Thierry Meyssan
For the past six months, the US representative on the Security Council, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, has been trying to gain as much time as possible to ensure victory for the IDF in Palestine. By issuing one veto after another, she hopes the West will not suffer a third defeat in Gaza after defeats in Syria and Ukraine. However, on December 22, she recognized the need for humanitarian assistance for civilians trapped in this closed enclave. Finally, on March 25, she admitted that both sides needed to stop the hostility… and immediately declared that the decisions of the Council were not binding.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | PARIS (FRANCE)
| APRIL 2, 2024
DEUTSCH ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ ENGLISH ESPAÑOL FRANÇAIS ITALIANO NETHERLANDS NORSK PORTUGUÊS
Over the past six months, the UN Security Council has been the scene of confrontation between supporters of US hegemony, on the one hand, and those who hope for a more just world, on the other. The massacre of more than 779 Israeli citizens, the taking of about 200 people hostage, the injury of more than 2,000 people, the administrative detention (equivalent of hostage-taking) of 2,870 Palestinians, the massacre of at least 30,000 Palestinian citizens and the injury of at least 70,000 more — this is the result of this battle .
The first reaction of the «American Empire» to the Palestinian Resistance operation in Al-Aqsa and the Israeli response (Operation Iron Swords) was both horror and blind support. It was important for Washington not to suffer another defeat like those that occurred in Syria and Ukraine. Therefore, the US permanent representative to the Security Council, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, opposed any demands for a ceasefire. She was ordered to give Israel time to win. Therefore, on October 16, 2023, it vetoed draft resolution S/2023/772. She said: “Hamas must answer for its actions. He does not represent the Palestinian people and has done nothing to promote peace and stability, preferring chaos.» This was her first lie. Like it or not, Hamas was legally elected by the Palestinians in 2006. He received a relative majority of votes (44.45% of the total votes).
On October 18, she this time opposed the Brazilian draft resolution S/2023/773. She said the draft ignores Israel’s right to self-defense.
This argument became her second lie and second veto. And this will be repeated many times. But in this case, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 2004 advisory notice, it does not apply in the case of an occupying power.
On October 25, it presented its own draft resolution S/2023/792, which “still does not contain a call for a ceasefire; does not condemn the indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Gaza; “does not condemn actions aimed at forcibly relocating civilians,” as Russian Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzya justified his veto.
Much clearer was China’s permanent representative Zhang Jun, who also vetoed the text, calling it unbalanced and ambiguous, with cosmetic changes that «confuse everything» and, if adopted, would greenlight large-scale Israeli military action and lead to escalation of the conflict. What’s worse, he said, is that the document makes no mention of the root causes of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and does not call on Israel to lift the blockade or abandon its evacuation order, which would only accelerate the territory’s «slide into hell.» The document deliberately avoids the issue of Israeli occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state.
In response to this barrage, US Representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield vetoed the Russian proposal to adopt resolution S/2023/795. Finding no argument, she simply denounced the proposal as being drawn up without consultation.
After three vetoes by the United States, on October 27 the General Assembly adopted Jordanian resolution ES-10/21 [ 1 ] with 121 votes in favor, 14 against, and 44 abstentions. It is entitled “Protection of civilians and compliance with legal and humanitarian obligations.” The General Assembly has no right to demand, but can only call. Therefore, the resolution merely “calls for an immediate, lasting and sustainable humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities.” It also encourages all parties to immediately and fully comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law.
Mrs. Linda Thomas-Greenfield remains committed to preventing Israel’s defeat and achieving its victory at any cost. It still refuses to end the fighting, but is now concerned about preventing the deaths of 2.2 million Palestinians, which can be seen live on TV and mobile phone screens in 121 of the countries that voted in the General Assembly.
Only on November 15, Mrs. Linda Thomas-Greenfield deigned not to veto the Maltese text of Security Council resolution number 2712 [ 2 ] . However, she objected to the text quoting a paragraph from the General Assembly resolution calling for “an immediate, lasting and sustainable humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities.” As a result, the Security Council merely “calls for urgent and prolonged humanitarian pauses and corridors throughout the Gaza Strip for a sufficient number of days.” Thus, Israel can continue the war until victory, despite the death of tens of thousands of people.
