The United States once again remained this Tuesday, with its veto, as the only country in the UN Security Council that opposes an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, protecting Israel. This led to direct accusations, such as from Russia, that Washington is promoting the massacre of Palestinians, with more than 30,000 deaths in four long months.
The American mission tried to stop the disaster with a parallel draft in which for the first time it included the term “ceasefire.” However, he defended that this must occur at the right time, unlike Algeria’s proposal, sponsored by the Arab countries, that the stop to the war unleashed by Israel must be immediate and applicable. The US maintained that a period of time had to be waited so that the ongoing negotiations with Hamas were not frustrated and the release of the 130 hostages still in their possession was achieved.
This is the third time that Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield used her right to veto and appeared as the global villain, at the same level as her Russian colleague’s role in the Ukraine war, by opposing a measure that could alleviate the harsh living conditions, and death, of the Palestinians due to Israel’s disproportionate punishment after the attack on their territory committed by Hamas on October 7.
Thomas-Greenfield could not help but be angry, once again, and described the thirteen votes that Algeria’s proposal received as “irresponsible” (nine would have been enough for its approval). The United Kingdom, playing in turbulent waters, being with Europe, but not wanting to upset the Americans, chose to abstain. For the American diplomat, accepting this ceasefire without the commitment of Hamas would mean giving the terrorists carte blanche to continue committing misdeeds against Israel.
But despite this defeat, the United States showed a gradual change in its support for Israel, perhaps more apparent than real, because it knew it would lose, by presenting a parallel draft resolution. Including the term “ceasefire”, something that seemed taboo for this country, even if it was deferred, was something much commented on by analysts. In that text he also warned against an Israeli military incursion into Rafah, where more than a million people live, and the displacement of Palestinians, as the Israeli army is preparing.
After a conversation emerged in which President Joe Biden directed “strong expressions” to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this lexical evolution was interpreted as a demonstration of Washington’s growing frustration with the Israeli management of this war.
There were voices that highlighted the pariah status of the US in this matter in international public opinion, to the delight of Moscow, which continues to attack Ukraine. But unqualified American support for Israel is causing a wave of domestic criticism of Biden. And not from the Republicans, but from their potential voters. Michigan, where Muslim and Arab citizens were key to its 2020 victory, are campaigning to boycott Biden in the primaries and, therefore, ahead of the general elections.
There is a clear thermometer. Everywhere Biden goes he encounters citizens who demand an immediate ceasefire. It is possible that this change in its lexicon before the United Nations Organization marks the point that a limit has been reached in tolerance with Israel’s tactics, experts noted.
