Israel may be razing the Gaza Strip and winning the war on the ground, and in addition, the Government of Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the diplomatic battle at the UN thanks to the dynamic of confrontational blocs. When the United States does not exercise the veto, then Russia and China do, and the citizens of Gaza continue to suffer. Yesterday, the Security Council rejected a more than publicized immediate ceasefire resolution presented by none other than the USA, something unimaginable until a few days ago in the conduct of the faithful squire of the Israelis. The US mission has used the veto three times to protect Israel, most recently on February 20. His request for a ceasefire was, however, linked to the release of the hostages held by Hamas since October 7.
If Washington was looking for redemption, he was left without forgiveness, but he has the argument that others are to blame for not putting away their weapons. His proposal was described as “hypocritical” and an internal “electoralist” position of President Biden by the Russian ambassador. His veto was joined by that of China.
There was a harsh exchange of rhetoric between the two fronts of international geostrategy that illustrates the great divide. The US, which wanted to assume the role of global savior, got 11 votes in favor, when it needed only 9, in a Western alignment. It was useless. In addition to Guyana’s abstention, there were three negative votes. The vetoes of Russia and China were joined by Algeria, which is the voice of the Arab countries, including the Palestinians.
Vassili Nebénzia, the ambassador from Moscow, made a devastating intervention against it, in which he claimed that the text only favored Israel, which was given carte blanche to continue attacking Gaza under an international alibi. The Chinese ambassador, Zhang Ju, retorted that Washington was only trying to wash its face after its triple rejection. “The ceasefire must be immediate and sustained, this is the international consensus – he said -. It must not be linked to the negotiation of hostages, which must be maintained; to approve this proposal would be to send bad signals to the world”.
The American ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, expressed her country’s “good faith” in this initiative and accused her rivals of being “cynics”. “China and Russia simply did not want to vote for a US project. They would rather see us fail than see us succeed in the council”, he lamented in this competition.
Despite the supposed turn in the language and his “determination to the ceasefire”, in addition to warning of the danger of hunger and the displacement of residents in Gaza, the Israeli ambassador, Gilad, praised the proposal of the his ally because of the conditions he put: “It would have been the first time that Hamas has been cited and, because of the veto, the terrorists can continue to do what they want.” Riad Mansur, representative of Palestine, justified the rejection for “obvious reasons”.
