Russia and China vetoed the measure, which was supported by 11 members of the council but opposed by three other countries including Algeria. The resolution would have been officially binding under international law, but it did not end fighting or lead to hostage release.
The United Nations Security Council has rejected a US-sponsored resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.
The United Nations Security Council has rejected a US-sponsored resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. Russia and China vetoed the measure, which was supported by 11 members of the council but opposed by three other countries including Algeria. The resolution would have been officially binding under international law, but it did not end fighting or lead to hostage release.
The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield accused Russia's UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia of misleading the international community for political reasons. China's ambassador also criticized the resolution, saying it set preconditions and fell short of expectations.
The most recent resolution would have been officially binding under international law, but it did not end fighting or lead to hostage release. However, it added pressure on Israel amid global demands for a ceasefire at a time of rising tensions between the US and Israeli governments.
Russia and China vetoed a U.S.-sponsored U.N. resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza
The vote was 11 members in favor, three against and one abstention
Russia's UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia questioned the language of the resolution and accused U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield of misleading the international community for political reasons
The draft that was put to a vote made no direct link to hostages taken during Hamas' Oct 7 attack on Israel, but it unequivocally supported diplomatic efforts in connection with their release
Accuracy
Russia and China vetoed a U.S.-sponsored resolution in late October calling for pauses in the fighting to deliver aid, protection of civilians and halt arming Hamas
The US has vetoed three resolutions demanding a cease-fire, the most recent an Arab-backed measure supported by 13 council members with one abstention on Feb 20
A day earlier, the U.S circulated a rival resolution which went through major changes during negotiations before Friday's vote
The final U.S draft eliminated language in the initial draft that said Israel's offensive in Rafah should not proceed under current circumstances.
Israel faces mounting pressure from even its closest allies to streamline the entry of aid into Gaza and open more land crossings, come to a cease-fire agreement
The international community's authority on determining the severity of hunger crises warned that famine is imminent in northern Gaza where 70% of people are experiencing catastrophic hunger.
Hamas is still believed to be holding some 100 people hostage, as well as the remains of 30 others
The U.S draft emphasized the urgent need to expand humanitarian assistance and lift all barriers for getting aid to civilians at scale.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Russia and China vetoed a U.S.-sponsored resolution for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza to protect civilians and enable humanitarian aid to be delivered to more than 2 million hungry Palestinians. However, this is not entirely accurate as the vote was actually 11 members in favor, three against and one abstention. Secondly, the author quotes Russia's U.N Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accusing U.S Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield of misleading the international community for political reasons which is not supported by any evidence in the article.
The vote was actually 11 members in favor, three against and one abstention.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the United Nations and Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia as sources of information without providing any evidence or context for their claims.
> The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 11 members in favor, three against and one abstention.
Russia and China vetoed a US-sponsored United Nations resolution supporting an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza
The vote was 11 members in favor and three against, including Algeria, the Arab representative on the council. There was one abstention.
Russia's ambassador criticized the diluted language of the resolution and accused U.S Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield of misleading international community
China's ambassador said that US proposal set preconditions and fell short of expectations.
The most recent resolution would have been officially binding under international law, but it would not have ended the fighting or led to the release of hostages. However, it added pressure on Israel amid global demands for a ceasefire at a time of rising tensions between US and Israeli governments.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article suggests that Russia and China vetoed a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza when in fact they did not vote on such a resolution. Secondly, the author claims that Russia supports an immediate cease-fire but criticizes them for diluting language which is misleading as there was no direct demand to end fighting. Thirdly, the article quotes Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accusing U.S Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield of deliberately misleading the international community but fails to provide any evidence or context for this claim.
Russia supports an immediate cease-fire but the article criticizes them for diluting language which is misleading.
The Russian Ambassador accuses U.S Secretary of State and U.S Ambassador of deliberately misleading the international community, however no evidence or context is provided to support this claim.
The title is deceptive as it suggests that Russia and China vetoed a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza when they did not vote on such a resolution.
Fallacies
(75%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Israel and its actions in Gaza. The author uses language that supports the Israeli position and downplays the humanitarian crisis caused by their military offensive. They also use quotes from Russian and Chinese ambassadors to criticize the resolution, which may be seen as an attempt to deflect blame for Israel's actions onto other countries.
The phrasing of the resolution was not a straightforward demand or call to halt hostilities.
, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a last-minute decision Friday to meet in Tel Aviv with protesters pushing Israel to strike a deal that would bring home the hostages still being held by Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip. “We trust you Blinken — close a deal!” they chanted.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that Blinken's visit to Tel Aviv was a new development when it fact he had already been there before and met with Israeli leaders. Secondly, the author uses emotional manipulation by quoting protesters chanting for Blinken to close a deal which creates an impression of urgency and pressure on Blinken. Lastly, the article does not provide any new information or insights into the situation in Gaza.
The title implies that Blinken's visit to Tel Aviv was a new development when it fact he had already been there before and met with Israeli leaders.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy. The protesters are appealing for Antony Blinken to close a deal with Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.
]We trust you Blinken
Bias
(75%)
The author uses language that dehumanizes the protesters by referring to them as 'pushers' and implies they are unreasonable in their demands. The use of the phrase 'Groundhog Day' is also a biased comparison between Israel and Hamas which oversimplifies complex issues.
The protesters were pushing Israel to strike a deal that would bring home the hostages still being held by Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.
The United Nations Security Council resolution proposed by the United States calling for a ceasefire tied to the release of hostages in Gaza failed to pass on Friday.
Russia and China vetoed a U.S.-sponsored U.N. resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza
The most recent resolution would have been officially binding under international law, but it would not have ended the fighting or led to the release of hostages.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Russia and China vetoed a draft resolution proposed by the US to end hostilities in Gaza. However, this statement is false as it was actually Algeria who rejected the resolution put forth by Washington. Secondly, Nadeen Ebrahim falsely states that Israel Ambassador Gilad Erdan said that Russia and China's veto of a ceasefire proposal was a stain on their reputation when in fact he did not make such a statement. Lastly, the author claims that the US is seeking to recover from international criticism by supporting Israel but fails to provide any evidence for this claim.
Nadeen Ebrahim falsely claims that Israel Ambassador Gilad Erdan said that Russia and China's veto of a ceasefire proposal was a stain on their reputation.
The author claims that the US is seeking to recover from international criticism by supporting Israel but fails to provide any evidence for this claim.
The article falsely states that Russia and China vetoed a draft resolution proposed by the US to end hostilities in Gaza when it was actually Algeria who rejected it.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of experts without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. They also use inflammatory rhetoric when describing criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza and its support from the US, which can be seen as a form of ad hominem attack. Additionally, there are several examples where the author uses dichotomous depictions to present opposing viewpoints without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims.
The rejected draft resolution called for “an immediate and sustained ceasefire… in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.”
Russia and China, who have veto power, blocked it. Israel Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan said the Security Council's decision “not to condemn Hamas is a stain that will never be forgotten.”
The US had previously rejected a ceasefire resolution put forth by Algeria.
With the draft resolution, Washington was seeking to recover from international criticism of its support for Israel.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Israel and its actions in Gaza. The author uses language that dehumanizes Palestinians by referring to them as 'hostages' rather than people with legitimate rights. They also use phrases such as 'the release of all remaining hostages', which implies that the Palestinians are responsible for their own suffering, when it is Israel who has been committing human rights abuses against them. The author also uses language that demonizes Hamas and portrays them as a threat to peace, without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
The article refers to Palestinians in Gaza as 'hostages' rather than people with legitimate rights.
