• Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • cfbundy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your crybully appeals to procedure are deeply unserious. The US have obviously vetoed a humanitarian measure intended to help over a million civilians.

              • cfbundy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

        • livus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @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.