of it. Esran fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Mar 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2024 23:48
|
|
|
When America vetoes the next resolution because it 'doesn't respect victims of the Oct. 7 attack', should we also take that reasoning at face value?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 00:02
|
|
|
Esran posted:That is not what I claimed, nor the assumption I made, so you can put the strawman away. I did not say that geopolitical rivalry was not a factor at all. Here's the train of comments: Paladinus posted:Because it's by America, their geopolitical adversary. DeadlyMuffin posted:This seems like a far more likely explanation. Esran posted:This reasoning is idiotic, and is basically circular: Russia and China must have rejected the deal for a bad reason, and we think this explanation holds water because we know these countries are Bad, so let's just terminate thought here. I was referring to the geopolitical rivalry, that's what I was responding to. You called it idiotic. It isn't like it's a bunch of long comments to follow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:When America vetoes the next resolution because it 'doesn't respect victims of the Oct. 7 attack', should we also take that reasoning at face value? It would be hella weird to assume that's a cover for the US really wanting to thumb its nose at China, doubly so given that we already know the actual reason the US vetoes resolutions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:When America vetoes the next resolution because it 'doesn't respect victims of the Oct. 7 attack', should we also take that reasoning at face value? There's a difference between an abstract stance like that and the concrete position that a temporary ceasefire doesn't actually end the conflict.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:When America vetoes the next resolution because it 'doesn't respect victims of the Oct. 7 attack', should we also take that reasoning at face value? Is there a material difference between the concerns I outlined, and "not respecting the victims of October 7th", do you think? I'd say that there is. It is in fact really bad in material terms if the UNSC passes a binding resolution that tells states to suppress Hamas as a terror group, tells Hamas to give up hostages in exchange for an impermanent ceasefire, condemns the Houthis and doesn't bind Israel in any way outside of said time limited ceasefire. It has no material effect whether a resolution inserts language to pay respect to victims, so I'd say that's a really weird reason to object. Also are the US, China and Russia all funding Israel to keep this genocide going? I feel like that might be a relevant detail to include in your evaluation of whether their objections are in bad faith. So no, we shouldn't take that at face value. Not because it's impossible for someone to feel that way, but because our opinions on objections from the US (and from China and Russia) should be informed by their actions and the opinions they've expressed previously, and what the thing they're objecting to actually means in real terms. DeadlyMuffin posted:I was referring to the geopolitical rivalry, that's what I was responding to. You called it idiotic. It isn't like it's a bunch of long comments to follow. Yes, and I'm saying that explanation is dumb. Geopolitical rivalry can be a factor in an explanation, but it not very likely to be the entire explanation when there's so many other reasons to oppose this resolution. It's dumb in the same way as it would be to say that Hamas attacked Israel because they hate Israel. Clearly true, but also obvious to everyone and not a very good or complete explanation by itself. If someone made that assertion and people started nodding along as if yes, that must be the reason, would you not object? Edit: Also just a note on "taking things at face value": I feel like the question "Do Russia and China have a reason to lie?" has a very clear answer in this case: No, because they have very good reasons to oppose the resolution on its own merits, so there's no benefit to lying. You might argue that they're lying anyway, but then you have to explain why the deficiencies in the resolution they've outlined should not be reason enough for them to want to veto. Esran fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Mar 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Why not both? The US backed resolution is toothless, but China and Russia aren't exactly selflessly advocating for the lives of Palestinians (lol at actually believing that, lmao even). The uselessness of the US resolution is a convenient reason to shoot it down, and potentially a step to tabling a more effective one yourself to look good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Why not both? The US backed resolution is toothless, but China and Russia aren't exactly selflessly advocating for the lives of Palestinians (lol at actually believing that, lmao even). The uselessness of the US resolution is a convenient reason to shoot it down, and potentially a step to tabling a more effective one yourself to look good. What I'm saying is basically something along those lines. China and Russia may have an interest in not handing the US a win, but saying "They're vetoing the resolution to spite the US" as if that explains it is some real "They just hate America"-level thinking. But also, who cares. If someone tables an actually good resolution "to look good", then they'll deserve to look good for tabling a good resolution. And the US will deserve to look bad when they inevitably veto it. If someone opposes a bad resolution and can explain why the resolution is bad, we don't actually need to jump to "Oh, so they just want to spit America in the eye then". They well might want that too, but that's not really all that important if the resolution seems to actually be bad? Esran fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Mar 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
Okay, I'll expand on my comment. I am not super well-versed on the history of diplomatic relations between Israel and China, so I will admit that I may be off-base there, although I will point out that last year China fully supported the resolution that only called for 'urgent and extended humanitarian' pauses, because it was seen as a step in the right direction. Russia abstained then, and so did the US, albeit for different reasons. https://english.news.cn/20231116/3420a6c09a994cbc9693985af48db5c5/c.html With Russia, we know that until very recently Russia had very little concerns about Israel's occupation of Palestine. From the very start Putin himself, on more than one occasioned condemned terrorist acts against Israel. When Russia fought Islamist separatists in Chechnya, there were in retrospect very unfortunate parallels drawn between Russia's and Israel's 'fight against terrorism'. Russia had no qualms about buying drones from Israel, Putin met with Netanyahu (and briefly with Bennett) frequently and very amicably until 2022. Even though the two countries didn't see eye-to-eye on Syria and Iran, they viewed each other as partners. In its support for Palestine Russia never before did anything that western countries weren't doing, like, for example, voting for Resolution 2334 that the UK and France also supported (and the US abstained largely because it didn't like the countries that brought it forward, but didn't use the veto) or voicing concerns about Israel bombing civilians. At the same time, just before Obama left office, even though Russia supported Resolution 2334, Putin promised Netanyahu to veto a potential resolution that would go further than 2334. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/did-putin-save-israel-from-obama-at-un-and-why-are-we-hearing-this-now-631813 Israel, in turn, also did some wacky voting to avoid conflict with Russia. Like skipping vote on Resolution A/71/L.48 about investigation of war crimes in Syria, or abstaining on the resolution condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The change in rhetoric on Russia's part is very recent and based on the fact that after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia had to shift its geopolitical focus, while Israel also lost interest in any form of cooperation in Syria when it started the full-scale ground invasion of Gaza. There was no change in Russian leadership (obviously) that could explain it, and Russia doesn't really have some principled position in regards to attacks on civilians either. It's pure politicing. Paladinus fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Mar 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Why not both? The US backed resolution is toothless, but China and Russia aren't exactly selflessly advocating for the lives of Palestinians (lol at actually believing that, lmao even). The uselessness of the US resolution is a convenient reason to shoot it down, and potentially a step to tabling a more effective one yourself to look good. Yes, precisely. I'm not sure why that's incredibly controversial, but tensions in this thread are quite high.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 02:50
|
|