I know why the UN Security Council is irrelevant to Gaza. I was there when the US stood up for Israel
On October 7, 2023, like many around the world, I awoke to news of the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas against more than 1,200 innocent Israeli, American and other civilians who that day were doing nothing other than going about their lives. The television newscasts were bone-chilling – pictures of mutilated babies; of fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers slain in front of family members; of peace activists murdered in cold blood; and of the taking of 250 hostages, some of whom more than 20 months on are still being held.
Later that day, the United States called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to address this mass terror attack, the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust. As the American ambassador to the UN responsible for Security Council matters, I represented the United States at the October 8 emergency meeting and demanded the council issue a statement expressly condemning Hamas for the ruthless terrorist attacks.
Unfortunately, Russia, China and a few other council members refused to endorse such a statement. To put it simply, their refusal to call a spade a spade was abhorrent and incomprehensible. Note: To this day, the Security Council has yet to formally declare Hamas a terrorist group.
Going into the October 8 emergency Security Council meeting, there had rightfully been much global sympathy for Israel – and certainly an expectation that Israel would have to respond militarily. However, once Israel took measures to defend itself, a right enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, many nations, most notably from the Global South, condemned Israel's response as disproportionate and used it as a rallying cry to further isolate Israel in the multilateral system and beyond.
To me and many of my U.S. government colleagues, this was not unexpected. Since joining the UN in 1948, there has been an unfortunate decline in support for Israel at the world body, a decline that began to accelerate following the period of decolonization in the 1960s. Many former colonies wrongly began to view the Israel-Palestinian conflict through the prism of their own struggles against European colonizers, with Israel viewed as a colonizer and the Palestinians as being colonized.
Israel's relationship with the UN reached a nadir in 1975, when the UN General Assembly passed a highly politicized resolution equating Zionism with racism, a document that was finally revoked by the UNGA in 1991. Regrettably, efforts by the Palestinians and their supporters to isolate Israel at the UN have not abated and in fact have intensified since October 7, 2023.
During my two-plus years in New York as ambassador, I engaged in a great deal of difficult diplomacy on the situation in Gaza and cast the sole veto of two UNSC draft resolutions related to the war, both of which lacked a clear condemnation of Hamas, a direct linkage of a ceasefire to the release of hostages, and a reference to Israel's Article 51 rights.
Had these texts been adopted by the council, they would not have delivered an immediate ceasefire or a release of the hostages – but certainly would have given Hamas the time and space to rearm. Other council representatives privately agreed but nevertheless felt increasing pressure from their capitals to produce a council document calling for an immediate ceasefire.
From the beginning of the conflict through the end of the Biden administration, the U.S. regularly proffered creative alternatives on ceasefire language, while most other council members insisted on an explicit reference to an immediate ceasefire. On rare occasions, the council was able to find common ground on Gaza wording when it focused on upholding the principles of humanitarian assistance and protection of civilians.
But when some members opted to abandon council unity and force votes on resolutions containing unacceptable ceasefire language, the U.S. was left with no choice but to exercise its veto. Before each veto was cast, we recognized the potential collateral damage to America's international reputation; however, in our view the adoption of an unbalanced council resolution would have made a ceasefire neither practicable nor implementable given the highly charged and extremely complex situation on the ground.
In the United States' view, the establishment of a limited and credible negotiation channel was essential for achieving an effective, durable and sustainable end to the war. While the Biden administration didn't achieve an end to the war on its watch, it did negotiate a three-phase diplomatic framework to pause the fighting and release the hostages, which was ultimately blessed by the council and backed by the Trump administration.
To this day, one key factor hampering council unity on Gaza is Moscow and Beijing's exploitation of the situation there for a clear geopolitical end: deflect international attention away from Russia's savage war against Ukraine. In response to Russian statements in the Council on Gaza, which habitually condemned the U.S. for allegedly facilitating Israeli actions, I constantly reminded council members that Russia was in no position to criticize any country given the horrific war of aggression it was conducting in Ukraine.
I also publicly warned Chinese diplomats that should they continue making false accusations about the U.S. concerning Gaza, I would immediately call out their country's support to Russia's military industrial base, refuting Beijing's fictitious claim that it supports neither party to the conflict. Russia and China must end their politicization of Gaza and either contribute constructively to peace efforts or simply get out of the way.
While I had expected Russia and China to take adversarial positions, I was extremely disappointed that three U.S. partners on the council, Slovenia, Algeria and Guyana, chose to regularly piggyback on Russian and Chinese political shenanigans to push for more urgent council action on the issue. Their aim was to shame the U.S. and compel it to change course from its steadfast support of Israel in the war with Hamas.
