I’d seen the wording earlier today and am regretting not bookmarking the article. The US did not call for an immediate ceasefire. It was a conditional call for a ceasefire. Not an unconditional or immediate call.
Sana.sy
China’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, said that “an immediate ceasefire is the basic premise” for saving lives, expanding humanitarian access, and preventing further conflict.
The ambassador pointed out that the U.S. draft was “unbalanced in many aspects,” especially concerning Israel’s recent repeated declarations of planning military attacks on Rafah.
“The draft did not clearly oppose such actions, sending a very wrong signal with serious consequences,” the ambassador added.
The text of the American draft resolution allows the continued killing of civilians and lacks clear guarantees, said Algeria’s permanent representative to the UN, Amar Bendjama, pointing out that the Council must be empowered to impose a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
Bendjama stressed that the draft did not mention “Israel’s” responsibility for killing the Palestinians and has fallen far short of the level required.
Based on a responsible attitude towards upholding justice, the United Nations Charter, and the dignity of the Security Council, and also due to the concerns and strong dissatisfaction from Arab countries towards the draft, China, along with Algeria and Russia, cast a vote against it.
TIME– it is acknowledged the resolution did not call for an immediate ceasefire
But the text of the resolution stopped short of clearly demanding a ceasefire without conditions. Instead, U.S. diplomats came up with the clunky formulation that the United Nations Security Council “determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire.” It went on to say that such a ceasefire would be to “protect civilians on all sides”, “allow for the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance” “alleviate humanitarian suffering” and that the council “unequivocally supports ongoing international diplomatic efforts to secure such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.”
At the UN on Friday, Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said that the U.S. draft was “not enough” and that the Council needs to “demand a ceasefire.” The US resolution was “deliberately misleading” and designed to throw “a bone” to American voters demanding Biden call for a ceasefire.
Did the U.S. resolution call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza?
It did not. The U.S. resolution linked a ceasefire to access to Israeli hostages held by Hamas and the ongoing talks over their release.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that the resolution was intended to increase attention on the diplomacy needed to bring Hamas and Israel to an agreement over aid deliveries, hostage releases and a ceasefire.
Increase attention on the diplomacy needed? We’re past diplomacy. A ceasefire is needed, now.
Nebenzia was correct- This was the Biden administration throwing a bone to electors. I’m certain it failed.
Me, on X. Hours ago- Calling it as it appears to me.
Another resolution is in the works- The US has already stated they will veto-