India abstaining from UN motion on Gaza 'shameful': Priyanka Gandhi
Wayanad/Malappuram (Kerala), Jun 14 (PTI): Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Saturday termed as "shameful" and "disappointing" the Indian government's decision to abstain from the UN motion to protect civilians and uphold humanitarian obligations in Gaza.
In a post on 'X', Vadra contended that the Indian government was refusing to take a stand when 60,000 people, mostly women and children, had been killed and the entire population of Gaza were being "confined and starved to death".
The Congress MP from Wayanad also alleged that not only was India being silent on the Gaza issue, it was "cheering on" the Israeli government as it attacked Iran and assassinated its leadership.
"It is shameful and disappointing that our government has chosen to abstain on the UN motion for the protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations in Gaza...
"This is a tragic reversal of our anti-colonial legacy. In fact, not only are we standing silent as Mr Netanyahu annihilates an entire nation, we are cheering on as his government attacks Iran and assassinates its leadership in flagrant violation of its sovereignty and complete contravention of all international norms," she said on X.
Later in the day, she told reporters in Wayanad that she has aired her views about the situation in Gaza many times.
"I believe what is happening there is very wrong on a humanitarian level and every level. And I have said it again and again," she said.
In her post on X earlier in the day, she also questioned how the country can "abandon" the principles of the Constitution, and the values of the freedom struggle "that led the way for an international arena based on peace and humanity".
"There is no justification for this. True global leadership demands the courage to defend justice, India has shown this courage unfailingly in the past.
"In a world that is increasingly divisive, we must reclaim our voice for humanity and stand fearlessly for truth and non-violence," she said in her post.
It is shameful and disappointing that our government has chosen to abstain on the UN motion for the protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations in Gaza.
— Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (@priyankagandhi) June 14, 2025
60,000 people, mostly women and children have been killed already, an entire population is…
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Trump administration says its war in Iran has been 'terminated' before 60-day deadline
Washington (AP): The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April, an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.
The statement furthers an argument laid out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the Senate earlier Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war. Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's position, said for purposes of that law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb 28 have terminated.” The official said the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began April 7.
While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran's oil tankers from getting out to sea.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the law that sought to constrain a president's military powers, President Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorisation or cease fighting. The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.
Democrats have pushed the administration for formal approval of the Iran war, and the 60-day mark would likely have been a turning point for a swath of Republican lawmakers who backed temporary action against Tehran but insisted on congressional input for something longer.
“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” said Sen Susan Collins, R-Maine, who voted Thursday in favour of a measure that would end military action in Iran since Congress hadn't given its approval. She added that “further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close."
Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said he has recommended to administration officials to simply transition to a new operation, which he suggested could be called “Epic Passage,” a sequel to Operation Epic Fury.
That new mission, he said, “would inherently be a mission of self-defence focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation.”
“That to me solves it all,” added Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.
During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hegseth said it was the administration's “understanding” that the 60-day clock was on pause while the two countries were in a ceasefire.
Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert on war powers, said that interpretation would be a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” related to the 1973 law.
“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.
Other presidents have argued that the military action they've taken was not intense enough or was too intermittent to qualify under the War Powers Resolution. But Trump's war in Iran would certainly not be such a case, Ebright said, adding that lawmakers need to push back against the administration on that kind of argument.
