Edit: It looks like the argument here is that the US is not calling for an instant ceasefire, but instead saying that one is very important to have. China and Russia say it should be immediate. The US also tied it to hostage talks.

Another resolution is in the works to call for an immediate ceasefire, but the US is expected to veto it because they believe it could endanger hostage talks.

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Not quite, it looks like the US resolution just calls for the importance of a ceasefire, and Russia/China are saying there should be an immediate ceasefire.

    • Ranvier
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, in the article it states the US resolution called for an “immediate” cease fire as well.

      It looks the disagreement is over the word “sustained cease fire” vs “permanent cease fire.” The US resolution also calls for release of the hostages as a part of the ceasefire, whereas in the other version the hostages are not linked to the cease fire.