 Drift Resolution contained in document S-2024-254, please raise their hand, those against, abstention. The draft resolution has been adopted as Resolution 2728-2024. As you just saw, the United States government abstained during a UN Security Council vote ceasefire. As a result, it actually passed, finally, which is a significant change in U.S. policy towards Israel, considering the fact that they have been vetoing ceasefire resolutions on behalf of Israel up to this point. As a result, Israeli officials are not very happy about this, to say the least. But with that being said, Biden also just signed a $1.2 trillion spending package into law, which also includes an additional $3-plus billion in funding for Israel. There's a lot more harmful provisions within that package that we'll get to in a moment. But there is a lot of news regarding the United States and Israel. But first, I want to start with the UN Security Council vote. So it passed 14-0, and as journalist Prem Thacker explains, it demands an immediate ceasefire for Ramadan leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire, as well as an immediate unconditional release of all hostages. And he points out that the U.S. abstained even after successfully pushing to replace the word permanent with lasting. Now, the response from Israeli officials is predictable. They're throwing a tantrum, and Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itzmar Ben-Gavir called the UN and its Secretary General anti-Semitic and accused them of encouraging Hamas, because, of course, that's what they say every single time they're held accountable or criticized. Now, Axios reporter Barak Ravid reports that Netanyahu has actually canceled the departure of an Israeli delegation if her talks to the White House about Rafa. Now, this was a meeting that was requested by the Biden administration, and Netanyahu is now saying, no, we're not going to meet with you. Now, this move comes after Netanyahu demanded that the US veto the ceasefire resolution, and he tried to use that delegation as leverage over the US. But the United States said, mm, doesn't matter. Now, what Netanyahu is implicitly saying is, well, we were going to send a delegation to hear out your concerns about our looming invasion of Rafa. But now that you're being mean to us, I guess we're not going to take your opinion into consideration at all. But the problem is that they've already made it abundantly clear that they're going to move forward with this invasion of Rafa against the wishes of the United States. So that threat is meaningless, because if you already said you're going to do it and all that the United States government loses is a meeting with your delegation, why does it matter? It doesn't. But fortunately for them, they're still going to be able to continue their genocide and ethnic cleansing of Gaza, because the UN doesn't have an enforcement mechanism to force states to comply with international law. And furthermore, this resolution is non-binding, which the United States has gone out of its way to emphasize, right? Now, State Department spokesperson Matt Lee kind of admitted that this probably isn't going to lead to a ceasefire. And it led to a really interesting exchange. So let's listen. And so what do you expect now to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution? So I think you expect that Israel is going to announce a ceasefire? And that you expect that Hamas is going to release hostages? So I'm glad you mentioned that, because one of the things that we have objected to for some time is that most of the people that call for a ceasefire, we believe, are calling for Israel to unilaterally stop operations and not calling for Hamas to agree to a ceasefire where they would release hostages. Well, I think it goes both ways, doesn't it? It could. But the resolution today is a non-binding resolution. Okay, so what's the point? Why did you abstain? Why didn't you veto? We didn't veto because we thought the language in it was consistent with something that the language as it relates to the ceasefire and release of hostage was consistent with the long-standing United States position. So you don't believe anything is going to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution? So I think that separate and apart from this resolution, we have active ongoing negotiations to try to achieve what this resolution calls for, which is an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages. I can't say that this resolution is going to have any impact on those negotiations. But those negotiations are ongoing. They've been ongoing over the weekend and they've made progress. So I don't expect you to answer this now, but to me, you just stick this in your pocket. If that's the case, what the hell is the point of the UN Security Council? So we think it plays an important role. It does, even though its action does absolutely nothing and that you're going to get what you would like to see not out of the UN but out of discussions in Doha. So we believe it's important that the UN speak and the UN Security Council speak on matters of international security. It's why we've been engaged in this process. It's why we thought we were going to have a successful vote on Friday that Russia and China, unfortunately, and quite cynically vetoed. But I do believe that ultimately if we were able to achieve a ceasefire and the release of hostages is going to come not through a UN process but through the process with which we've been engaged, yes, in Doha. Yeah, so it's non-binding. But nonetheless, I think it still does matter. It matters that the international community collectively is saying this is unacceptable. This is egregious. It has to stop. Now, Lee mentioned that the ceasefire resolution the United States introduced on Friday was vetoed by China and Russia for cynical reasons. But that move, cynical or not, might have actually forced the United States' hand here and maybe why they chose to abstain because they were circulating a draft resolution of what was being referred to as a ceasefire resolution but wasn't actually explicitly calling for a ceasefire. And Al Jazeera's diplomatic editor James Bay said that it contained strong language, but the problem was that it was ambiguous overall and didn't really amount to anything. And Brian Bennett of Time magazine explains the text of the resolution stopped short of clearly demanding a ceasefire without conditions. Instead, United States diplomats came up with the clunky formulation that the United Nations Security Council determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire. So they're not demanding a ceasefire. They're just saying that a ceasefire is really important. So in other words, calling it a ceasefire resolution was really charitable here to the United States because it's not that. But the language, nonetheless, was still strong. So the question is why wouldn't Russia and China allow this to go through? And my guess is that they wanted to force the United States to support the more explicit resolution because they know how badly the Biden administration wants to be able to say that they introduced and passed the ceasefire resolution since their support for the genocide is destroying their credibility domestically and internationally. So