Israel is at War - General discussion (pt3)

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

US to bring Security Council motion for Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal to vote Friday
Reuters says draft calls for ‘immediate and sustained ceasefire’ lasting six weeks linked to captives’ release; EU issues similar call for pause to fighting, warns against Rafah op

The draft resolution, seen by Reuters, says an “immediate and sustained ceasefire” lasting roughly six weeks would protect civilians and allow for the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

The text backs talks brokered by the U.S., Egypt and Qatar over a ceasefire and emphasizes support for using the period of a truce to intensify efforts in pursuit of “lasting peace.”

Since blocking an Algerian draft resolution calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza at the end of February, US officials have been negotiating an alternative text focusing on support for diplomatic efforts on the ground for a six-week truce in exchange for the release of hostages.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-to-bring-security-council-motion-for-gaza-truce-and-hostage-deal-to-a-vote-friday/

ooops aweful news, vetoed by Russia and China. 

 

U.S. Gaza ceasefire resolution vetoed by China, Russia at UN Security Council

Russia and China on Friday vetoed a U.S. draft UN Security Council resolution which called for an "immediate and sustained ceasefire" in Gaza along with "the release of all remaining hostages" held by Hamas.

Why it matters: This was the fourth time since the war began in October that the Security Council failed to agree on a resolution calling for a ceasefire. This time, the dispute was over the U.S. insistence on linking the ceasefire call to a hostage deal and condemnation of Hamas, rather than the unconditional ceasefire resolution demanded by Russia and China.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/22/us-ceasefire-resolution-veto-un-security-council

 

Another huge let down for the hostages and families along with the ceasefire of course

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

ooops aweful news, vetoed by Russia and China. 

 

Another huge let down for the hostages and families along with the ceasefire of course

 

That's true. If the ceasefire had taken effect the hostages might be released soon er rather than later. As it is there's not much hope.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

That's true. If the ceasefire had taken effect the hostages might be released soon er rather than later. As it is there's not much hope.

There's plenty of hope, just because the UN resolution was vetoed does not mean the deal being talked about now in Qatar will not happen.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

There's plenty of hope, just because the UN resolution was vetoed does not mean the deal being talked about now in Qatar will not happen.

 

Again, true, but it was an unnecessary setback.

[ozimoron]

Kushner pushing a genocide narrataive.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

https://twitter.com/AvivaKlompas/status/1771132723320459429

 

[ozimoron]

Why did Russia and China veto?

The Russian deputy ambassador to the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy, warned reporters on Thursday: “We are not satisfied with anything which doesn’t call for an immediate ceasefire.”

 

After the vote, he said: “At the coordination stage, almost all security council members expressed the view that the demand for an immediate ceasefire should not be conditional on the release of hostages or the condemnation of Hamas.”

Explaining Guyana’s abstention, the South American country’s representative Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett said: “Contrary to media reports, this resolution does not call for an immediate ceasefire.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/22/us-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-explainer

[Social Media]

Latest developments in the Israel-Hamas War Topic Update

 

U.S. Call for Gaza Cease-Fire Runs Into Russia-China Veto at U.N.

 

 

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, who was traveling in Israel on Friday, expressed disappointment that the resolution failed. “I think we were trying to show the international community a sense of urgency about getting a cease-fire tied to the release of hostages, something that everyone, including the countries that vetoed the resolution, should have been able to get behind,” he said.

 

After the vote, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Linda Thomas-Greenfield, defended the resolution, which condemned Hamas, saying that it had been brought forward “in good faith after consulting with all Council members and after multiple rounds of edits.”

She said Russia and China had vetoed the resolution for two reasons: They refused to condemn Hamas and they “simply did not want to vote for a resolution that was penned by the United States because it would rather see us fail than to see this Council succeed.”

