Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Madame Veto has blood on her hands

On October 25, it presented its own draft resolution S/2023/792, which “still contains no call for a ceasefire; does not condemn indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian property in Gaza; does not denounce acts aimed at the forcible resettlement of civilians”, summed up Russia’s permanent representative, Vassili Nebenzia, as he vetoed the resolution.

Much more explicitly, China’s permanent representative, Zhang Jun, also vetoed the text, denouncing it as “unbalanced” and “ambiguous”, with “cosmetic” amendments that “mix everything up” and, if adopted, would have given the “green light” for large-scale military action by Israel and the escalation of the conflict. Worse still, he declared, it makes no reference to the root causes of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, nor does it urge Israel to lift its blockade or abandon its evacuation order, which will only hasten the territory’s “descent into hell”. It deliberately sidesteps the question of Israeli occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state.

Responding to this barrage, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield vetoed the Russian draft resolution S/2023/795. Running out of arguments, she merely denounced a proposal drafted without consultation.

Exasperated by these three U.S. vetoes, on October 27 the General Assembly adopted, by 121 votes to 14 with 44 abstentions, a Jordanian resolution ES-10/21 [1]. It is entitled “Protection of .civilians and compliance with legal and humanitarian obligations”. The General Assembly does not have the power to “demand”, only to “ask”. The resolution therefore simply “calls for an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce, leading to a cessation of hostilities”. It also recommends that all parties immediately and fully comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law.

Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield continues to pursue the objective of not risking an Israeli defeat, whatever the cost of a victory. She still refuses to impose a halt to the fighting, but is now concerned not to let 2.2 million Palestinians die live on the televisions and cell phones of the 121 states that voted at the General Assembly.

It wasn’t until November 15 that Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield let through a Maltese proposal for a Security Council resolution, number 2712 [2]. However, she objected to the 3.text quoting the passage from the General Assembly resolution calling for “an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce, leading to a cessation of hostilities”. At most, the Council “calls for urgent and prolonged humanitarian pauses and corridors throughout the Gaza Strip for a sufficient number of days”. Israel can therefore continue its war until victory is achieved, even at the cost of tens of thousands of deaths.

In Israel, peace advocates leaked a memo from the Minister of Intelligence, Gila Gamliel, entitled Alternatives to a political directive for the civilian population in Gaza [3]. It advocated expelling the 2.2 million Gazans to the Egyptian Sinai. Embarrassed, the Prime Minister’s office assured journalists who questioned it that this young minister was of no importance, and that she was just trying to make news. However, this note was not intended for the public.

For his part, Amichai Eliyahu, Israel’s Heritage Minister, tells Radio Kol Berama that Israel is considering using atomic weapons in Gaza: “it’s a solution… it’s an option”. He then compares the residents of the Gaza Strip to “Nazis”, assuring that “there are no non-combatants in Gaza” and that the territory does not deserve humanitarian aid. “There are no uninvolved people in Gaza”, he concluded.

On December 8, UN Secretary General, António Guterres, upset the United States. Relying on Article 99 of the UN Charter, he convened the Security Council. He warned of a high risk of “total 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 Gazan civilians into mass displacement to Egypt [allusion to Gila Gamliel’s note]. However, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield held firm. She vetoed for the fourth time a motion for resolution S/2023/970, tabled by a large number of states, which “demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. She justified her decision by the “unbalanced and out of touch with reality” nature of the draft text, and the refusal of its co-authors to insert language condemning the horrific acts perpetrated by Hamas against Israel on October 7. She also criticized a draft resolution that fails to recognize Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism, in accordance with international law, arguing that an “unconditional” ceasefire is unrealistic and even dangerous.

On December 22, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield relented, agreeing to abstain in the vote on resolution 2720 [4], a text that does not address the question of the fighting and confines itself to humanitarian aid. It merely calls for an increase in aid, including fuel, food and medical supplies. It also demands the opening of all border crossings, including Kerem Shalom, and proposes the immediate appointment of a senior coordinator for humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Gaza.

On the strength of this support, the revisionist Zionists are showing their determination to put an end to the Gazans. Bezalel Smotrich, Minister of Finance, Danny Danon, former ambassador to the UN, and the Prime Minister himself, Benjamin Netanyahu, are multiplying declarations to this effect. Israel is making contacts abroad to welcome these unwanted people. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, declared in Cairo that the EU could receive one million, but Rwanda, the DRC and Chad denied having given their agreement.

On January 12, Algeria asked the Council to oppose the “transfer” of Gazans. This time, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield joined the consensus. For thirty years, the United States has defended the “two-state solution” devised by the British. The idea is to create a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, so as not to be obliged to put an end to apartheid. This end presupposes the proclamation of the equality of all men, whether Jews or Arabs [5]. The Anglo-Saxons consistently rejected the binational state envisaged by the United Nations in 1947. They want to divide Palestine to ensure that the Jews will never have a viable state, in the words of Lord Herbert Samuel. For this, they can count on the madness of the Israelis, but must keep a tight rein on their fascist faction, the “revisionist Zionists” of Jabotinsky and Netanyahu.

