5 Filters

UNSC resolution passed today - BUT - no-one is reporting the full text not even the UN:

Here is the URL for the UNSC:

[S/RES/2728 (2024)]
http://undocs.org/en/S/RES/2728(2024)

" Error - ODS

There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link,

  • Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or
  • Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or
  • You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application.

Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means.

United united_2 Nations"

cheers

1 Like

They do say

Document links will work once the document has been published in the Official Document System.

maybe someone booked a week off over Easter . . .

The Press Release is somewhat sparse as well

To steer away from some of the most egregious MSM give this a try

1 Like

Hi @KarenEliot , thanks for the link - more words than the Guardian and BBC/Sky, but essentially the same, no reference to actual text only to people who have seen it!

If the UN official document system works at the same speed as it’s world court - ICJ - then they could stretch publication over years!

Still no rush needed eh, only hundreds of Palestinian kids dying of starvation or direct Israeli bombing or just losing their limbs to Israeli snipers - each week they delay!! We’re not talking about “real children” after all!!! :rage:

cheers

Still couldn’t access the UN documents site but surprise surprise the Jewish News Syndicate reported the text in full here:

https://www.jns.org/full-text-un-security-council-resolution-2728/

" (March 25, 2024 / JNS)

The following is the full text of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2728, adopted on March 25, 2024, following the abstention of the United States:

Resolution 2728 (2024)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 9,586th meeting, on 25 March 2024

The Security Council,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling all of its relevant resolutions on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question,

Reiterating its demand that all parties comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and in this regard deploring all attacks against civilians and civilian objects, as well as all violence and hostilities against civilians, and all acts of terrorism, and recalling that the taking of hostages is prohibited under international law,

Expressing deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip,

Acknowledging the ongoing diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States, aimed at reaching a cessation of hostilities, releasing the hostages and increasing the provision and distribution of humanitarian aid,

  1. Demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain;

  2. Emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip and reiterates its demand for the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale, in line with international humanitarian law as well as resolutions 2712 (2023) and 2720 (2023);

  3. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter."

To my mind the liberal use by the resolution of the word “the Security Council …demands”, are clear unambiguous words which are binding on all parties despite the claims to the contrary from the US spokesmen!

But Russia is right, the failure to use the words “permanent ceasefire” means we can only expect 2 weeks of ceasefire, if that, given Israel’s notorious reactions to unwelcome UNSC resolutions in the past!

cheers

1 Like

What really ****** me off, is the demand for Hamas to release the hostages. Not one friggin iota of recognition of Israehell’s hostages taken from the West Bank and not since October 7th but for many many years.

Now that I’ve read the post of the resolution text above, it does just say hostages. Of course all those hostages taken by Israehell are not hostages. They are prisoners who will be given a fair trial in the only democratic country in the Middle East.

I apolgise to those reading this just after a meal.

2 Likes

Hi @PatB , you’re right when it comes to Western politicians and their propaganda outlets - but I noticed when Hamas accepted the UNSC ruling it specifically said something like- let’s get on with the exchange of prisoners, so I don’t think they are going to fall for any one sided surrender just for 2 weeks peace! *

The UN of course fails to define hostages and it is perfectly resonable to look at the thousands of prisoners taken by Israel whether before or after Oct. 7th as being hostages,~ We’ll take anyone we want until you do and say exactly as we ask~

In addition the UN

pointing out Israel also detains people which they must treat humanely - i.e. not torture as they have done with thousands, including UNWRA staff!

the comments from the UK embarrassder are outrageous ~ now we can remove Hamas and put in a new government to bring peace~ !

Gaza: Security Council passes resolution demanding ‘an immediate ceasefire’ during Ramadan | UN News1g56xh2_gaNzM4MzQ4NjI3LjE3MTE0NDg2NzA._ga_TK9BQL5X7Z*MTcxMTQ3MjY3OS4yLjAuMTcxMTQ3MjY3OS4wLjAuMA…

cheers

"Hamas welcomed the Security Council resolution and stressed “the necessity of reaching a permanent ceasefire” leading to a total Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the return of displaced Palestinians to their homes.

Hamas also affirmed its “readiness to engage in an immediate prisoner exchange process that leads to the release of prisoners on both sides.”

PS - just noticed this from MOA supporting some of my comments above :grinning:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/03/new-york-times-misreports-gaza-unsc-resolution.html#more

Not even that by the looks of things, sheer evil. And yes, “demands” is really unambiguous, despite what the US spokesdemons are claiming. Binding. Except not.

1 Like