 

23.03.24

Source

[ozimoron]

In defying Joe Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu is exposing the limits of US power

 

The Israeli PM’s refusal to heed US demands on food aid for Gaza is morally indefensible, hurting the president – and opening the door to Donald Trump

 

Last month, he issued a new protocol, demanding those countries that receive US arms affirm in writing that they abide by international law, including on humanitarian aid. If the US doesn’t certify that declaration, all arms sales stop immediately. In Israel’s case, the deadline for certification is Sunday.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/22/joe-biden-benjamin-netanyahu-israel-gaza-donald-trump

 

 

Edited March 22 by ozimoron

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

In defying Joe Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu is exposing the limits of US power

 

The Israeli PM’s refusal to heed US demands on food aid for Gaza is morally indefensible, hurting the president – and opening the door to Donald Trump

 

Last month, he issued a new protocol, demanding those countries that receive US arms affirm in writing that they abide by international law, including on humanitarian aid. If the US doesn’t certify that declaration, all arms sales stop immediately. In Israel’s case, the deadline for certification is Sunday.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/22/joe-biden-benjamin-netanyahu-israel-gaza-donald-trump

 

 

Last month, he issued a new protocol, demanding those countries that receive US arms affirm in writing that they abide by international law, including on humanitarian aid. If the US doesn’t certify that declaration, all arms sales stop immediately. In Israel’s case, the deadline for certification is Sunday.

 

 

US official says Israel sent assurance it is using arms lawfully, days before deadline

https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-official-says-israel-sent-assurance-it-is-using-arms-per-international-law/

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Last month, he issued a new protocol, demanding those countries that receive US arms affirm in writing that they abide by international law, including on humanitarian aid. If the US doesn’t certify that declaration, all arms sales stop immediately. In Israel’s case, the deadline for certification is Sunday.

 

 

US official says Israel sent assurance it is using arms lawfully, days before deadline

https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-official-says-israel-sent-assurance-it-is-using-arms-per-international-law/

 

The US still needs to certify that declaration. It isn't automatic on Israel's say so.

 

The reason the US is reluctant to stop weapons transfer to Israel is the threat of Hezbollah, not support for Israel's bombing of Palestinians.

Edited March 22 by ozimoron

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

The US still needs to certify that declaration. It isn't automatic on Israel's say so.

 

The reason the US is reluctant to stop weapons transfer to Israel is the threat of Hezbollah, not support for Israel's bombing of Palestinians.

Can you show me where they have said they are reluctant to sign it?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Can you show me where they have said they are reluctant to sign it?

 

Show me where I said that.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Try reading the link LOL

I edited already and stated the mistake, so to clarify what should have been, can you show me where (my highlights)

 

"The reason the US is reluctant to stop weapons transfer to Israel is the threat of Hezbollah, not support for Israel's bombing of Palestinians."

 

 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

I edited already and stated the mistake, so to clarify what should have been, can you show me where (my highlights)

 

"The reason the US is reluctant to stop weapons transfer to Israel is the threat of Hezbollah, not support for Israel's bombing of Palestinians."

 

 

 

Try reading the link?

[ozimoron]

"What's important to note is that the United States has changed its position, and shown its will to defend, very clearly now, a ceasefire," Mr Macron said.

 

"For a long time, the Americans were reticent. That reticence is now gone."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68627272

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Try reading the link?

I have, there is nothing in the link that states that.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I have, there is nothing in the link that states that.

 

Joe Biden does not want to be the man who stopped arming Israel, not least because that would leave the country vulnerable to the mighty arsenal of Hezbollah just across the northern border with Lebanon.

 

I can interpret that as I see fit. The purpose of that sentence is to assert the major reason is the threat from Hezbollah, otherwise it would have no point. As is your usual MO, you reject any nuance at all and revert to pedantry.

Edited March 23 by ozimoron

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Joe Biden does not want to be the man who stopped arming Israel, not least because that would leave the country vulnerable to the mighty arsenal of Hezbollah just across the northern border with Lebanon.

 

I can interpret that as I see fit. The purpose of that sentence is to assert the major reason is the threat from Hezbollah, otherwise it would have no point.

You said it was in the link, its not.

 

"The reason the US is reluctant to stop weapons transfer to Israel is the threat of Hezbollah, not support for Israel's bombing of Palestinians."

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You said it was in the link, its not.

 

"The reason the US is reluctant to stop weapons transfer to Israel is the threat of Hezbollah, not support for Israel's bombing of Palestinians."

 

As I said, that's my interpretation of what that sentence means. Without that interpretation the sentence would have no point. Read the sentence in the context of those around it.

 

 

Edited March 23 by ozimoron

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

As I said, that's my interpretation of what that sentence means. Without that interpretation the sentence would have no point.

