Since the outbreak of the Israeli-Palestinian war, the situation in Gaza has been chaotic and the number of civilians** has been on the rise, which is distressing.
What is shocking is that the United States went so far as to veto the draft Palestinian-Israeli ceasefire at a key UN meeting, which has aroused widespread concern in the international community.
What is even more unbelievable is that in his subsequent speech, the representative of the United States expressed his opposition to Israel's actions and opposition to Israel's killing of civilians and journalists and attacks on United Nations agencies.
In fact, the United States provided Israel with a large amount of arms support after vetoing the draft Palestinian-Israeli ceasefire.
The blatant hypocrisy of condemning Israel after the arms have been sold is unacceptable.
According to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, more than 17,000 civilians have died since the outbreak of the Israeli-Palestinian war, including more than 4,000 women and more than 7,000 children.
These figures are sufficient evidence of the relentless attacks on innocent civilians by the Israeli army in the conflict.
The United States' veto of the Palestinian-Israeli cease-fire draft is undoubtedly justifying Israel's actions, and this makes people question the impartiality and moral stand of the United States in international affairs.
At a subsequent United Nations meeting, the representative of the United States made clear his opposition to Israel's killing of civilians, attacks on United Nations institutions and the killing of journalists.
Although these words sound righteous and awe-inspiring, in actual action, the United States has provided Israel with a large amount of arms supportThis obvious double standard is intolerable, and the moral position of the United States is completely exposed at this moment.
What is even more outrageous is Israel's repeated expulsion of Gaza refugees to the south with the aim of annexing Gaza.
Such acts not only violate international human rights law, but also further escalate tensions in the region.
The hypocrisy of the United States not strongly condemning such acts at the United Nations conference, but ostensibly opposing Israel's killing practices while actually supporting Israel's geopolitical goals is appalling.
The U.S. representative's rhetoric revealed differences with Israel on the Gaza issue.
The attitude of the United States seems to be that Israel only needs to defeat Hamas and not occupy Gaza.
This disagreement not only reflects the geopolitical scheming of the United States and Israel, but also raises questions about whether the United States is truly on the side of justice and whether it sincerely wants to resolve the Middle East issue.
The United Nations Security Council has become the focus of global attention, and the "draft Palestinian-Israeli ceasefire" proposed by the UAE has sparked a heated debate. However, to the world's astonishment, although the draft was approved by 13 countries and Britain abstained, it was vetoed by the United States. The move immediately drew widespread concern from the international community, especially against the backdrop of a deepening humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, and the veto underscored a tense political contest on the global stage.
Faced with a new round of escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the threat of a humanitarian catastrophe, the international community has no choice but to step up its actions. There have been calls for the UN General Assembly to urgently convene a meeting to discuss and express its views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a more comprehensive manner. A new draft resolution has begun to be conceived in order to express more clearly the international community's aspirations for peace and its deep concern for the victims of conflict. This move is expected to be a new starting point for international consultations, while also underscoring the indispensability of international morality and human rights in the context of the current crisis.
On 12 December, the General Assembly adopted a new resolution proposed by Egypt calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming margin, with 153 countries supporting it, only 10 opposing it, and 23 abstaining. As many as 153 countries support the ceasefire, more than 2 3 of the UN members, including China, Russia, France, etc. The huge disparity in this number makes the United States' position in the international community seem isolated, a rare moment since the United States became a member of the United Nations. This time, the U.S. veto is in stark contrast to the global world, raising widespread questions about its international role and responsibility.
In the vote, the only G7 G7 that opposed a ceasefire was the United States. France, Japan and Canada have expressed their support for the ceasefire, in direct contrast to the United States. The United Kingdom, Germany and Italy, on the other hand, abstained, neither supporting the American point of view nor voting in favour of it. Such statements are both a response to U.S. dissatisfaction and a cautious support for peace efforts. In addition, among the EU countries, "old Europe" such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands have also shown considerable caution, not in favor of or against a ceasefire, which shows a complex perception of the current crisis.
Another striking feature of the voting results is that the eight countries that are on the same side as the United States. Austria, the Czech Republic, Guatemala and other countries, as allies of the United States, have expressed strong opposition to the ceasefire. This behavior raises questions about whether these countries are simply following in the footsteps of the United States, or whether there are more complex political considerations behind them. Their votes have not only puzzled the international community, but have also damaged the moral image of these countries to a certain extent.
In this global debate, there are clear camps for and against. Among the 153 countries that support the ceasefire are powerful countries from around the world, such as China, Russia, France, and a range of developing countries. This shows that the international community's call for peace is strong, and the spirit of humanitarianism still occupies the high ground of global value. However, countries that oppose and abstain, for whatever reason, have been pushed to the forefront of global morality. Such differences will continue to ferment in future international consultations, which will put forward higher requirements for the global governance system.
Among the five permanent members of the United Nations, China, Russia, and France voted in favor, while the United States voted against it, and the United Kingdom abstained. This difference is both a reflection of the cooperation and divergence among the P5, as well as a question of the balance of power within the UN body. Whether the future of the United Nations can break free from the shackles of this power struggle and better fulfill its mission has become a question worth pondering.