All the while, the three had been keenly aware that Washington was conducting sensitive negotiations behind the scenes with Israel, Qatar and Egypt on steps to facilitate a durable end to the fighting and ease civilian suffering in Gaza. But instead of getting fully behind those steps and working with us in good faith, they preferred to ratchet up public pressure on the U.S. and ignore American concerns about how their actions would be manipulated by Hamas and other malign actors in the region – Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis – to the detriment of regional peace and security.
Given persistent council divisions over the war in Gaza, some UN member states continue to lay the diplomatic predicate for a future General Assembly resolution (non-legally binding) calling for sanctions, an arms embargo and other tough international measures against Israel.
The recent U.S. veto of another council resolution on Gaza will certainly provide fuel for those efforts. As I write, the Palestinians and their allies continue to ponder additional pathways to go after Israel throughout the UN system. There is even discussion in some UN circles about suspending Israel's voting rights in the General Assembly, an act that would deeply anger Washington and trigger severe political consequences for the UN.
Since this tragic conflict began, I have been mystified as to why many UN officials believe that all the U.S. has to do is instruct Israel to end its pursuit of Hamas and then somehow a magical end to the fighting would materialize.
On their part, I sense a genuine reluctance to treat Israel as a legitimate state with its own national security concerns. While the United States does indeed have influence with Israel, it is naïve at best for these colleagues to think America can simply dictate to Jerusalem what it should and shouldn't do in response to what it perceives as existential threats.
Russia and China must end their politicization of Gaza and either contribute constructively to peace efforts or simply get out of the way.
Misguided pressure on the U.S., relentless efforts to isolate Israel, Russian and Chinese diversionary tactics, blatant antisemitism, and a reluctance by some states to compromise continue to stymie the Security Council's ability to speak with one voice on ending the Gaza war. Until these unfortunate practices cease, the council will remain irrelevant to a resolution to Gaza and the broader Israel-Palestinian conflict.
While no one can ignore the terrible tragedy that is now Gaza, it remains a fact that those UN member states that have influence with Hamas have made a strategic decision not to use it. The hesitancy of many countries over the years to publicly condemn Hamas as a terrorist group has only given it the oxygen it needs to carry on, no matter how much death and suffering Palestinians in Gaza continue to experience.
To end this war, Hamas must disarm and disband. There will not be peace in Gaza until it does. Gazans deserve an opportunity to live in peace and to seek a prosperous future. Hamas' continued rule will bring them neither.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices poised to jump after US strikes on Iran with Strait of Hormuz status in focus
Oil was poised to open higher Sunday after US strikes on Iran's three main nuclear sites intensified fears of a potential supply shock, amid growing concerns that Tehran could retaliate by closing a key maritime chokepoint. Crude futures had already posted weekly gains following the outbreak of conflict between Israel and Iran just over a week ago. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) closed at $74.93 per barrel, while Brent crude (BZ=F), the international benchmark, settled at $76.73. Prices are up over 10% in the week since the conflict began. 'Oil prices are expected to open at least $5 per barrel higher when trading begins at 6:00 p.m. Eastern. We're looking at $80 oil on the open,' said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. On Sunday, traders weighed possible retaliation moves from Iran, a major oil producer and exporter, following the US's direct involvement. According to state media, Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz. The final decision on whether to shut the vital waterway — which handles roughly 20% of global oil flows — rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. What Wall Street once viewed as a low-probability event is now being treated as a significantly heightened risk. "Should oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz be affected, we could easily see $100 oil," Lipow said. Following the outbreak of the Israel-Iran war, JPMorgan analysts forecast that under a "severe outcome," a closure of the Strait of Hormuz could push oil prices to $120–$130 per barrel. If crude climbs into that range, analysts predict gasoline and diesel prices could rise by as much as $1.25 per gallon. 'Consumers would be looking at a national average gasoline price of around $4.50 per gallon—closer to $6.00 if you're in California,' Lipow said. Other possible retaliatory moves from Iran could include supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels in renewed attacks on commercial shipping. If the conflict escalates and the US or Israel targets Iran's oil export infrastructure, analysts warn that Tehran may retaliate by striking export facilities in neighboring countries. 'In other words, 'If we can't export our oil, you can't have yours,'' Lipow said. The key issue isn't just the potential for disruption, but how long it lasts, Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth, told Yahoo Finance on Sunday. 'If infrastructure is hit but can be quickly restored, crude may struggle to hold gains,' she said. 'But if Iran's response causes lasting damage or introduces long-term supply risk, we're likely to see a stronger and more sustained move higher.' Last week, JPMorgan analysts noted that since 1967 — aside from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — none of the 11 major military conflicts involving Israel have had a lasting impact on oil prices. In contrast, events directly involving major regional oil producers — such as the first Gulf War in 1990, the Iraq War in 2003, and the imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018 — have all led to meaningful and sustained moves in oil markets. 