You must log in or register to comment.
Abstain = We’re against a cease fire but we don’t really want to say that out loud, people might think we’re horrible…
I was thinking more: We’re for a cease fire but we’re afraid America might be salty about it,
It’s both at the same time. This conflict has caused populations of the yellow countries to be divided more than ever before.
This has caused many politicians to slip up in their first reactions, in which they declared unconditional support for Israel after the attacks by Hamas.
Even at that point more people than they anticipated took the stance that “self defence” should not automatically include fighting beyond your own borders and there was outrage. People felt their heads of state needed to represent ALL citizens, which means full support for the Israeli cause was unacceptable.
This has put several world leaders in an awkward position where they have to carefully balance protecting human rights within Gaza and simultaneously condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization. Abstaining from voting for a ceasefire is a direct result of that. Voting either way might open up new discussion with supporters of either side.
This is very obviously the cowardly way out and we as a people need to push for a resolution to this conflict that is morally just and protects human rights on both sides.
While Germany abstained it was purely for economic reasons in not enraging the “global south” that sees the imperialist regime brutalizing the occupied territories, like the European countries did in so many countries before.
In Germany now people without german citizenship are demanded to sign a paper pledging support to Israel or otherwise facing repercussions like deportation.
Should just go for the simple option of “doesn’t concern us” and leave it at that
I remember that at least the Finnish reason for abstaining is that Hamas was not mentioned nor their attack condemned in any way in the cease fire resolution. Canada started a petition to change the wording of the resolution and most countries who abstained voted for this.
This is the same bullshit excuse America used to veto the first ceasefire.
Then when a bill with condemnation was introduced America still vetoed it.
It’s just a pretentious troll. Every country that abstained is owned by the israeli lobby. That said the veto is far worse.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231018-us-vetoes-un-resolution-on-israel-hamas-war
deleted by creator
I don’t think you know what “abstain” means
Still a million times better than vetoing it. We should be ashamed here in the US…
Some countries like Canada, are neutrally aligned, and simply don’t answer questions like this. Same with Denmark, I believe.
I get what you’re saying and that might very well be the case but you can’t be neutral in a case like this. Neutral means supporting Israel.
I have zero respect for countries voting no, but abstaining is no better. You (as a country) are literally preventing others to help by doing so. Someone is getting stabbed in front of you and you go “no, no, don’t help, we shouldn’t interfere”.
Just let them die I guess, they’re only Palestinians after all.
Shame on you Canada and all other yellows.
Can’t believe PNG voted against, there’s no transparency in it.
I hate you. Take your upvote
I needed your reply to “get” their comment.
I’m surprised Russia voted for the ceasefire. I would expect them to appreciate the distraction.
They appreciate being seen as opposing the west even more. Especially when it comes to toothless UN resolutions.
They don’t want Hamas to be eliminated. Russia is always for ceasefire when its side is loosing.
Optics. Israel and Russia are both on massacre sides
Dmitriy Polyanskiy, Russia’s representative, said US diplomacy was “leaving scorched earth in its wake”. He said if an immediate ceasefire was blocked by the US again, how could the country look its partners in the eye? He called on the US to “make the right choice” and support the demand for an end to violence.
Funny from a country currently invading its neighbor
The russian hypocricsy should not distract from the truth therein. What happens now is the US foreign policy dream. Instead of having to destabilize the middle east by themselves, they just need to supply Israel with more weapons and money, so they will do it for them.
It’s solely due to US being the bad side along with Israel, they’re trying to shift the narrative.
They know America is going to veto it because they’re israel’s bitches. And it looks way better for countries like Iran which supply Russia with drones to bomb Ukraine with.
Ironically Russia is winning support with their stance on human rights over America in this conflict. Zelensky sucking Netanyahu off also doesn’t promote the Arabs views of Ukraine.
Even China dunked on America yesterday at the UN, that’s when you know it’s bad
People when they find out geopolitics is complex and there ano real bad guys like in the movies.