Rubbish, again you said it was in the link, there is nothing there to indicate that in the link, highly misleading.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Rubbish, again you said it was in the link, there is nothing there to indicate that in the link, highly misleading.

 

What then did the sentence really mean? Just a throw away and that both issues carried equal weight?

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

What then did the sentence really mean? Just a throw away and that both issues carried equal weight?

Its not up to me to answer your questions, its up to you to back up your claims in the article link.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its not up to me to answer your questions, its up to you to back up your claims in the article link.

 

I answered your questions. You never answer questions with a direct answer as put to you. I'll not grace your objections further and just leave it to others to decide how they interpret that sentence. After all, my primary target for commenting is not you since the list of questions unanswered by you would require a forest to print.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

I answered your questions. You never answer questions with a direct answer as put to you. I'll not grace your objections further and just leave it to others to decide how they interpret that sentence. After all, my primary target for commenting is not you since the list of questions unanswered by you would require a forest to print.

No you didn't, you deflected as usual and continue to do so when asked to back up your misleading claims

 

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its not up to me to answer your questions, its up to you to back up your claims in the article link.

 

[ozimoron]

“There are good reasons why US law prohibits arms support for governments that block life-saving aid or violate international law with US weapons,” said Sarah Yager, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “Given ongoing hostilities in Gaza, the Israeli government’s assurances to the Biden administration that it is meeting US legal requirements are not credible.” 

 

NSM-20 establishes that foreign security partners such as Israel submit assurances to the Departments of State and Defense that they are not arbitrarily blocking US humanitarian assistance and not violating international humanitarian law.

 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/19/israeli-assurances-use-us-arms-legally-are-not-credible

[WDSmart]

12 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Yes, there have been about five wars and numerous other individual attacks .

This war is called the 2 nd Yom kippur war , which succeeded the 1 st Yom Kippur war in 1973

Thanks for clarifying that. I, as you know, consider this conflict all the same "war," and each major episode, like Oct 7, is just another campaign of that war. To call each of these separate "wars," for me, just seems to ignore that they are all part of the same conflict. But I understand what you are saying, and you are right in that many of these, what I would call "campaigns," are called "wars" by the media.

Thanks again for your explanation.

[ozimoron]

Nearly 70 former U.S. officials, diplomats and military officers on Wednesday urged President Joe Biden to warn Israel of serious consequences if it denies civil rights and basic necessities to Palestinians and expands settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.

 

"The United States must be willing to take concrete action to oppose" such practices, the group said in an open letter to Biden, "including restrictions on provision of (U.S.) assistance (to Israel) consistent with U.S. law and policy."

 

Among the signatories were more than a dozen former ambassadors, as well as other retired State Department officials and former Pentagon, intelligence and White House officials, including Anthony Lake, a national security adviser to former President Bill Clinton.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-03-20/dozens-of-former-u-s-officials-urge-biden-to-take-harder-line-with-israel

[WDSmart]

10 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

ooops aweful news, vetoed by Russia and China. 

 

U.S. Gaza ceasefire resolution vetoed by China, Russia at UN Security Council

Russia and China on Friday vetoed a U.S. draft UN Security Council resolution which called for an "immediate and sustained ceasefire" in Gaza along with "the release of all remaining hostages" held by Hamas.

Why it matters: This was the fourth time since the war began in October that the Security Council failed to agree on a resolution calling for a ceasefire. This time, the dispute was over the U.S. insistence on linking the ceasefire call to a hostage deal and condemnation of Hamas, rather than the unconditional ceasefire resolution demanded by Russia and China.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/22/us-ceasefire-resolution-veto-un-security-council

 

Another huge let down for the hostages and families along with the ceasefire of course

And another one of your posts with which I agree - awful news... 

I can only point out which countries vetoed this: Russia and China. Why, I don't know, but anything they team up to do, especially if they are the only ones, is suspiciously deviant to me.

Was Isreal allowed a vote on this? If so, how did they vote?

[ozimoron]

Just now, WDSmart said:

And another one of your posts with which I agree - awful news... 

I can only point out which countries vetoed this: Russia and China. Why, I don't know, but anything they team up to do, especially if they are the only ones, is suspiciously deviant to me.

Was Isreal allowed a vote on this? If so, how did they vote?

 

This was a security council vote. I believe Israel is not currently on the security council. It would be a travesty if it was.