A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
So the months of coordinated efforts to by activists to disrupt Democratic meetings, harass Democratic politicians, chant genocide Joe, vote uncommitted in primaries, block traffic, support BDS efforts etc. was actually an effective method of protest that had a small but meaningful effect in changing foreign policy?
The methods of protest the state wants us to think are successful and the methods that can actually succeed are usually not the same. Please take note.
And will they reward Biden for listening or reinforce the idea that there's no point trying to please the progressive left by finding some other reason to get upset and not vote?
I think there's two sides to this. Criticizers shouldn't suddenly fall in line because we've made progress, but they also shouldn't pretend that nothing's happened.
The right answer is to give credit to Biden for listening this much, and continue to push for more. I agree though that overall, this action should earn him more progressive votes -- just not all of them, and not with all criticism disappearing.
there’s no point trying to please the progressive left
2016 called
I don't think the progressive left is why Hillary lost. Certainly, people choosing not to vote because she was centrist had an impact, but I don't think there were really enough "Bernie or bust" folks to be solely responsible. You actually had a higher percentage of Bernie voters going for Hillary in 2016 than you did Hilary voters going for Obama in 2008.
You had like five different factors and a pretty tight final margin. No one factor was responsible. Comey's letter, Hilary being center, Russian meddling, online misinformation -- all of it is partially but not wholly responsible.
Not stabbing someone is better than stabbing them half way through and calling it a balanced view
There's a flip side to the politics: criticism from the right-wing pro-Israel faction is quieter than usual because a separate group of anti-semites have gained power in the Republican party.
Normally, Biden wouldn't have much incentive listen much to the far left, but right now he's not paying much in costs from the other side.
Passed. US Abstaining with no veto. BTW it also calls for immediate and unconditional release of hostages.
This is a pretty big shift for the US, and it means the pressure is finally starting to really register with Biden. If the "uncommited" results in the Michigan primary were enough to get his attention, recent polling that puts him 8 points behind Trump likely changed the debate for the foreseeable future.
Biden is playing diplomatic chess. Netanyahu warned the US before the vote that Israel would not participate in a meeting if the US didn't use its veto. So, now the US didn't. BTW, Hamas launched rockets at Ashdod right before the Security Council voted confirming its status as an equal fighting party in the war before a ceasefire.
What you mean to tell me geopolitical diplomacy is more complicated and delicate than the people screaming "genocide Joe" think it is???? Shocking.
No. It means enough people screaming genocide Joe loudly enough had a small but tangible impact on American foreign policy.
My country is coward.
Which one and why?
USA because it took this many decades to merely abstain and and not veto.
They've been vetoing, the proper action would have been to vote to pass.
Everyone who ridiculed the Uncommitted movement is real quiet now.
Most people I saw on here were critical of being uncommitted towards the general election and don't care about being uncommitted during the primary. Several states don't even hold a primary for the party if they are currently holding office.
To add to that, they mostly agreed that Trump would tell Israel to finish the job, and they were right, that is what he ended up saying. Voting against Biden would in fact doom Gaza to genocide.
The anti-left hasn't gone quiet, just shifting tactics and terminology.
Note how casually "progressive" is being used negatively, and not just here.
UN source: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147931
The UN Security Council on Monday passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, the immediate and unconditional release of hostages and "the urgent need to expand the flow" of aid into Gaza. There were 14 votes in favour with the United States abstaining.
Timeline of discussion in link.
From the UN Summery:
The Council then adopted the resolution 2728 (2024) (to be issued as document S/RES/2728(2024)) by a vote of 14 in favour to none against, with one abstention (United States). By its terms, it demanded an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire. It also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs.
By other terms, the Council emphasized the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance and reinforce the protection of civilians in Gaza. It also demanded the lifting of all barriers to humanitarian assistance at scale, in line with international humanitarian law as well as Council resolutions 2712 (2023) and 2720 (2023)..
Now that this Council has finally called for a ceasefire, all forces should ensure it is enforced, he asserted, adding: “This must be a turning point, this must lead to saving lives on the ground, this must signal an end of these atrocities against the Palestinians — a nation is being murdered, […] disposed [and] displaced for decades now — but never at this scale since the Nakba, never this openly”. However, he said that even if the ceasefire happened now and the siege was lifted, “it would take generations to deal with the trauma and devastation”.
But what about the Hamas that's hiding behind all the Humans, and not to mention the beheaded babies. Isn't it a bit too early for a ceasefire, since Israel hasn't gotten its vengeance?
Oh wait... it's elections year. Got it!
/s obviously
Glad to see they finally reworded without all of the fuckery the previous one had.
End this bullshit.
The United States actually let it happen. This would've been a hard veto otherwise.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
UN Security Council passes resolution calling for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza, as US shifts position by abstaining from vote
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App.
You can also follow @BBCBreaking on Twitter to get the latest alerts.
The original article contains 69 words, the summary contains 69 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!