The Big Question About the UN Security Council’s Gaza Ceasefire Resolution

Fars Media Corporation. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
Fars Media Corporation. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

On March 25, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2728 , regarding the ongoing war in Gaza, by a vote of 14-0. The United States abstained rather than — as it usually does when the Israeli regime dislikes a resolution — using its “permanent member” veto.

The meat of the resolution “[d]emands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain.”

I have several questions about the resolution, including whether “all hostages” includes the thousands of Palestinian Arabs held by the Israeli regime, often for years, often without charge or trial. They’re not usually referred to as “hostages” by Israel or its allied regimes, but since they’re occasionally traded off for Israeli captives, they’re “hostages” by definition.

A second question: Why just until the end of Ramadan  (April 8)? If the UN Security Council wants an end to the fighting, why not demand a PERMANENT end to the fighting?

But here’s the big question:

Now that the UN Security Council has issued its demands, how are UN  member states, especially the US, going to enforce those demands?

UN Security Council resolutions are binding on all UN member states.

If this resolution means anything at all, the initial response SHOULD be for all UN member states to immediately declare and enforce a ban on the sale or delivery of arms to the belligerent parties.

Yet White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby insisted at a press briefing that “we are still providing tools and capabilities, weapons systems so that Israel can defend itself …. no change by this nonbinding resolution on what Israel can or cannot do in terms of defending itself.”

The resolution is not “nonbinding.” The Security Council HAS ordered a ceasefire, the the US regime IS bound by that order, and Kirby’s opinion that murdering tens of thousands of civilians and subjecting hundreds of thousands to starvation, etc. constitutes Israel “defending itself” doesn’t magically change so much as a comma in that resolution or an atom of that obligation.

While it’s a given that some other regimes are also going to flout a system of international law they loudly invoke when they find it convenient,  the regimes that do take their obligations seriously should start freezing US assets and sanctioning US regime figures until such time as the US regime decides to bring its actions into compliance with the “rules-based international order” it so piously claims to lead and personify.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism ( He lives and works in north central Florida.


Election 2024: The More The Merrier, But Candidates Should Stay In Their Own Lanes

Photo by Gage Skidmore. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
Photo by Gage Skidmore. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” Politico reports, “is in talks to run on the Libertarian Party presidential ticket — a move that could translate his popularity into becoming a near-guaranteed choice on ballots in all 50 states.”

Kennedy also plans to announce his choice of running mate, likely tech lawyer Nicole Shanahan, on March 26. Presidential and vice-presidential candidates can spend unlimited money on their own campaigns and Shanahan’s a multi-billionaire, meaning that a  Kennedy/Shanahan ticket could go toe to toe with Joe Biden and Donald Trump when it comes to campaign finances.

However, I see some major problems with the idea of a Kennedy/Shanahan as a Libertarian Party presidential ticket.

First, a disclaimer: I’ve been involved with the Libertarian Party since 1996.  In 2022, when what I deemed a Republican “infiltrate and neuter” operation (my opinion) operating as a PAC/caucus “took over” (their own words) the party’s management, I withdrew from involvement. I am, however, back, and will attend the party’s national convention in Washington, DC over Memorial Day weekend. I hope and expect that actual libertarians will regain control.

Problem One: Kennedy is not a Libertarian. I don’t intend that as an insult. Some of his policy positions do align with the party’s, others don’t, and some completely contradict the party’s platform. Political parties should nominate candidates who support their platforms and policy positions. Candidates who don’t support a party’s platform and policy positions should run as independents or seek the nominations of parties they’re more representative of.

Problem Two: Being “in talks” to run on the Libertarian Party’s ticket is a meaningless claim. Unlike the major parties, the Libertarian Party has “unbound” delegates. More than a thousand of them. They vote as they choose, not as they’re required to by e.g. primary election results. If Kennedy wants the nomination, he’ll have to have some great “talks” with those delegates. And since most of them are already selected, he’ll have to do so AT the convention.

Problem Three:  Getting the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination is far from becoming “a near-guaranteed choice on ballots in all 50 states.” The party HAS managed to get 50-state ballot access before. But not always … and at present, after two years of destruction at the hands of the aforementioned the party is a shell of what it formerly was. Fifty state ballot access isn’t impossible, but it’s not “near-guaranteed.”

RFK, Jr. is a poor fit for the Libertarian Party’s objectives, and the party really doesn’t have as much to offer him as the Politico article implies.

Which is not to say he shouldn’t run for president. That’s his call. But he should run in his own lane instead of trying to get the Libertarian Party to run itself off the road for him.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism ( He lives and works in north central Florida.


Government Debt versus Stein’s Law

On March 23, the US Senate passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill, presumably bringing an end to months of congressional combat, “stopgap” measures, etc., by accepting the House version of that bill without amendments that would require renegotiation.

As is usual with big government spending bills, it’s hard to get one’s mind around the total without dividing it by the number of people expected to pick up the tab.

In this case, my rough calculation (based on the round number for the total and the latest estimates of US population is that the US government just ordered every man, woman, and child in America (yes, this means you) to cough up about $3,600.

Not all at once, of course. Much of it just will be borrowed and added to the “national debt” — currently about $35 trillion — with you as collateral. You didn’t apply for a loan, or co-sign the loan, but when the US government borrows money, it implicitly offers up your future earnings as guarantee of payment.

As I write this, Congress owes its creditors about $35 trillion, leaving you on the hook — or so they claim, anyway — for more than $100,000.

And no, they’re not making any effort to pay that debt down. They’re continuing to borrow, and continuing to let the borrowed principal increase even as interest payments on that principal constitute an ever-growing portion of their annual spending.

As economist Herbert Stein noted in 1986, “if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

The borrowing can’t go on forever, for two reasons:

First, ever-increasing “debt service” — payments of interest which never reduce the principal still owed — will eventually grow to more than the size of any plausible federal budget.

Second, as it becomes more and more clear that that principal will never be honestly repaid (at best, some kind of “trillion-dollar coin” scam might be contrived to screw creditors while supposedly “paying” the bill) and that even paying interest is getting questionable, fewer and fewer potential creditors will be willing to buy US government debt.

The borrowing will end sooner or later. It will end with, at the very least, de facto default, and possibly with the dissolution of the US government as we know it.

On the whole, I think that’s good news along the lines of finally kicking out a housemate who keeps stealing and selling household items to cover his gambling losses.

But, make no mistake, most Americans will end up much poorer than we believe ourselves to be at the moment. The fallout may make the Great Depression look like the Good Old Days.

When that time comes, make sure you have something in your wallet besides Federal Reserve Notes. “The full faith and credit” of the US government is only worth the paper it’s printed on because most people still don’t understand that they’re being conned.

When they DO start understanding that, they’re going to start demanding gold, silver, or cryptocurrency on the barrelhead. There’s no time like the present to start moving in that direction yourself.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism ( He lives and works in north central Florida.