Pretty sure a country that’s committing mass genocide with imperial ambitions who commits daily war crimes and meddles in other countries’ affairs to sow division and distrust is very clearly “the bad guy”. How can you claim otherwise? You can’t “both sides” the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Yeah. And who keeps giving all those weapons and money to Israel while they are carrying out a genocide?
Let’s face it. A single country can be the bad guy in one situation and the good guy in another.
Also, it’s always funny when the US accuses other countries of foreign interference and genocide, because they surely had no problem doing that to Latin America.
I can’t think of a lot of situations where Russia would be the good guy tbh
You need to research about African decolonization movements back in the 60’s.
When African countries declared themselves independent they mostly got support from the USSR, while the US and the west in general acted in a very hostile way.
Anti-apartheid movements got labelled as “terrorists” by the US, but on the contrary, received a lot of support from Russia.
Ir certainly says something that nobody in the west opposed apartheid until socialism was no longer a threat in the 90’s
That is kinda funny, because the USSR was incredibly racist and you’re still not very welcome in Russia as a person of color.
You need to research about African decolonization movements back in the 60’s.
“Despite the widely reported Soviet support for the ANC and otherwise liberation movements, the Soviet Union also engaged in some trade with South Africa during the apartheid era, mostly involving arms and some mineral resources.”
So, they delivered weapons to the Apartheid regime?
I’ve seen an interesting article stating this: " Less well appreciated is the role that external authoritarian actors have played in facilitating this deterioration. Russia stands out in this regard. Among other aims, undermining democracy has been a strategic objective of Russia’s Africa policy for the past two decades. " https://africacenter.org/spotlight/russia-interference-undermine-democracy-africa/
When it comes to racism, that still doesn’t change the fact that the west has a terrible history of it. There is a reason why you see the AK-47 in a few African flags.
How is the west treating Africans and Palestinians right now?
And again, they have also no problem dealing with (and in some cases supporting) African authoritarian regimes. So how are they morally superior to Russia in that regard?
You realize that it was the Sovjets that turned WW2 around and paid most of the blood for Europe to be freed from the Nazis? About 20 Million of the victims of WW2 were Sovjets. About another 10 Million were Chinese. The western Allies had a very chill WW2 compared to what these countries and their people sacrificed against the Germans and Japanese.
Wherein ‘abstained’ = ‘we want to veto it but fear the political backlash so we’ll leave it to the US’
Well, in fact only the 5 permanent members can veto a decision…
This map will go down in the history books when they will speak about the Palestinian Genocide.
Future generations will ask how we let that happen.
The current generation isn’t asking lots of questions about Uigurs, Armenians, etc.
So x for doubt
America isn’t genociding Uyghurs though. Everyone thought the west was above this shit by now with all the decades of talk about equality.
Now everyone has to come to terms that thev West is stil on 1940’s Ubermensch genocide level of moral standards.
The map looks very similar to others during the cold war (US supporting apartheid, a variety of dictatorships and colonial movements and genocidal regimes) yet, you don’t really see anyone asking how the US people let that happen.
I would bet some amount of money that Palestinians will exist in that area in the year 2043. Hopefully, their state will not, at least in its current form. It’s obviously not a genocide.
It’s most definitely absolutely a genocide even if they don’t kill every last Palestinian you fucking ghoul
No it’s not you donkey
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
That’s directly from the UNs genocide convention.
So pretty much everything that happens in the area between the river and the sea is a genocide, including everything Hamas does. I think this dilutes the meaning of the word somewhat, and especially makes it practically impossible to condemn anybody of it in this particular conflict.
The world has spoken. Now act world, act!
deleted by creator
What is this? Canada just voted to support.
There was a ceasefire. Hamas broke it.
Bullshit. There was a truce and they couldn’t reach an agreement for the continuation. The first Bombs then flew from israel into Gaza. Since then more than 3.000 more Palestinians have been killed by Israel. For comparision since the October 7 attacks Hamas killed or taken hostage about 1.500 Israelis and people in Israel.
So just after the end of the truce, Israel killed twice as many people than Hamas did in the entirety of the past two months.
