Hamas attacks Israel
-
Also Hezbollah is a led by Shia Muslim fanatics and Hamas is led by Sunni Muslim fanatics. While that sectarian difference means little to most people outside Islam, it is a big deal within the religion. Their only common mission is the annihilation of Israel. Beyond that Hamas and Hezbollah hate one another with a passion and would be content to terrorize one another on an ongoing basis in the absence of the Jewish state.
-
"My pronouns are FA/FO." - Mik, 2024
-
@Mik said in The Ukraine war thread:
They don't want to lose the young folks while I suspect in private they are fine with Israel's actions.
And the "young folks" are woefully ignorant.
But yeah, there's probably more than a bit of cynicism warranted.
-
From the RWEC:
Even if that weren't the case, what are the alternatives? Hamas has made it clear that they have no intention of simply releasing the rest of the hostages and surrendering en masse. (That could end the war tomorrow.) So the only other options would be an endless standoff outside of Rafah or having Israel surrender and go home, allowing Hamas to win the war. Would Kamala Harris prefer one of those options more?
Sadly, these cracks in our alliance with our closest ally didn't have to be inflicted. The Veep was only attempting to follow her marching orders and act as an extension of Joe Biden's current, floundering foreign policy moves. None of this has anything to do with Israel and Gaza. It has to do with Michigan and Wisconsin. The Biden administration is hemorrhaging support among Arab and Muslim liberal voters and going into a panic. They're trying to walk a tightrope between continuing to support Israel and seeming as if they support a ceasefire. Kamala Harris just took it a step too far during her interview on ABC. The end result will be negligible. Bibi Netanyahu already responded to the Veep's comments and said that the move into Rafah "will happen." He is not impressed with Harris' threats.
-
UN Security Council passes resolution calling for Gaza ceasefire
The UN Security Council has called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, after the US did not veto the measure in a shift from its previous position.
It also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.
It is the first time the council has called for a ceasefire since the war began in October after several failed attempts.
The move by the US signals growing divergence between it and its ally Israel over Israel's offensive in Gaza.
In an unusually strong rebuke, a statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said the US had "abandoned" its previous position which had directly linked a ceasefire to a hostage release.
"Regrettably, the United States did not veto the new resolution," it said.
In the Security Council vote on Monday, the US abstained, while the remaining 14 members voted in favour.
The US had previously blocked resolutions calling for a ceasefire, saying such a move would be wrong while delicate negotiations for a truce and hostage releases were continuing between Israel and Hamas.
But on Thursday it tabled its own draft, which for the first time called for a ceasefire, marking a hardening of its stance towards Israel.
US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said the US' decision to let the resolution pass did not mean a "shift in our policy". He said the US backed a ceasefire but did not vote in favour of the resolution because the text did not condemn Hamas.
Speaking at a press briefing after the resolution was passed, Mr Kirby said: "We have been very clear, we have been very consistent in our support for a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal. That's how the hostage deal is structured, and the resolution acknowledges the ongoing talks."
-
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Hamas attacks Israel:
@xenon said in Hamas attacks Israel:
Maybe I'm just not hip to the way of diplomacy - but abstain seems like a cowardly option.
A cynic would suggest it gives them political cover while not actually doing something.
A cynic.
You rang?
-
-
@xenon said in Hamas attacks Israel:
I just don't understand why it's a viable option for elected/appointed leaders to say "no comment". Isn't it your job to decide?
Yeah, I understand.
But when diplomacy, the right thing and politics are involved in a three-way collision, the result is rarely brave.
-
@xenon said in Hamas attacks Israel:
Maybe I'm just not hip to the way of diplomacy - but abstain seems like a cowardly option.
If the US or any other Permanent Member of the UNSC votes No it is a veto of the resolution in its entirety. By abstaining means that the Permanent Member supports the substance of the resolution but not all its details or how the resolution might be enforced.
“Little by little I am learning the art of being quite content by doing very little slowly” ~ Lionel Hardcastle
-
@Renauda good points. Perhaps reiterated in this story.
Meanwhile, the White House is surprised:
The White House said it was 'perplexed' by the fact Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled a high-level meeting in Washington after the U.S. abstained on a UN ceasefire resolution.
'We're perplexed by this,' White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters on Monday.
Netanyahu accused the U.S. of 'retreating' from a 'principled position' with its vote. American officials said the U.S. abstained because the resolution didn't condemn Hamas. By abstaining instead of vetoing, the U.S. allowed the resolution to pass.
Kirby said that America's vote 'does not represent a shift in our policy.'
'We've been very consistent in our support for a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal,' he said. 'But because the final text does not have key language that we think is essential, such as condemning Hamas, we couldn't support it.'
'It seems like the prime minister's office is choosing to create a perception of daylight here when they don't need to do that,' Kirby noted.
