They were supporting them until Houthis attacks interfered with their supplies, and then they vetoed the ceasefire resolution since it was US proposed. Politics before lives.
That "resolution" only ordered Hamas to turn over the hostages so they would have less options, and instead greenlighted an invasion of Rafah by the zionist military.
Russia and China voted for the subsequent resolution drafted by the elected members of the UNSC that ordered an actual ceasefire (which israel has clearly not obeyed however; unenforceable resolutions are meaningless as it turns out).
Please read the actual resolutions before commenting. Both of them order Hamas to release the hostages. And nowhere in the resolution it green lits the attack on Rafah. Though, interestingly, that's the exact reason Russia stated for their objection.
And yes, Israel is committing a genocide, so no surpsire they are not complying...
If both resolutions were essentially the same, why did the US propose one and then abstain from the other? The intricate wording of these resolutions is actually extremely important, with deliberate choices made down to the letter. For example, the US resolution stated the "imperative of" but did not "demand" an immediate ceasefire; it's like a fucking land acknowledgement with how pathetic it is. The only reason the US proposed their resolution was as a last-ditch effort to dilute the demands of the international community as a ceasefire resolution became inevitable.
Regarding their vote, China's Ambassador Zhang Jun stated that the US resolution set up preconditions for a ceasefire ("supports ongoing diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire" "in connection with" the release of all remaining hostages), making it unacceptable, whereas the new resolution "demands an immediate ceasefire" "and also" "demands the immediate [...] release of all hostages," and so makes these matters independent demands without preconditions.
Wrt to the invasion of Rafah, the US proposed resolution specifically notes the inevitability of "ongoing and future operations," noting only the importance of "measures to reduce civilian harm" thereof—this is the "effective green light" Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia was referring to, and further:
One of the earlier iterations of the draft resolution currently in blue said that the Council determined that “under current circumstances a major ground offensive into Rafah would result in further harm to civilians and their further displacement including potentially into neighbouring countries” and underscored that “such a major ground offensive should not proceed under current circumstances”.
This language was apparently challenged by a majority of Council members out of concern that it could be interpreted as the Security Council indirectly approving an offensive in Rafah under some circumstances. In an apparent attempt to address these concerns, in the third revised draft the US moved the language on the offensive from the operative section of the resolution to its preamble and removed text saying that an offensive “should not proceed under the current circumstances”, leaving text saying that “under current circumstances” an offensive would result in further harm and displacement of civilians. It seems, however, that many members were still uncomfortable with the reference to "under current circumstances."
What US proposed was not an actual ceasefire. US was the one to repeatedly veto actual ceasefire resolutions.
Please read the actual resolution before commenting. It explicitly said "immediate and sustained ceasefire". The only difference between the two is one condemned the Hamas attack and another didn't. And yes, US are the worst in all of this, not only they vetoed previous attempts, but also financed all the killings. But if you can't see the politics behind Russia's and China's veto, you are blind.
yes, please do read what the resolution actually said https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-ceasefire-gaza-un/
This just proves why the propaganda against China on this is so effective. The average NATO resident doesn’t bother to read beyond the headline and when they do they lack the media literacy to interpret what they’re reading.
I imagine they didn't bother to read the proposals that the USA vetoed and therefore, are unable to understand your point. Least dogmatic liberal.
And also resent being told that they are under the influence of propaganda
