To ask why the only countries that didn't vote for a ceasefire were USA and UK?

[stillholly]

All other countries in the UN voted for a ceasefire.

USA put their hand up and voted against a ceasefire.

UK abstained from voting.

Can anyone explain to me their reasoning for not voting for a ceasefire?

Without a ceasefire the fighting continues. People starve, die and how does this all come to an end?

Results of today's draft ceasefire resolution

153 member states voted in favour, 10 against and there were 23 abstentions

Once again US voted against and the UK abstained

Over 80% of votes in favour of a ceasefire.

Why can't it be majority rules? The changes of 100% agreement on anything must be minute?

This has come up before I know but I’m
confused now. Why did Netanyahu allow Qatar to pay money to Gaza before Oct 7? He said at the time it was for humanitarian reasons as the competing Palestinian authority was reducing payments to people in Gaza.
Now people are saying he was funding Hamas and many Israelis are angrily accusing him of having allowed Hamas to flourish.
Of course the cash did allow Hamas to flourish. But why did Netanyahu allow it in? Was he really being humanitarian and it backfired?

Netanyahu cash to Gaza

Netanyahu has always said that he will never agree to a 2 state solution.

His whole persona is based on never allowing this . How better to scare Israelis, expand settlements as punishments for "terror", appear like a "strongman" by bombing Palestinians, than to fund Hamas.

He actually was arrogant enough to think the money would subdue Hamas and that he could control them. Aka he bought the biggest American Bully Dog and was shocked when it bit him. Arrogant idiot.

According to this article it was to keep the Palestinian’s politically divided so that a two state solution would be less possible.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

Yes that’s what I’d heard. I was just taken aback by today’s reporting of him having claimed to be doing it for humanitarian reasons.

Divide and conquer.

Once again, a proposed amendment to unequivocally reject and condemn the terrorist attacks by Hamas starting Oct 7th and the taking of hostages failed (this time proposed by the US, last time I think by Canada).
84 members voted in favour, 62 voted against. 25 members abstained.

I genuinely don’t understand the lack of condemnation, would it affect the proposed resolution, the overwhelming support for a ceasefire demand, or deny the magnitude and brutality of the Israeli retaliation? Would it make any difference to the outcome? Any insights?

@25milesfromhome
Thats a fair point
I don't understand why that wasn't included in the first place and why it had to be proposed later on.
I would like to know how the UK voted on that proposed amendment too

These were the key points of the resolution

• It demands “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire”
• It reiterates that “all parties comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, notably with regard to the protection of civilians”
• It also calls for the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access

@25milesfromhome also 62 countries voted against that which is quite alot
Is there anywhere to check the list of how individual countries voted on the US's proposed amendment?

Babyboomtastic wrote
Is it because Palestinian lives seemingly matter less or is it because for all the thousands of rockets, them actually hitting anything and injuring or killing anyone is (thankfully) rare. And yes, the Iron Dome has a lot to do with that, but it's disingenuous to pretend that these rockets are an equal danger compared to IDF bombs.

Hamas rockets serve a purpose for both the Israel and Hamas.

For Hamas, firstly they are a rallying cry that remind the people of Gaza that Hamas are fighting their oppressors. Secondly, they are extremely expensive to defend against. It takes about $80,000 dollars worth of Iron dome to take out a single $800 qassam rocket. So part of their being launched is simply to get the Israelis to spend their money. Being unguided and with a relatively small payload, militarily they are ineffectual.

For the Israelis, they serve the purpose of reminding the world that they are constantly under threat, however Israel greatly exaggerates that threat. I think that the total fatalities from the thousands of rockets fired between 2004 and 2014 was less than 30. When you see that the death toll on Israel's roads is about 25 every month, you realise that death in Israel is far more likely to come from the road than from the air. However, Israel's supporters can portray the rockets as evidence of the existential threat to Israel posed to the Nation even though that is, in reality, not the case, because in the grand scheme of things, militarily they are neither here nor there.

I haven’t been able to find anything yet.

I can only also see the final results.
Does anyone else know where we can see how countries voted on the US's proposed amendment?

@Parkingt111 Found it, should be able to zoom in on votes.

ETA it’s a bit blurry.

@25milesfromhome thank you for that. I can see the UK voted for the amendment so if it passed they would have voted for the ceasefire too rather than abstain? Is that correct

I don’t know. Of the countries that voted in favour of the amendment, some went on to vote in favour of the resolution, some abstained, some voted against, so I’m not sure that would be a foregone conclusion.

This voting isn't about Gazans. It is about many partial expressions of positions, alliances and so on.The UN vote wouldn't actually made the ceasefire or hostage release happen. It would be kind of an appeal.
If Hamas was ready to return the hostages, they can exchange that for the ceasefire themselves. If they aren't, they would violate the potential ceasefire anyway.

You don't think the UN should have mentioned the appalling cruelty if the Hamas attack?

This is certainly true - take a look at who voted against the US amendment to condemn Hamas's attack - ITran, Russia, China, etc.

IN voted "overwhelmingly" for a ceasefire.

@quiteoldad
Thanks for that, it explained what I had been thinking but hadn’t been able to articulate.

I’m pretty sure that the failure to agree to condemn Hamas comes from the fact that such a condemnation would imply that Hamas started this conflict out of the blue. Maybe some wording to change that might help.

But then where would you stop?

"... which was in response to ..., which in turn was in response to ..., which in turn was in response to, ..., which in turn was in response to the destruction of the temple in 70AD".