• Redcuban1959 [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months 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
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months 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.

      • CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        It doesn’t even make any sense period. States are the ones that delineate “rights.” A sovereign state would never need to affirm its “rights” or have them affirmed, unless their sovereignty was conditional.

        So, all of this is a show the international (imperial) community plays to endorse the genocide. The US gives the occupier of Palestine the “right” to defend itself from blowback and demands support from its other vassals and victims to solidify the sovereignty of an illegitimate project through their recognition as legitimate players. Yet this seemingly challenges the sovereignty of the project, almost as if it is just a US colony in need of permission…

        The US would never - maybe not even rhetorically - rely on rights granted to it by the international community to assert its imperial sovereignty. The society of states is such a fucking joke.