https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147931
Pressure on Biden worked?
What will it mean in reality?
Bit idea: when liberals insist this is equivalent to Biden personally stopping the genocide tell them you agree which is why you will obstain from voting in November instead of vetoing Biden being president
it will mean nothing, like the demand to end the US embargo of Cuba
The resolutions on the US embargo on Cuba are made by the general assembly of the UN and explicitly non-binding. This is different:
So there's teeth to this, but it remains to be seen how sharp they are.
What has the historical precedent been for countries that break a binding resolution?
Sanctions and then invasion if it’s an enemy of the USA. If not, then sternly worded letter
To my knowledge this has never happened to a country that has nuclear weapons.
The resolutions have been enforced militarily in the past but only against countries without nuclear weapons. I sincerely doubt that would be the case for any nuclear armed country though. Libya is the obvious example.
Even in the case of libya nato went well beyond the mandate of the security council resolution.
Oh absolutely but the point is that it simply wouldn't have happened at all if it were nuclear armed. It is a factor that completely changes the outcome of these council resolutions.
Think DPRK as well. It genuinely doesn't matter what resolutions are made, the nukes change the result.
My first reaction as well but haven't seen the wordings. But one can hope. Secretary-General António Guterres said on X that the long-awaited resolution must be implemented; the Council’s failure to so “would be unforgivable.”
Well, Netanyahu just pulled his diplomatic envoy from their visit to the US over this, so things might be getting a little spicy
The Russian verbal amendment did not pass due to lack of votes.
But in the substantive vote, there were 14 in favour, with the US abstaining. The resolution therefore has passed.
10:36 AM
The sticking point is the removal of the word "permanent" from an earlier version of the draft. It now calls for an "immediate ceasefire".
"lasting ceasefire" yea, what tf does "lasting" mean? To me it's atleast 1 year but Israel could say it's 1 day.
The US is always inserting newspeak gibberish into things and ignoring conventional international legal language
So, in a realpolitik sense, the only reason the Security Council has power is because they can command the rest of the UN to do things if their resolutions aren't heeded. Will the UN invade Israel on a peacekeeping mission to enforce its demand for a ceasefire? I certainly don't think so! But Israel will probably get a very sternly worded letter.
Ceasefire for Ramadan. Killing lists for afterwards.
That's how I understand it.
The UN Security Council on Monday passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, the immediate and unconditional release of hostages and "the urgent need to expand the flow" of aid into Gaza. There were 14 votes in favour with the United States abstaining. (emphasis mine)
Israel will demand HAMAS must release the hostages first. HAMAS won't release hostages without any assurances.
So as I see it 🔮. Isreal will somehow brake this either by saying Hamas haven't let the hostages go without any reassurance. Or they will do a false flag or something. The UN will make some lame response in stern words.
Question is what happens next in the security council. US will veto anything resembling embargo or enforcement and they will loose face internationally and domestically. Can't say "look we are trying to stop the genocide. " As they do now.
Biden won't survive that. That's the thing that actually are something that can change the balance perhaps.
