• goferking (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Wonder what the actual text was.

    Also if they really want a ceasefire why did they continue to veto?

    What’s next: The Security Council is expected to vote on an alternative resolution put forward by eight member states, calling for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan to lead to a permanent ceasefire.

    That text also demands the release of all hostages without linking it to the ceasefire. The U.S. is expected to veto.

  • dbilitated@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    apparently the issue is the US wants to add conditions for Hamas, releasing Israeli hostages and condemning Hamas.

    I think that’s gross but I think a ceasefire is more important

      • dbilitated@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        it’s more, we’ll hold up a ceasefire by adding conditions for Israel while thousands of Palestinians are dying of hunger or simply shot. I think the hostages should be returned but that should simply be another negotiation.

        Personally I think the hostage release and condemning the initial act are fine but both sides holding up a ceasefire based on those details is terrible. People are dying at a sickening rate.