No humanitarian pauses, no ceasefire. The Security Council demonstrated once again its inability to stop the war in Gaza and provide support to the civilian population. The most sensible phrase, the one that summarizes another empty meeting of the UN executive body, was uttered by the representative of Gabon’s diplomacy. “We regret the antagonism in this institution that prevents advancing a resolution that benefits both parties,” both Palestinians and Israelis.
He said this after a show that could be called diplomatic pornography. The global stage of the United Nations was used to perform a posturing exercise with the excuse of concern for the civilian population affected in this conflict in the Middle East.
In this way, Russia and China vetoed a US proposal by leaning towards Israel and not incorporating a ceasefire. The expression “humanitarian pauses” was described by rivals as “a cosmetic change.” There were ten votes in favor. Nine was enough, but there were three against, among them those of the two rival powers that have the right to veto because they are permanent members.
Minutes later, the United States voted against a resolution presented by Moscow that included a ceasefire. It didn’t work out in any way because it only got four supports. According to the American ambassador, Moscow presented a draft in a rush, without any information “on the ground,” with the sole intention of “scoring a point.”
Under the common denominator of humanitarian aid, there are fundamental differences that even go beyond the ceasefire. The US clearly allies itself with Israel, demanding recognition of the right to defend itself, while Russia and China put the accent more towards the Palestinian side, by equating the victims of Israel and those of Palestine.
Israel’s ambassador, Gilad Erdan, thanked the United States and its allies for the proposal that, in his view, condemned “the savage genocide of terrorists” and enshrined “freedom and security.”
On the other hand, he attacked the other proposal and Russia and China’s veto of the US proposal, for “not condemning Hamas.” Erdan raised the question of what the response would have been if terrorists had attacked a neighborhood in Moscow or Beijing. “I am sure they would have acted with more force than Israel. In your minds it would surely be that such carnage required a broader military operation to eradicate those atrocities,” he reasoned.
The two men in question responded, especially the Chinese ambassador, who reminded him that last week “we voted in favor of a resolution that condemned Hamas, but it was vetoed,” without mentioning the United States, which appealed to its right.
Before the closing there was another lament about the emptiness of the Security Council, turned into a verbal combat for the simple fact of confronting each other, without thinking about anything else. This complaint was expressed by the Ecuadorian ambassador: “This should be a place of reconciliation and solidarity.”
