The Security Council once again voted on the draft on the Palestinian-Israeli situation, and the United States voted against it. The United States proposes an alternative draft, what kind of medicine is sold in the gourd? With the Security Council incapacitated again, where will the Palestinian-Israeli situation go?
According to a report by the global network, on February 20, local time, the Security Council voted on a new draft resolution on the Palestinian-Israeli situation, with 13 countries including China and Russia voting in favor, the United Kingdom abstaining, and the United States voting against. Since the United States is one of the "five permanent members" and has a veto power, the draft did not pass in the end.
Security Council Scene.
It has been learned that the draft was put forward by Algeria, and its main contents include the immediate implementation of a humanitarian ceasefire that must be observed by all parties, opposition to the forced displacement of Palestinian civilians in violation of international law, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, and the guarantee of humanitarian access. The argument for the opposition was that the Algerian draft would not bring about a lasting peace, but would on the contrary undermine the hostage agreement that the United States was trying to reach in the near future. In addition, the U.S. side has proposed an alternative draft, which includes condemning Hamas and achieving a temporary ceasefire based on the release of all hostages.
Regarding the US side's veto of the draft, China's permanent representative to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, said that the Palestinians are facing the threat of death, and the US side is using the veto to send a wrong message and will plunge Gaza into a further crisis. Zhang Jun also said that the US side believes that the draft proposed by Algeria will undermine the ongoing negotiations, which is completely untenable, and the Security Council must take action.
Zhang Jun, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations.
Comparing the drafts of the United States and Algeria, the main differences are nothing more than two. First, whether a ceasefire requires preconditions. An unconditional ceasefire and the unconditional release of hostages are the universal call of the international community, and China has repeatedly stressed that brokering a ceasefire is the overriding priority.
But from the point of view of the United States, it must be the release of the hostages first, and then talk about a ceasefire, and it is only a temporary ceasefire. At the Security Council, the United States also appeared to be bothered by the peace between Palestine and Israel, saying that it was holding talks with the Hamas authorities through Egypt and Qatar to discuss an agreement on a ceasefire and the release of hostages. According to the American side, if the negotiations are successful, not only will all the hostages be released, but they will also be given at least six weeks of ceasefire.
U.S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations Representative Linfield.
In fact, Algeria, as the representative of the Arab States in the Security Council, has already given the United States time to postpone the vote in the Security Council. But the results show that the United States simply does not have the ability to broker a ceasefire. Moreover, the US side only mentioned a temporary ceasefire, rather than sustaining peace, and made it clear that it wanted to free the hostages so that Israel could launch a fierce attack on Gaza without any scruples.
In addition, since the outbreak of the conflict, the United States has continued to provide military support to Israel, and the US Senate recently passed a bill on tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel. This raises questions that the United States is merely posturing a temporary ceasefire to ease the international pressure it faces for supporting Israel. And through this gesture, buy more time for Israel to take military action in Gaza. The US side is incapable of demanding a ceasefire between either side, and it still wants the Security Council to cooperate with the US negotiating actions.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The second difference between the U.S.-Afghanistan draft is whether or not to condemn Hamas. Since the Security Council first discussed the current round of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the United States and Israel have insisted that the Security Council condemn Hamas. In doing so, the United States is actually trying to provide a "legal basis" for Israel's military action in Gaza and to make the Israeli army's actions "just."
But the fact is that the Israeli artillery fire is not only aimed at Hamas, but also at a large number of ordinary people in Gaza. According to data provided by the health department in Gaza, as of February 16, Israeli attacks on Gaza have caused 2870,000 deaths, more than 6850,000 people were injured, many of them unarmed women and children. Hospitals, schools and even United Nations-set shelters have been targeted by the Israeli army. Therefore, condemning Hamas alone obviously does not represent fairness and justice. Any attack on civilians should be condemned, whether by Hamas or Israel.
Gaza is facing a serious humanitarian catastrophe.
Next, the Security Council is likely to vote on the US alternative draft, and judging from the information available, it is difficult for the content of the US resolution to be universally agreed upon by the members of the Security Council. This round of Palestinian-Israeli conflict has lasted for more than four months, and the Security Council and the UN General Assembly have voted on many drafts, but even if they are adopted, they have not been effectively implemented. On the Palestinian-Israeli issue, due to the partiality of the United States, the Security Council has failed to effectively shoulder the heavy responsibility of safeguarding international order and safeguarding regional peace.
The Israeli authorities should realize that even if they can inflict heavy damage on Hamas by relying on current military means, they will not be able to achieve absolute security, but will only exacerbate the contradictions between Israel and Arab countries. The wisest choice is to heed China's advice, return to the two-state solution process, and fully respect the Palestinians' right to exist and their aspirations for statehood. Violence against each other will only perpetuate grievances from generation to generation, and Palestine and Israel will never be able to achieve peace.