2024-10-16 04:03:34
In its statement on the resolution, the US ambassador stated they opposed the resolution because it "does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger" and provided no definition of what was meant by a "right to food", among other disagreements. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(33-2-157) Author
2024-10-16 04:33:31
NNN. The OP is accurate to say that the US voted against the resolution. The reasons behind it are a matter of opinion, not fact. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(81-3-10) Author
2024-10-16 10:52:12
NNN The claim is factually correct, the motivations carried by Israel an US for their choices are not topic of discussion. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(36-2-7) Author
2024-10-16 19:40:55
Note Needed, those saying NNN I suggest you read the reasons for adding community notes. One of the reasons is “missing context” the note above provides important context that allows people to be FULLY INFORMED. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(0-1-14) Author
2024-10-17 01:40:54
"We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food." [Link] That's categorical. Regardless of motivations... no obligation to provide food. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(3-0-0) Author