To wonder why it’s difficult to find UK abstention coverage

[readyspaghetti]

I missed the news the last few days and was shocked to find this buried within a story, rather than being the headline.

there is something wrong when it’s difficult to find a headline about the UK abstention vote.

If you do a search on iPhone the first free whole news story is a Scottish paper. What???? Why not in the UK?

Abstaining isn't the same as veto, is it?

Its politically significant on a huge global issue. It should absolutely have been reported & its very poor that the bbc didnt.

The UK does not back the ceasefire that was entwined in the motion.

https://x.com/ukunnewyork/status/1718010823975571528?s=46&t=9mZAi30UHHZfHKKX9H6jg

I suspect it is a reflection of the fact that the Security Council is now a dysfunctional irrelevance in geopolitics.

I also wondered this. Lots of coverage of the vote that didn’t mention the way the UK votes at all. I thought it was very odd.

But @mellongoose whatever the reasons for abstaining, it should still be reported on proper news channels, not just on twitter.

There's a clue as to why the UK might have taken the line it did in the statement to the UN by by Lord (Tariq) Ahmad of Wimbledon:

".....It should also, in our view, unequivocally condemn these terror attacks, Hamas’ terror attacks that killed over 1400 people. And as we know at this very time, hold over 200 hostages..."

Presumably the resolution calling for a ceasefire didn't do that?

Whole speech is here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hope-and-humanity-must-win-out-against-the-scourge-of-aggression-and-terrorism-lord-ahmad-statement-at-the-un-general-assembly

I suspect (for once) the media was trying not to inflame an already heated atmosphere in our cities.

These days using your Google foo it's fairly easy to get the news straight from the UNs newsfeed and not rely on ITV/BBC/ etc for info on stuff like this...

As I understand it it's maybe important to be aware that the UK was not alone in abstaining, 44 other countries also did so.

The problem many nations seems to have had was spelt out by the Canadian Ambassador to the UN when he proposed amending the resolution text, i.e. a lot of people weren't happy with the lack of mention of Oct 7th in the document:

To quote him, C&P off the UN site:

"Unfortunately, Canada cannot support the current text, he said, adding that the Assembly cannot act without recognizing the 7 October terrorist attacks and the hostage taking.

If the proposed amendment is not adopted, the Assembly will not have recognized one of the world’s worst terrorist attacks and “we will all have to live with that failure as the tragedy continues to unfold,”

That amendment was put to the vote and wasn't passed.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847

The UN Security Council hasn't been front page news in the UK since the Falklands War. That a Scots news outlet has the story presumably means it's "a slow news day" north of the border.

I did hear on the BBC that the UK amongst others abstained because there was no condemnation of Hamas

It's because it didn't condemn Hamas' murders