rainbowcrab95772
23933
793
37
Jun 19, 2026 7:52 PM
rainbowcrab95772
23933
793
37
dynamojoe
Can't do war crimes if there ain't no crimes!
shanasphone350
How is this shocking? Pro life Americans do not care if a kid is starved, beaten, or killed. These things just cannot happen to a fetus. "Pain" is only allowed after birth.
cabalin
To be fair Israel voted against it and we just did what they told us.
ReelPoop
LOL?
GuyPilot
Misleading post.
(UN declaration on human rights already covers this.)
They should've introduced a motion saying netanyahoo is a war criminal then count who votes against
FreePalestineAndTheWorldFromIsrael
USA has always and will always suck Israels dick
IamnotSpartacuseither
Shocked I say. Shocked.
J3lek
I'm Honestly more surprised that there weren't more countries against it than I am surptised that those countries are against it.
ParaspriteHugger
Hey, it was my turn to repost that today!
HeavyMetalMario
But mom said it was MY turn with the repost! :(
alcamar
Out of luck today, tomorrow's not looking great either
Cptbluebeard7
Just wait an hour and you should be good.
stoots24
"Shit? You want some shit?"
TeddyMoment
Wardonk3y
Barbarism in a three-piece suit.
jappie348
theres a lot of those votes
Momzy120178
That was December of the 1st year of Joe Biden's Presidency.
FreePalestineAndTheWorldFromIsrael
CelestialSea
The Axis of Evil?
FreePalestineAndTheWorldFromIsrael
Its shocking when you understand why
DocWats
Youre not wrong, but let's not act like Biden was president back then.
FreePalestineAndTheWorldFromIsrael
The vote happened in December of 2021 when Biden was president, you fucking idiot. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462
DocWats
Imma be honest with you...I read that as 2001...
fluffybaer55
Checks out Israel is a racist apartheid enforcing European settler colony which uses starvation as a weapon to ethically cleanse the indigenous Palestinian population while stealing American tax dollars to commit genocide.
Israel is now trying to use the same genocidal tactics against Iran, and Lebanon.
fluffybaer55
That was a typo. I meant to say that the Israeli government is “ethnicity cleaning" the indigenous Palestinian population of Gaza then they are planning on doing the same with Lebanon that is why Israel is trying to illegally steal land from Lebanon.
https://apnews.com/projects/israel-expansion-maps/
Lexgeddon
I was going to say "the zionists found your comment," but now I'm wondering if that "ethically" is causing some people to think you approve.
fluffybaer55
Apologies for the typo. I posted a correction above.
Lexgeddon
No need, for my part. But some people really aren't great at parsing a person's intent, especially in internet comments, and I was just betting that's where the downvotes were coming from.
FreePalestineAndTheWorldFromIsrael
I think its a typo, meant to be "ethnically". Tragic spelling mistake
Lexgeddon
I'm quite sure it is. But sometimes that's all it takes.
eetsumkaus
The US is by FAR the world's largest food donor, and so would be adversely affected by the resolution. Here is their response to that, which sounds fair https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/. Idk about Israel
zombiejedediah
Yada yada yada.
Voted no.
Fuck off.
eetsumkaus
easier to vote yes when it's somebody else's money. Why don't they put their money where their mouth is first and THEN we can talk.
Mikataki
Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem for us if we weren't busy letting urban sprawl and datacenters pave over every inch of farmland reasonably close to consumer centers.
ownzyou123
Up until the Orange Cheeto Fascist unilaterally dissolved USAID and tariffed the shit out of other countries, leading to a collapse of US farmers only seen since..... the 1st Trump presidency.
haggerton
It's a BS explanation as literally every single other developed country would have been legally forced to take on more responsibilities if the US was already doing more than its part in donations.
The real explanation likely hovers somewhere between "Israel is starving Palestine and the US can't let its daddy be held responsible", or "creating conditions for starvation keeps regions weak and unstable and is worth the investment of food aid for USA's fucked up geopolitical games".
eetsumkaus
there is no legal binding. As the reasoning cites, the resolution does not actually do anything to resolve the food crisis.
Also the US funded the UNHRWA to the tune of $350 million in 2017. The US was absolutely interested in keeping Palestinians alive at the time.
notmyrealface
How does the world agreeing that food is a human right not do anything for the food crisis? That would be the first step in a truley fed world. This sounds like some coolaid level of jumping through hoops to justify something objectively awful.
eetsumkaus
because the resolution doesn't actually bind anyone to provide food, it only puts forth several other riders.
notmyrealface
It's the first step. Without the first step, you'll never get to your destination.
flipiflop
A mistake everyone makes in those conversations is to assume a huge body like the US government, which is made of innumerable entities with various incentives and allegiances, has a consistent & single will, whatsmore accross time.
"The US" can hold a hundred conflicting positions in a single moment, let alone half a century.
There's never a point arguing that "the US" is for or against a thing, in generic terms.
"The US" can fund UNRWA and can simultaneously vote to protect inhumane acts.
hmijail
I guess the question is what do we do with that knowledge.
Do we throw our arms in the air, decide the world is too complicated and let the powerful just continue at it?
Or do we conclude that those people are murderously hypocritical and untrustable?
I go for B, but the poisonous next question is what next. What can a voter do if the well-spoken fuckers who have been fucking everyone for decades just keep on "doing their thing"? Suddenly a Trump sounds like a desperate option: burn everything.
hmijail
Thank you for providing context, but they can fuck all the way off.
Summary of the link: "The resolution before us today rightfully acknowledges the calamity facing millions of people " ... " however" :
1. don't mess with pesticides
2. don't mess with trade
(cont'd)
hmijail
3. they wanted "strong protection ... of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system" (LOL)
3b. and "this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food."
4. "The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. "
eetsumkaus
probably more of a criticism if the US weren't far and away the largest provider of food aid in the world.
hmijail
And top *exporter* of agricultural products.
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/top-agricultural-producing-countries.aspx
eetsumkaus
the food aid numbers do not include those sold for profit. USAID contracts farmers specifically to produce food aid for them.
hmijail
Oh LOL, I just wondered if there was any UN resolution against slavery.
There is! And guess who voted against!
https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/03/1167199
eetsumkaus
this isn't a resolution AGAINST slavery, it's a resolution for REPARATIONS. That is a much more controversial topic, as evidenced by the 52 countries who abstained on this vote, including major Western countries.
hmijail
... and guess who voted against!
LabsAreGoobers
Yeah, I think most should acknowledge the US provides more food and resources than any other country by far, but also could do a lot more based on the fact our GDP is by far the most. At least take care of our own citizens without question.
eetsumkaus
USAID is (was) ALREADY the world's largest foreign aid agency, and that doesn't include the US's contributions to UN programs, of which it tends to contribute the lion's share (https://www.wfp.org/funding/2019). You can argue it's the rest of the world that needs to pick up the slack.
hmijail
Since it WAS, I wonder if they will now sign those UN treaties?
(lol no I don't)