Also israel was kidnapping as many hostages as they released and broke the ceasefire by killing a civilian on day 1.
And since that terrorist organization broke it, we should just bomb all the Palestinians and turn the whole region into a wasteland, right??
Anyone who thinks this is the fault of only one side has an agenda…
Hamas is surrendering en mass, from military point of view, a ceasefire now is a lost opportunity to bring your enemy to the knees
So Israel should stop fighting Hamas who openly call for a Jewish genocide and just let them keep trying?
It’s kinda funny imagining the green countries getting rockets fired at them and groups come in to murder and kidnap innocent civilians then they just shrug and say ‘we aren’t going to fight back because it might look bad’
Killing 9000 children is not “fighting hamas”
Well a considerable amount of those were literally Hamas fighters, they don’t wait until you’re eighteen to sign you up for jihad lol
And yes it’s sad that innocent people are always the victim of war, there’s a lot of possible solutions which Hamas and the Palestinians reject so what’s left? Israel just has to sit back and let them keep firing rockets and killing them because they built their tunnels under hospitals?
Incidentally the kids in the hospitals we heard so much about got taken to Israeli hospitals where they got world-class medical care, if Hamas hadn’t contested the hospital and agreed to safe transit of wounded then this could have happened sooner. It often feels like Hamas want Palestinian kids to die and the IDF want to keep them alive.
Hamas had 20-25k members before the current war. Israel has dropped more bombs on Gaza than there is Hamas fighters since then.
So either Israel is lying about its alelged “precision strikes”, or they are precise and deliberate in killing innocent children, women and men, while destroying every civillian infrastructure to kill and drive out all Palestinians from Gaza. Sinc eunfortunately they are militarily capeable it is clear, that the goal is to inflict maximal damage on the Palestinians, with giving just enough plausible deniability to its genocidal friends in the US and its Allies.
And why do IDF soldiers keep dying and bombs magically fly out of Gaza towards Israel if Hamas don’t pose any threat?
Sorry that not every munition guarantees an enemy killed, unfortunately fighting terrorists isn’t easy but you’re welcome to go to gaza and deal with Hamas yourself…
I never said Hamas would not pose a threat. But it is evident that Israel does not aim solely on Hamas. They aim on all Palestinians in Gaza and also the Westbank, where IDF is aiding terrorist settlers to murder and displace Palestinians from their homes. The IDF itself said the focus is on damage not precision, and many other statements where they openly admitted to aiming to kill the Palestinian civillians.
That’s, if you take “9000 children” for face value
Genocide denial is never a good look
You’re talking to somebody with a spam username… they’re just a troll. They’re not concerned with how they look.
tell that to those who openly preaches genocide of jews
Edit: you guys/gals are hilarious, literally defending an equivalent to Talibans ? lol You de be among the first on the list to be beheaded with blunt rusty scissors, and they d do a little happy dance afterward
We don’t like genocides.
And one side of the conflict isn’t committing them.
Genocide is much worse than any terrorist action.
By the definition given in this thread Hamas is absolutely doing genocide, what do you think from the river to the sea means? They openly and proudly state their intention is genocide and their constant attacks kill, harm and distress people - literally textbook by the definition.
Israel however loudly say they only want to target Hamas the terrorist organisation and they support a two state solution - to call what they’re doing genocide you need to belive this isn’t true, which I accept is possibly a valid argument but does make it much more of a grey area.
And no the fact that Hamas isn’t able to kill as many Jews as they want due to logistics doesn’t absolve them from anything - especially when crazy people are saying that we shouldn’t support Israel and help them with things like ammunition, really feels like they do like genocide as long as it’s Jewish people dying.
Is every Palestinian a member of Hamas? No. Stop being retarded.
I didn’t say that they were and your statement changes nothing
your statement changes nothing
I gues being retarded isn’t a choice for you, my bad.
yet migration is away from green. kinda has you think maybe the green ones are just wrong.
Are you retarded
The short bus was missing a child. Thank you for finding them!