since the US couldn't get that resolution passed, well, the next best thing was to just abstain and water down a resolution that you're going to abstain on in order to take at least some of the pressure off of them. And if it was Russia and China's ploy to get the United States to do that, then it worked cynical or not, right? Because the US at least allowed a ceasefire resolution to pass, which is monumental. It's the first time that this has happened in six months, right? So it is important, even though it shouldn't have taken this long, but I'll give the United States credit words to them because this is important. However, before you celebrate, here's what the United States did just days before they chose to abstain on the UN Security Council. They passed a spending package that includes the following as explained by journalist Prem Thacker. A ban on unrefunding for a year, which will prove to be catastrophic, another $3.8 billion in murder money to Israel and limits in aid to the Palestinian Authority if the Palestinians initiate or support an international criminal court investigation against Israel for alleged crimes against Palestinians. So it's not just that they're giving Israel more money to commit genocide, but they are tying the hands of Palestinians who want to hold them accountable for said genocide. Now this was signed into law by Biden and this TikToker here is going to give us more details about the spending package and explains why it's so egregious. Hidden in the budget bill they signed into law was dozens of things for Israel and against Palestinians, including stating that if Palestinians try to take Israel to the international criminal court to prove their suffering, oppression and genocide, then the United States will not support a Palestinian state, nor will they send any funding to help Palestinians. And even if Palestinians support such a case, for example, South Africa's case in the International Court of Justice against Israel, the same applies. This is the equivalent of the United States trying to block the Nuremberg trials from happening. If U.S. politicians truly believe that Palestinians weren't suffering oppression or genocide, then they wouldn't try to stop Palestinians from trying to prove it. What are they so afraid of? This is the sign. TikToks like that demonstrate exactly why the United States is so hell bent on banning the app. But he is absolutely correct. Just days before the U.S. abstained from a ceasefire vote on the UN Security Council, they passed legislation shielding Israel from international accountability. So this is why our credibility around the world is in the toilet. Because even when we seemingly do something good, there's an equal and opposite thing that we've done to undermine that good thing. And this isn't the only time that this has happened. For example, Biden privately assured Netanyahu that he's not trying to push him out after Chuck Schumer publicly called for Israel to hold new elections. So the U.S. is speaking out of both sides of its mouth and make no mistake about it. The Biden administration knows that this is wrong because Biden's own press secretary condemned Netanyahu's war crimes before saying calls for a ceasefire were repugnant once she became part of the administration. So they know that what they're doing is morally indefensible, but they're also aware that their unconditional support for Israel is becoming politically untenable, which is why the Biden administration is desperately trying to placate Americans who are demanding a ceasefire. Hence why he finally allowed one ceasefire resolution to pass on the UN Security Council six months after this began. But that action wouldn't have been taken if the Biden administration wasn't feeling the heat. So the good news is that this demonstrates that pressure does work and it still does have an impact on our politicians, even if it's minimal. And on top of that, not every single Democrat was willing to send Israel more murder money, specifically these 22 Democrats voted against the spending package that included more money for Israel. And even though 22 is a pathetically low number, it is still more opposition to Israel and Congress than we have ever had. So times are changing, albeit very, very slowly. Now in the lead up to this vote, AOC actually had a really powerful message specifically to Biden about what he's supporting. Mr. Speaker, I know a man, a decent man, who said that preventing genocide is an achievable goal, a goal that requires a level of government organization and engagement that matches in its intensity, the brutality and efficiency required to carry out mass killing. Too often, these efforts have come too late. After the best and least costly opportunities to prevent them have been missed. The man that said that was then Vice President and now President Joseph Biden. And he was right. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that such a time is now. As we speak in this moment, 1.1 million innocents in Gaza are at famine's door. A famine that is being intentionally precipitated through the blocking of food and global humanitarian assistance by leaders in the Israeli government. This is a mass starvation of people engineered and orchestrated, following the killing of another 30,000, 70% of whom were women and children killed. There is hardly a single hospital left. And this was all accomplished, much of this accomplished with U.S. resources and weapons. If you want to know what an unfolding genocide looks like, open your eyes. That was good. Now, AOC was seemingly reluctant to call it a genocide up until this point, but as she said, with 1 million people on the precipice of famine, that conclusion is inevitable. You can't escape the fact that this is a genocide full stop. Now, I'm assuming that lawmakers don't want to use that language because they'll be criticized for it. But I mean, you can't deny reality to appease people who might criticize you, right? Now, she did get criticized for that. For example, the ADL denied it's a genocide saying genocide requires intent, but she responded explaining how it is deliberate, saying quote, starving a million innocent people to death by halting and slowing U.S. humanitarian assistance is a massive deliberate choice. Not only is it irrelevant to those objectives, it brings them further out of reach and in dangerous hostages. There is no defense for forced famine. And she's absolutely right. And even Donald Trump is now saying Israel has got to stop because their international reputation is in the toilet as a result of what they're doing. So the tide is turning. And the conclusion is that the pressure is working. So keep it up because the Biden administration is very clearly feeling the heat. And even though they're reluctant to change course and don't want to reverse course, they know that their unconditional support for Israel is no longer tenable politically, which is why we have to continue to exert this pressure. And if you are disrupting events and calling your lawmakers demanding a ceasefire, I think you have yourselves to thank for this move in that right direction. It's not good enough. It still is too little too late, but it's an improvement. And I think that that matters, given how much is at stake.