As millions of Americans are about to go hungry due to the US government refusing to fund SNAP, just remember that only two countries voted against making food a basic human right. The US and the terrorist colony of Israel

  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
    1·
    16 hours ago

    Found one: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/31493

    What’s actually important about these italicized words is the division between the preambulary and operative clauses as a whole. Whereas the preamble uses gerunds such as “Reaffirming” and “Recalling” and similar terms, the operative clauses, which are binding, use terms such as “Decides” “Appeals” and “Approves”.

    So… I need to look at the first word of each paragraph, determine whether or not it’s operative, and if it is it’s worth reading the rest of the paragraph?

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      1·
      16 hours ago
      1. Stresses that all States should make all efforts to ensure that their international policies of a political and economic nature, including international trade agreements, do not have a negative impact on the right to food in other countries;

      Only “of a political and economic nature”. Are military actions considered as “political”?

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
        1·
        15 hours ago

        Finished reading. Paragraph (is that the right name for these things?) number 30 was the only thing even remotely related to the question of an invading army. And even that relation was very, very remote.

        Then again - I could have missed it. This is my first time reading a UN resolution, and man… these things are obfuscated. Why are they so obfuscated? Not as obfuscated as patents, but at least there there is a (nefarious) reason for the obfuscation. Why does the UN want to obstruct people from understanding its resolutions?