In Israel, peace advocates circulated a report by Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel entitled “Alternatives to a Political Directive for Gaza Civilians” [ 3 ] . She proposed moving 2.2 million Gazans to Egypt’s Sinai. The Prime Minister’s Office bashfully assured journalists who questioned it that this young minister had no weight and that she was simply trying to get people to talk about her. However, the report was not intended for the general public.
In turn, Amichai Eliyahu, Israel’s Minister of Heritage, said in an interview with Radio Kol Berama that Israel is considering the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza: «This is a decision… this is an option.» He also compared the residents of the Gaza Strip to the Nazis, assuring that “there are no non-combatants in Gaza” and that the territory does not deserve humanitarian assistance. “There are no civilians in Gaza,” he concluded.
On December 8, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres rejected the United States’ proposal. Based on Article 99 of the UN Charter, he convened a meeting of the Security Council. He warned of a high risk of a complete collapse of the humanitarian support system in Gaza, with catastrophic consequences for public order and regional security, not to mention the pressure that could force the civilian population of Gaza to flee en masse to Egypt [an allusion to the Gila Gamliel report]. However, Ms Linda Thomas-Greenfield continued to stand her ground. It vetoed for the fourth time a proposal to adopt resolution S/2023/970, submitted by a large number of states, which demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. She justified her decision by saying that the text of the draft was “unbalanced” and out of touch with reality, and that its authors refused to include language condemning the horrific acts committed by Hamas against Israel on October 7. She also criticized the draft resolution, which does not recognize Israel’s right to protection from terrorism under international law, arguing that an unconditional ceasefire is unrealistic and even dangerous.
On December 22, Mrs. Linda Thomas-Greenfield “dumped ballast” and abstained from voting on resolution 2720 [ 4 ] , which does not address the issue of military operations and concerns only humanitarian assistance, including the supply of fuel, food and medical supplies. It also demands the opening of all border crossings, including Kerem Shalom, and proposes the immediate appointment of a chief coordinator for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction in Gaza.
Encouraged by this support, the Revisionist Zionists demonstrated their desire to finally put an end to the inhabitants of Gaza. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, former UN Ambassador Denny Danon and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself have frequently spoken on the issue. Israel has made a number of contacts abroad in order to accommodate this unwanted people somewhere. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in Cairo that the EU could accept a million, while Rwanda, the DRC and Chad denied that they had given their consent.
On 12 January, Algeria asked the Council to oppose the relocation of Gaza residents. This time, US Representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield joined the consensus. For thirty years, the United States supported the «two-state solution» proposed by the British. The idea is to create separate Jewish and Palestinian states without abandoning apartheid. Apartheid presupposes the equality of all people, be they Jews or Arabs [ 5 ] . The Anglo-Saxons have consistently rejected the binational state envisaged by the United Nations in 1947. They want to divide Palestine so that, in the words of Lord Herbert Samuel, the Jews will never have a viable state. To do this, they can count on the madness of the Israelis, but at the same time they must keep their fascist faction of Zionist revisionists Jabotinsky and Netanyahu on a short leash.
On 23 January, Secretary-General António Guterres attended the quarterly meeting on Palestine. This time it took place at the ministerial level. Echoing the Anglo-Saxon strategy, he found the Israeli government’s clear and repeated rejection of the two-state solution unacceptable. The two-state solution, which has been «left for dead» time after time, remains the only way to achieve a lasting and just peace, he said. This position was shared by almost all fifty-odd speakers, including, of course, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Thunder in The Hague. On 26 January, the International Court of Justice, an internal court of the United Nations, issued an interlocutory order at the request of South Africa [ 6 ] . It demands that Israel take measures to protect Gazans from possible genocide. The Security Council discussed this decision at a meeting on January 31.
Looking at US Permanent Representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield, South Africa’s Permanent Representative Matu Theda Joyini explained that she believes the ruling sends a clear signal to those countries that finance and facilitate Israeli operations, and which may therefore themselves be violating the Prevention Convention. the crime of genocide and punishment for it. However, Linda Thomas-Greenfield noted that in its preliminary findings, the Court did not require an immediate ceasefire or confirm that Israel may have violated the Genocide Convention.
And since immediately after the ruling, Israel launched an international campaign against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), Linda Thomas-Greenfield announced that the United States had stopped funding it. Without this agency, no one will be able to distribute humanitarian aid in Gaza, and Israel will be able to claim that it has done everything in its power. That is, Tel Aviv would like to help the residents of Gaza, but, unfortunately, this is impossible.
