Blood boil! On February 20, the UN Security Council once again opened the stage of the contest to vote on the resolution on Gaza. This time, however, the focus is not on Gaza, but on the hegemonic veto of the United States! The United States, once again wielding its veto power, took the side of Israel directly, rejecting calls for an immediate ceasefire.
This is no ordinary vote, but a contest of humanitarianism. The resolution proposed by Algeria calls on Israel to cease fire immediately in order to avert a deeper humanitarian catastrophe. Thirteen countries voted in favor, Britain abstained, and only the United States, with its veto power, achieved a heavy trial for Gaza.
The Security Council's resolutions have the force of law, which means that if they are adopted, Israel will face sanctions if it does not comply. However, the US veto undoubtedly gave Israel a "free card" and once again allowed it to go unpunished. This begs the question, what is the reason why the United States is so stubborn and ignores human rights?
The United States showed three major "hole cards" in the veto. First, they claim that Israel and Hamas are engaged in highly sensitive negotiations that would disrupt the negotiation process if a ceasefire were to be imposed. This is not a defense of Israel, but an escort for it. Could it be that the humanitarian catastrophe is just a bargaining chip?
Second, the United States complains that the resolution does not condemn Hamas, as if to say: "If you don't suppress Hamas first, how can I help you clear yourself of responsibility?" "This is not a humanitarian justification, but an excuse for what Israel has done.
Third, the United States said that the resolution was unreasonable and volunteered to draft a resolution "under possible conditions", as if to exonerate its own conscience. This kind of logic is simply laughable. When exactly did the United States begin to use human rights under the pretext of "possible conditions"?
However, this is not the only dilemma facing the United States. On the one hand, they have to deal with international and domestic condemnation and pressure, emphasizing Israel's "right to self-defense"; On the other hand, Israel has been slow to achieve its goal of eliminating Hamas, which has caused a mixture of internal and external difficulties, forming a diplomatic puzzle.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is intensifying, and the United States** can only defend Israel while repeatedly urging it to protect civilians in order to avoid an even greater humanitarian crisis. This kind of contradiction is like a wonderful performance on the diplomatic stage, and people can't help but be inscrutable about the role of the "two-faced man" of the United States.
However, more than four months later, Israel has not stopped its military operations, and the city of Rafah, near Egypt, has become the epicenter of humanitarian disasters. Millions of refugees, homeless, have become innocent victims of this war.
Israel's intransigence and ignorance of the United States proposal have made the whole situation even more confusing. The United States, as a "protective umbrella", must not only withstand international pressure, but also continue to support Israel without stopping. This kind of diplomatic strangulation is undoubtedly a test for the United States.
How to "protect" Israel at the United Nations, how to keep Israel in moderation, and how to maintain a balance among Arab countries are all unprecedented challenges for US diplomacy. The focus is no longer on Gaza, but on how the United States can make trade-offs in this diplomatic game, and how to find a balance between morality and reality.
This is not just a contest in international relations, but also a choice of a country's morality and conspiracy. And all this will determine the future direction of the situation in Gaza. Let's wait and see how the United States navigates this diplomatic vortex and how it will rescue the civilians in Gaza from the dire straits. [Qian Kejin].