'During these episodes, we estimate that oil traded at a $7–$14 per barrel premium to its fair value for an extended period,' wrote JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team. They added that the most significant and lasting price impacts historically come from 'regime changes' in oil-producing countries — whether that be through leadership transitions, coups, revolutions, or major political shifts. 'While demand conditions and OPEC's spare capacity shape the broader market response, these events typically drive substantial oil price spikes, averaging a 76% increase from onset to peak,' Kaneva wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) had raised output in the months leading up to Israel's strike on Iran on June 13. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Syria Suicide Bomber Kills at Least 20, Injures Dozens More During Church Attack: 'Cowardly Act'
At least 20 people were killed after a suicide bomber opened fire and detonated explosives inside a Greek Orthodox church in Damascus, Syria, on Sunday, June 22 At least 53 others, reportedly including children, were injured in the attack "This cowardly act goes against the civic values that bring us together," Syrian Information Minister Hamza Mostafa wrote on social media, calling the incident a terrorist attackA suicide bomber attacked a church in Syria, killing at least 20 people, including several children, and injuring more than 50 others. According to Reuters, the Associated Press and Al Jazeera, Syrian state media reported that an attacker opened fire inside a busy Greek Orthodox church in Dweil'a — located in the outskirts of Damascus — before detonating an explosive vest on Sunday, June 22. Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that the country's Health Ministry said at least 20 people were dead and 53 others were wounded inside Mar Elias Church, per the outlets. Local media outlets also reported that children were among the dead. Syrian Information Minister Hamza Mostafa condemned the bombing, calling it a terrorist attack, per AP. 'This cowardly act goes against the civic values that bring us together,' he wrote on X. 'We will not back down from our commitment to equal citizenship … and we also affirm the state's pledge to exert all its efforts to combat criminal organizations and to protect society from all attacks threatening its safety.' No group immediately claimed responsibility for the bombing, per AP, but Syria's interior ministry has said that the suicide bomber was a member of the Islamic State (sometimes known as ISIL or ISIS). Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases. According to Reuters and AP, the attack came amid statements from interim Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa that he will act to protect minority groups in the country, after former President Bashar al-Assad's government was overthrown in December 2024. One witness who spoke to AP and a Syrian security source who spoke to Reuters said that a second man was believed to have been involved in the attack. The Greek foreign ministry also condemned the attack, telling Reuters in a statement: "We unequivocally condemn the abhorrent terrorist suicide bombing at the Mar Elias Greek Orthodox Church in Damascus, Syria." "We demand that the Syrian transitional authorities take immediate action to hold those involved accountable and implement measures to guarantee the safety of Christian communities and all religious groups, allowing them to live without fear," the statement continued. Witnesses who spoke to AP said the gunman entered the church during mass with his face covered and first began firing a gun. People inside the church charged at the shooter to try and force him outside, and he then detonated his explosives near the entrance of the building. "People were praying safely under the eyes of God," Father Fadi Ghattas told the AP, adding that he saw at least 20 people killed. "There were 350 people praying at the church." Photographs taken in the aftermath of the attack show emergency personnel with the Syrian Civil Defense — whose emergency teams are widely known as the White Helmets, according to the BBC — helping the injured into ambulances. A bystander named Issam Nasr, who was praying at the church, told the outlet that he saw people "blown to bits." "We have never held a knife in our lives. All we ever carried were our prayers," he said. Read the original article on People
Wall Street Journal
23 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Iran's Strait of Hormuz Gambit
Iran's Parliament voted Sunday to close the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow sea passage out of the Persian Gulf. If the regime does this, it will be consistent with Iran's recent behavior, which is to go for its own jugular. Iran is run by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, so the Supreme National Security Council will make the final decision. Some 20% or more of the world's oil supply moves through the Strait after loading from oil terminals in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran. There's no doubt that closing the Strait would send oil prices higher, probably above $100 a barrel for a time. A risk premium for a possible closure has already bumped the oil price to the mid-$70 a barrel range since Israel launched its attacks on Iran. The world supply of oil is more diverse than it was 20 years ago, thanks in part to American frackers. Some Gulf oil can also move via pipeline from Saudi Arabia. China would be one of the biggest losers from a Hormuz shutdown, as much of its oil comes from the Gulf. Secretary of State Marco Rubio made that point on the Sunday talk shows, urging China to advise Iran against closing the Strait. Iran can certainly do some short-term damage. The shipping passage through the Strait is two miles at its narrowest and vulnerable to sea mines. Iran could harass ships with its naval forces, notably high-speed patrol boats, as well as drones and missiles from onshore.