On February 20, US Permanent Representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield imposes a fifth veto, this time on the Algerian draft resolution S/2024/173, as it “fetters diplomatic efforts.” In fact, the draft resolution contained a demand for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which must be respected by all parties, but Washington does not want to stop Israeli aggression, despite the mountains of corpses.
China’s Permanent Representative Zhang Jun said US passivity gives the green light to hostile actions, increasing the risk of a regional conflagration. He believes that the United States is trampling international law with its veto, citing the letter of the Secretary General to the Security Council by virtue of Art. 99 of the UN Charter and the ruling of the International Court of Justice.
Russian representative Vasily Nebenzya condemned the alternative draft resolution proposed by the United States as “protection provided to its Middle Eastern ally” and giving it time to expel the population of Gaza. “This is an attempt to stall for time in the interests of Israel,” he said.
On 22 February, the Council heard chilling testimony from the Secretary General of Doctors Without Borders (MSF).
“As an occupying power,” recalled the Permanent Representative of Switzerland, Pascale Baeriswil, “Israel must take responsibility and comply with international law, that is, ensure the supply of food and medicine to the population, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has clearly stated.”
On March 22, Mrs. Linda Thomas-Greenfield tried to improve the image of her country. She proposed a new resolution, S/2024/239, which she hoped to get passed. The text of the resolution notes that “it is necessary to establish an immediate and long-term ceasefire.” In addition, paragraph 19 of the resolution contains allegations against UNRWA. Finally, the resolution’s preamble states that «Hamas and other terrorist organizations, as well as armed extremist groups in Gaza, do not uphold the dignity and self-determination of the Palestinian people, and Hamas is designated a terrorist organization.»
Russia and China vetoed. Linda Thomas-Greenfield responded by saying, “They would rather see us fail than see the Council succeed.”
Finally, on March 25, Mrs. Linda Thomas-Greenfield took a step forward. In her country, the presidential election campaign is gaining momentum. Polls show Joe Biden losing, with a large majority of voters unable to forgive him for his repeated vetoes at the United Nations. Therefore, when the 10 non-permanent members of the Council presented a new draft resolution S/RES/2728(2024) [ 7 ] , she turned a blind eye and did not veto it, although she did not vote for it.
Text “Demands an immediate humanitarian ceasefire during the month of Ramadan, which must be respected by all parties and lead to a lasting ceasefire, demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and guarantees of humanitarian access to meet their medical and other humanitarian needs, as well as the fulfillment of the parties’ obligations to compliance with international law in relation to all persons detained by them.”
This is the tenth text to be voted on by the Council since the events of October 7. It received 14 votes in favor, no votes against, and one abstention (United States).
Justifying her abstention on the resolution, which she called «non-binding» (sic), Mrs. Linda Thomas-Greenfield expressed regret that some of her amendments were not adopted, in particular the one that called for the resolution to condemn Hamas. She accused Russia and China of not wanting lasting peace to be achieved through diplomacy and using the conflict to split the Council.
Chinese representative Zhang Jun disagreed, pointing out differences between the draft rejected three days earlier and the new text. In her opinion, the new text clearly demands an immediate ceasefire, while the previous text was vague and ambiguous and set preconditions. Moreover, the latest text reflects the aspirations of the international community and enjoys the support of the Arab world. Taking a more aggressive stance, he said it was time for the United States to stop engaging in “subversive activities” in the Security Council.
On March 26, the Council discussed the implementation of the resolution adopted two days earlier. Russian Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzya was surprised by the words of his colleague Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who called the resolution “non-binding.” “Does this mean that the United States is abandoning Article 25 of the Charter, under which Member States agree to abide by the decisions of the Security Council?” And Algeria’s permanent representative, Amar Benjama, added: “Otherwise, the very existence of this body will be called into question.”
Mrs. Linda Thomas-Greenfield is confident that Israel cannot be defeated because it would mean the end of Western hegemony. Her stubbornness indicates that Washington is ready to turn a blind eye to any crime committed in its immediate interests. And above all, the fact that the United States ignores international law if it contradicts its policies. This is the whole essence of a rogue state.
Thierry MeyssanTranslation
Der Friedensstifter 