Recently, at the United Nations Security Council, the draft resolution related to Palestine and Israel submitted by the United Arab Emirates was voted on, and the representatives of countries, including Britain and France, voted in favor, and the US representative to the United Nations, Linfield, also raised his hand in favor, but then there was an unusual scene, Greenfield's hand was directly pressed by the assistant in the back row. Subsequently, Greenfield abstained and the draft resolution was adopted.
The UN Security Council is seated at a fixed round table, with representatives of individual member states to the United Nations sitting in the front row, who represent their countries and exercise their voting rights on international issues based on their national interests. However, why Greenfield was influenced by his back-row aides when he voted on the vote, what does this mean?
Judging from the ** information published on the Internet, there may be two reasons, first: Greenfield sometimes bowed his head and sometimes fiddled with his headphones in the voting session, and his attention was not very concentrated, and he may have mistakenly thought that he raised his hand in the "abstaining" link, and the assistant sitting in the back row corrected Greenfield's work mistakes in time.
Second: if it is not a work error, it is a posturing by the US side. The draft resolution submitted by the UAE has undergone several revisions, and its final version reads "calls for an urgent cessation of hostilities and requests the UN Secretary-General to establish a monitoring mechanism in the Gaza Strip, staffed with the necessary personnel and equipment, under the leadership of the UN Secretary-General, to monitor all humanitarian relief deliveries to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air routes from countries not parties to the conflict".
The draft resolution makes no mention of a ceasefire, but focuses on humanitarian relief in Gaza, a self-proclaimed "human rights defender" for the United States, which would undoubtedly be discredited by voting against it in opposition to the international community and humanity. But if it votes in favor, it will cause dissatisfaction in Israel. In Israel's eyes, any attempt to help civilians in Gaza would hinder the Israeli army's military operations in Gaza, and only by razing Gaza to the ground could the security risks be completely eliminated. Weighing the pros and cons, the United States directed and acted to cater to the demands of all parties, which not only avoided standing on the opposite side of the international community, but also showed Israel that the United States still firmly supports Israel.
The dilemma in which the United States is caught in a dilemma shows that the United States is gradually losing its grip in the Middle East. In the past, the United States sat firmly on the Diaoyutai through an offshore check-and-balance strategy, standing on the moral high ground to extract benefits from geopolitical conflicts. But now the United States is very passive, facing double pressure from the Middle East world, the international community, and Israel, so it has put on a twisted posture. If Saudi Arabia and Iran are still hostile, the United States only needs to continue to create hostility and drive the Gulf countries to fight Shiite forces, such as supporting the Gulf countries to attack the Houthis, and it only needs to sell ** for profit.
Wen Yu Tsai) Sword Project