Important tidbit that's being left out of most references: the US's rationale:
> U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood called the resolution “imbalanced” and criticized the council after the vote for its failure to condemn Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel in which the militants killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, or to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend itself. He declared that halting military action would allow Hamas to continue to rule Gaza and “only plant the seeds for the next war.”
It boggles the mind how these declarations pin the issue as Israel capriciously killing civilians for fun, making absolutely no reference to Hamas, it's role in killing civilians on both sides of the border, the role of Hamas oppressing Palestinians to force them to exist as human shields, and more importantly how this resolution was not a cease fire but a demand that Israel stopped neutralizing Hamas without adding any requirement for Hamas to meet.
1 comment
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 13.2 ms ] thread> U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood called the resolution “imbalanced” and criticized the council after the vote for its failure to condemn Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel in which the militants killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, or to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend itself. He declared that halting military action would allow Hamas to continue to rule Gaza and “only plant the seeds for the next war.”
It boggles the mind how these declarations pin the issue as Israel capriciously killing civilians for fun, making absolutely no reference to Hamas, it's role in killing civilians on both sides of the border, the role of Hamas oppressing Palestinians to force them to exist as human shields, and more importantly how this resolution was not a cease fire but a demand that Israel stopped neutralizing Hamas without adding any requirement for Hamas to meet.