On January 23, Secretary General António Guterres attends the quarterly meeting on Palestine. This time, it was held at ministerial level. Echoing the Anglo-Saxon strategy, he deemed “unacceptable” the Israeli government’s “clear and repeated” rejection of the two-state solution. The two-state solution, repeatedly “left for dead”, remains the only way to achieve a lasting and equitable peace, he declared. Almost all the fifty or so speakers, including of course the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, shared this position.

Thunderclap in The Hague. On January 26, the International Court of Justice, the internal court of the United Nations, issued a protective order at the request of South Africa [6]. It required Israel to take measures to protect Gazans from possible genocide. The Council met on January 31 to consider the decision.

Looking at Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, South Africa’s Permanent Representative, Mathu Theda Joyini, explains that, in her view, the judgment represents a clear signal to those countries that finance and facilitate Israeli operations and which, in so doing, could themselves be in breach of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. But Linda Thomas-Greenfield notes that, in its preliminary findings, the Court did not call for an immediate ceasefire, nor did it assert that Israel had violated the Genocide Convention.

And as Israel immediately began an international campaign against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), Linda Thomas-Greenfield reports that the USA has stopped funding it. Without this agency, no one will be able to distribute humanitarian aid to Gaza, and Israel will be able to claim that it has done everything in its power. Tel Aviv would have liked to help the Gazans, but unfortunately this was not possible.

On February 20, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield vetoed the Algerian proposal for resolution S/2024/173 for the fifth time, on the grounds that it would hamper diplomatic efforts. In fact, it “demands an immediate humanitarian ceasefire that must be respected by all parties”, and Washington still doesn’t want to see an end to Israel’s war, despite the mounting death toll.
Ambassador Zhang Jun believes that the United States’ passivity resembles a “green light for the continuation of hostilities”, running the risk of a regional conflagration. He believes that their veto tramples international law underfoot, citing on the one hand the Secretary-General’s letter to the Security Council under Article 99 of the UN Charter, and on the other the order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

For his part, Ambassador Vassili Nebenzia denounces an alternative draft resolution envisaged by the United States as “protection for its Middle East ally” to give it time to expel the population of Gaza. “It’s an attempt to play for time in Israel’s interests”, he declared.

On February 22, the Council heard the chilling testimony of the Secretary General of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

As the occupying power, recalled Switzerland’s permanent representative, Pascale Baeriswyl, “Israel must assume its responsibilities under international law, i.e. ensure the supply of food and medical products to the population, as clearly recalled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

On March 22, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield attempted to restore the country’s image. She proposed a new resolution, S/2024/239, which she hoped to get through. The text “Considers that it is imperative to establish an immediate and durable ceasefire”. Moreover, point 19 of the resolution relays the accusations against UNRWA. Finally, in its preamble, it declares “Hamas and other terrorist and armed extremist groups in Gaza do not defend the dignity or self-determination of the Palestinian people, and that Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization”.

Russia and China veto. Linda Thomas-Greenfield comments: “They’d rather see us fail than see this Council succeed”.

Finally, on March 25, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield gave in. Back home, the presidential election campaign had begun. The polls showed Joe Biden as the losing candidate: a large majority of his constituents could not forgive him for his successive vetoes at the United Nations. So 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 approve.

The text “Demands an immediate humanitarian ceasefire during the month of Ramadan
which is respected by all parties and leads to a lasting ceasefire, demands
also the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and guaranteed
humanitarian access to meet their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further
humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties respect their obligations under
international law in respect of all persons held by them”.

This is the tenth text put to a vote in the Council since the events of October 7. Om received 14 votes in favor, none against and one abstention (United States).

Justifying her abstention on this resolution, which she describes as “non-binding” (sic), Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield deplores the fact that some of her amendments were not retained, in particular the one calling for the addition of a condemnation of Hamas. She accused Russia and China of not wanting a lasting peace to be achieved through diplomatic means, and of using the conflict to divide the Council.

Ambassador Zhang Jun disagreed, pointing out the differences between the draft rejected three days earlier and the new text. In his view, the new text is “unequivocal” in its demand for an immediate ceasefire, whereas the previous one was “vague and ambiguous”, laying down preconditions. Moreover, the latest text reflects the aspirations of the international community and enjoys the support of the Arab world. Taking a more offensive stance, he declared that it was time for the United States to stop “obstructing” the Council.

On March 26, the Council discussed the implementation of the resolution adopted two days earlier. Ambassador Vassili Nebenzia was astonished by the words of his colleague Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who had described the resolution as “non-binding”. “Does this mean that the United States is disregarding Article 25 of the Charter, according to which Member States agree to carry out the decisions of the Security Council? Amar Bendjama, Permanent Representative of Algeria, adds, “Otherwise, the very existence of this body would be called into question”.

Mrs Linda Thomas-Greenfield was convinced that Israel could not lose without provoking the end of Western hegemony. Her obstinacy only proved that Washington is prepared to turn a blind eye to any crime committed in its short-term interests. Above all, it will have proved that the United States scorns international law when it contravenes its policy. This is the definition of a rogue state.