They were supporting them until Houthis attacks interfered with their supplies, and then they vetoed the ceasefire resolution since it was US proposed. Politics before lives.
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
37 points (86.3% liked)
World News
32326 readers
531 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
What US proposed was not an actual ceasefire. US was the one to repeatedly veto actual ceasefire resolutions.
Please read the actual resolution before commenting. It explicitly said "immediate and sustained ceasefire". The only difference between the two is one condemned the Hamas attack and another didn't. And yes, US are the worst in all of this, not only they vetoed previous attempts, but also financed all the killings. But if you can't see the politics behind Russia's and China's veto, you are blind.
yes, please do read what the resolution actually said https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-ceasefire-gaza-un/
That "resolution" only ordered Hamas to turn over the hostages so they would have less options, and instead greenlighted an invasion of Rafah by the zionist military.
Russia and China voted for the subsequent resolution drafted by the elected members of the UNSC that ordered an actual ceasefire (which israel has clearly not obeyed however; unenforceable resolutions are meaningless as it turns out).
Please read the actual resolutions before commenting. Both of them order Hamas to release the hostages. And nowhere in the resolution it green lits the attack on Rafah. Though, interestingly, that's the exact reason Russia stated for their objection.
And yes, Israel is committing a genocide, so no surpsire they are not complying...
As Yogthos said, do read the the actual resolutions before commenting. The US "resolution" did not demand preventing an invasion of Rafah like the other resolutions had, nor did it explicitly demand a ceasefire like, again, the other resolutions had. It only really demanded the hostages back.
Veto'ing it for "political" reasons like you claim would've been the dumbest thing a state could do seeing how western news outlets have excitedly been using it to portray China and Russia in a bad light. Judging by this thread alone, that seems to have successfully fooled at least 1 person.