It’s both at the same time. This conflict has caused populations of the yellow countries to be divided more than ever before.
This has caused many politicians to slip up in their first reactions, in which they declared unconditional support for Israel after the attacks by Hamas.
Even at that point more people than they anticipated took the stance that “self defence” should not automatically include fighting beyond your own borders and there was outrage. People felt their heads of state needed to represent ALL citizens, which means full support for the Israeli cause was unacceptable.
This has put several world leaders in an awkward position where they have to carefully balance protecting human rights within Gaza and simultaneously condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization. Abstaining from voting for a ceasefire is a direct result of that. Voting either way might open up new discussion with supporters of either side.
This is very obviously the cowardly way out and we as a people need to push for a resolution to this conflict that is morally just and protects human rights on both sides.
While Germany abstained it was purely for economic reasons in not enraging the “global south” that sees the imperialist regime brutalizing the occupied territories, like the European countries did in so many countries before.
In Germany now people without german citizenship are demanded to sign a paper pledging support to Israel or otherwise facing repercussions like deportation.
In Germany now people without german citizenship are demanded to sign a paper pledging support to Israel or otherwise facing repercussions like deportation.
It was in one of 16 German states, it was an acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist, not a pledge of support, and there was no threat of deportation, but otherwise your claim is spot on.
I remember that at least the Finnish reason for abstaining is that Hamas was not mentioned nor their attack condemned in any way in the cease fire resolution. Canada started a petition to change the wording of the resolution and most countries who abstained voted for this.
I get what you’re saying and that might very well be the case but you can’t be neutral in a case like this. Neutral means supporting Israel.
I have zero respect for countries voting no, but abstaining is no better. You (as a country) are literally preventing others to help by doing so. Someone is getting stabbed in front of you and you go “no, no, don’t help, we shouldn’t interfere”.
Just let them die I guess, they’re only Palestinians after all.
I’m from Canada and I support our position. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t know enough about what going on to make an informed decision on the matter. I don’t live there, I’m not a part of any of their culture or religion, regardless of which side you’re referring to. Fact is, any information I get won’t tell the full story, and having zero stake in the matter, I could not possibly know what to say.
A ceasefire sounds good on the surface, people should use their words when trying to solve their problems, not guns and bombs. However, some situations can become impossible to escape without violence, and putting an end to the violence prematurely, could allow an unreasonable situation to thrive. I purely do not know what’s happening, so I don’t want a vote in what happens. Further, I won’t be affected by the outcome, good or bad, so whatever I would vote, I wouldn’t experience any consequences from that.
At this point, I’m not even asking anyone to tell me about it because there’s a lot of misinformed people and/or people with an agenda that are going to just jump at me to tell me one way or another; simply, I cannot differentiate someone speaking about the matter from bias, from someone who is simply explaining the facts, because I have so little context.
Additionally, news media have not helped the situation. They go for the catchy, attention grabbing headline, regardless of what it may imply. So even the news could simply be putting something up that will drive engagement without telling the whole story (and bluntly, they often do).
At this point the issue seems to go much deeper than the actions of the current conflict, and as far as I can tell, this, or something like it, has been brewing on and off in that area for entire life.
I don’t know what’s right or factual, I don’t know what to believe for correct information, I’m not involved, nor is my country (not like we have any significant military to enforce anything anyways), and we have no stake in the outcome.
Why would we vote on this?
To be clear, personally, I don’t like conflicts, especially large scale ones. I don’t want anyone to die for “the cause” at all. I don’t like warmongers, and I don’t want anyone (especially the innocent) to suffer and die because of some warmonger. I recognise that sometimes it’s required, but I am not in favor of violence in any form. Same as self defense. If you’re defending yourself against someone, violence is sometimes required, and legitimate.
To reiterate: I don’t know about the conflict, and I don’t know if I can trust anyone, even here, to give me accurate information about what’s happening. Please don’t lecture me about it.
I’ll finish with this: I am hoping that the innocent in any, every, and especially this conflict, to be safe, and sound. I know not all of them will be, but I’m hoping for it anyways.
Abstain = We’re against a cease fire but we don’t really want to say that out loud, people might think we’re horrible…
I was thinking more: We’re for a cease fire but we’re afraid America might be salty about it,
It’s both at the same time. This conflict has caused populations of the yellow countries to be divided more than ever before.
This has caused many politicians to slip up in their first reactions, in which they declared unconditional support for Israel after the attacks by Hamas.
