• Redcuban1959 [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    without giving a coherent explanation for the second veto

    They said that they vetoed because “Brazil didn’t say that Israel has a right of self-defense”.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not a coherent explanation given that the purpose of the resolution is to have a ceasefire as in both sides ceasing hostilities.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, that’s part of the given justification for the veto, but it doesn’t take a PhD in international relations to figure out that the real reason is obviously that both the US and Israel --and a number of other relevant players-- are currently knee-deep in operations and negotiations and that a cease fire, by changing the dynamic on the ground, would seriously screw those efforts.

      My guess is that Israel has a plan that it wants to execute before implementing any cease-fire, and that the US is on-board with it for now.

      Unlike most social media users, I don’t feel like I know enough to take a position on whether this veto is morally justifiable or not. On its face it seems kind of lame, but I can easily think of reasons why it might actually be entirely justified. We will see.