I do not think the US can veto this. The SecGen is just "informing the Council."@Tidewater - how likely is the US is to veto this, in your mind?
I do not think the US can veto this. The SecGen is just "informing the Council."@Tidewater - how likely is the US is to veto this, in your mind?
I asked because it mentions this in the article:I do not think the US can veto this. The SecGen is just "informing the Council."
The United States, which is Israel’s closest ally and has veto power on resolutions, has not supported a cease-fire. On Tuesday, U.S. Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood said that the role of the Security Council in the Israel-Gaza war is not to get in the way of important diplomacy that’s taking place. And he said the Security Council resolution at this time "would not be useful."
This could signal a likely veto, but the U.S. has not said either way.
As per the UN Charter, Article 99 is an independent tool in the hands of the Secretary-General who "may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security." The special powers allow the UN Secretary-General to call a meeting of the Security Council on an emerging situation of international concern.
The invocation of Article 99 by the Secretary-General Antonio Guterres comes as the 15-member UN Security Council, which is its most powerful body has not adopted any resolutions on a ceasefire in Gaza between Israel Defence Forces and Hamas militants.
If the UN Security Council chooses to act on the advice of the United Nations Secretary-General and successfully adopts a resolution urging both parties to commit to a ceasefire, then it can use various options to get the ceasefire executed like deployment of international forces to maintain peace or sanction one or both parties involved in the conflict.
Yes. Normally UNSCR are brought up by the member states. The SecGen is largely a figurehead.Okay, dug a little deeper:
So it sounds like the security council will still have to vote on any cease-fire resolution. If so, I'd think the US will likely veto it.
The President at Harvard has been on the job for less than 6 months. I doubt she thinks much of anything except how to manage the next catastrophe to land on her desk. I doubt any person could get much done as a President at a major university after the Supreme Court nuked their admissions policy just as they are starting the job and trying to get their legs under their feet, with all of the normal tasks a university President has. I've seen the stuff a Dean has to go through, and the position of President must be a total pressure cooker with almost zero time for patting yourself on the back.This is what happens when people live in an echo-chamber. I'm pretty sure all 3 of those women thought the media and/or party had their backs because this is what they are accustomed to 24/7.
What she expressed wasn't something she just came up with 20 minutes before walking in off the top of her head. This goes back to the academic culture she is a part of. It's not everywhere in academia, but this type of thought is what she is surrounded by regularly. The admissions policy should have been nuked.The President at Harvard has been on the job for less than 6 months. I doubt she thinks much of anything except how to manage the next catastrophe to land on her desk. I doubt any person could get much done as a President at a major university after the Supreme Court nuked their admissions policy just as they are starting the job and trying to get their legs under their feet, with all of the normal tasks a university President has. I've seen the stuff a Dean has to go through, and the position of President must be a total pressure cooker with almost zero time for patting yourself on the back.
that basically explains conservatism in the us for the past 35 years or soAlso, at this point, I would refuse to testify in front of these sound bite machines inventing straw men arguments to try to "take down" university Presidents.
I begrudgingly agree that admissions should be a function based upon a representative sample of the country's economic diversity coupled with a student's academics, extra curriculars, essay, ranking in their schools etc. So, no group can claim they are being left out, except the uber wealthy that try to game the system folks.What she expressed wasn't something she just came up with 20 minutes before walking in off the top of her head. This goes back to the academic culture she is a part of. It's not everywhere in academia, but this type of thought is what she is surrounded by regularly. The admissions policy should have been nuked.
So this happened here in Warner Robins...
7th grade social studies teacher has an Israeli flag in his classroom. A student says she found it offensive because of Israelis killing Palestinians.
Teacher threatens to kill student. As one does.
![]()
Warner Robins teacher accused of threatening to kill student over comment about his Israeli flag
Benjamin Reese's bond was set at $2,500 for the terroristic threat charge and $5,000 for the charge of cruelty to children. Reese has since bonded out.www.13wmaz.com
Also, at this point, I would refuse to testify in front of these sound bite machines inventing straw men arguments to try to "take down" university Presidents.
All I can see from that sign is "go back to sleep and do what I say, you dumb sheeple."
I'm guessing this happens in large part due to these hamas idiots refusing to wear uniforms, but rather (in typical terrorist cowardice) dress in civilian clothing.![]()
Israel-Hamas war: IDF mistakenly kills three hostages in Gaza | The Jerusalem Post
Yotam Haim, Samer Talalka, and Alon Shamriz killed by IDF fire • IDF launches probe into incidentwww.jpost.com
I thought this would be a possibility for the hostages. I hoped it wouldn’t happen but they are caught in the middle because Hamas took them just like the innocent Palestinians are.I'm guessing this happens in large part due to these hamas idiots refusing to wear uniforms, but rather (in typical terrorist cowardice) dress in civilian clothing.