Even at that point more people than they anticipated took the stance that “self defence” should not automatically include fighting beyond your own borders and there was outrage. People felt their heads of state needed to represent ALL citizens, which means full support for the Israeli cause was unacceptable.
This has put several world leaders in an awkward position where they have to carefully balance protecting human rights within Gaza and simultaneously condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization. Abstaining from voting for a ceasefire is a direct result of that. Voting either way might open up new discussion with supporters of either side.
This is very obviously the cowardly way out and we as a people need to push for a resolution to this conflict that is morally just and protects human rights on both sides.
While Germany abstained it was purely for economic reasons in not enraging the “global south” that sees the imperialist regime brutalizing the occupied territories, like the European countries did in so many countries before.
In Germany now people without german citizenship are demanded to sign a paper pledging support to Israel or otherwise facing repercussions like deportation.
It was in one of 16 German states, it was an acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist, not a pledge of support, and there was no threat of deportation, but otherwise your claim is spot on.
Wait is this actually true?
Germany and Apartheid name a better combination.
Should just go for the simple option of “doesn’t concern us” and leave it at that
I remember that at least the Finnish reason for abstaining is that Hamas was not mentioned nor their attack condemned in any way in the cease fire resolution. Canada started a petition to change the wording of the resolution and most countries who abstained voted for this.
This is the same bullshit excuse America used to veto the first ceasefire.
Then when a bill with condemnation was introduced America still vetoed it.
It’s just a pretentious troll. Every country that abstained is owned by the israeli lobby. That said the veto is far worse.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231018-us-vetoes-un-resolution-on-israel-hamas-war
deleted by creator
I don’t think you know what “abstain” means
Still a million times better than vetoing it. We should be ashamed here in the US…
I read that completely differently to you. I see it as "we want a ceasefire but bullshit politics means we can’t vote for it "
Some countries like Canada, are neutrally aligned, and simply don’t answer questions like this. Same with Denmark, I believe.
I get what you’re saying and that might very well be the case but you can’t be neutral in a case like this. Neutral means supporting Israel.
I have zero respect for countries voting no, but abstaining is no better. You (as a country) are literally preventing others to help by doing so. Someone is getting stabbed in front of you and you go “no, no, don’t help, we shouldn’t interfere”.
Just let them die I guess, they’re only Palestinians after all.
Shame on you Canada and all other yellows.
I get what you’re saying, I really do.
I’m from Canada and I support our position. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t know enough about what going on to make an informed decision on the matter. I don’t live there, I’m not a part of any of their culture or religion, regardless of which side you’re referring to. Fact is, any information I get won’t tell the full story, and having zero stake in the matter, I could not possibly know what to say.
A ceasefire sounds good on the surface, people should use their words when trying to solve their problems, not guns and bombs. However, some situations can become impossible to escape without violence, and putting an end to the violence prematurely, could allow an unreasonable situation to thrive. I purely do not know what’s happening, so I don’t want a vote in what happens. Further, I won’t be affected by the outcome, good or bad, so whatever I would vote, I wouldn’t experience any consequences from that.
At this point, I’m not even asking anyone to tell me about it because there’s a lot of misinformed people and/or people with an agenda that are going to just jump at me to tell me one way or another; simply, I cannot differentiate someone speaking about the matter from bias, from someone who is simply explaining the facts, because I have so little context.
Additionally, news media have not helped the situation. They go for the catchy, attention grabbing headline, regardless of what it may imply. So even the news could simply be putting something up that will drive engagement without telling the whole story (and bluntly, they often do).
At this point the issue seems to go much deeper than the actions of the current conflict, and as far as I can tell, this, or something like it, has been brewing on and off in that area for entire life.
I don’t know what’s right or factual, I don’t know what to believe for correct information, I’m not involved, nor is my country (not like we have any significant military to enforce anything anyways), and we have no stake in the outcome.
Why would we vote on this?
To be clear, personally, I don’t like conflicts, especially large scale ones. I don’t want anyone to die for “the cause” at all. I don’t like warmongers, and I don’t want anyone (especially the innocent) to suffer and die because of some warmonger. I recognise that sometimes it’s required, but I am not in favor of violence in any form. Same as self defense. If you’re defending yourself against someone, violence is sometimes required, and legitimate.
To reiterate: I don’t know about the conflict, and I don’t know if I can trust anyone, even here, to give me accurate information about what’s happening. Please don’t lecture me about it.
I’ll finish with this: I am hoping that the innocent in any, every, and especially this conflict, to be safe, and sound. I know not all of them will be, but I’m hoping for it anyways.