Unmasking the United States' hypocrisy in Gaza

Gloria Sand
The day when, in the context of the UN, the voice of the US becomes "a voice like any other," will mark the beginning of a revolution in the basic conception of the world order.
Gloria Sand

The day when, in the context of the United Nations, the voice of the United States becomes "a voice like any other," will mark the beginning of a revolution in the basic conception of the world order. The beginning of a generalized and irreversible new awareness of the fact that the US is no longer "the country that must be listened to."

The approval, on March 25, of the UN Resolution 2728 demanding a ceasefire in Gaza during Ramadan seems to confirm that the day has come. The resolution was tabled by 10 non-permanent members and was voted by 14 UN Security Council members. Only one UNSC member decided to abstain: the US.

Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield's raised arm to mark Washington's abstention, therefore its reluctance to fully endorse a project, a vision for peace that, up to three days before, it claimed to support, unequivocally confirms the hypocrisy of the American position.

In fact, just three days earlier, on March 22, the US managed to get its resolution voted for a ceasefire in Gaza. The latter, though, was vetoed by China, Russia and Algeria.

Very few media outlets reported that the UNSC rejected a Russia-proposed amendment that would have called for a permanent ceasefire. Yet another double standard approach in the international media debate. Russia "must solve the Ukraine problem" to ensure that its point of view is taken into consideration at other tables. The US has the right to split its responsibilities across multiple tables.

Well, the March 25 resolution, in addition to attempting to guarantee an immediate humanitarian pause leading to a sustainable ceasefire without a return to destruction, an immediate release of hostages, and ensuring humanitarian access to Gaza, also confirms that, in the face of escalating horror and destruction, hypocrisy can no longer win.

How was it possible to reach such a compromise? There are at least three elements of analysis to take into consideration.

First, the determination of China and Russia to prevent this Middle Eastern crisis between Israel and Palestine from continuing to be exploited in the world power debate while losing sight of the victim perspective.

A position which, thanks to a serious and skilfully diplomatic game, the two countries managed to make the other members of the UNSC understand. Indeed, the latter have progressively found themselves in agreement on the idea that the crisis should not be approached in an "issue-linkage" dynamic, i.e. with the idea of simultaneously discussing one or more issues to reach a compromise by working at multiple tables.

Rather, they have been pushed to understand that the world today is too complex and interconnected to allow us to resort to this practice of international relations. And crisis must be addressed and resolved individually.

Secondly, the situation on the ground. The victims. No country has ever denied that the victims were on both sides. What, however, for many, week after week, has become unacceptable is seeing the different treatment reserved for civilians.

This conflict has never called into question anti-Semitism, rather its exploitation to hide a reality that is too difficult to justify. As China has assessed from the beginning, showing full solidarity with Israel for the painful Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, in order to continue to defend anti-Semitism it is necessary to resolve the problem at its root, creating two separate states for Israel and Palestine, giving the two peoples the possibility of existing in a context of non-hostility.

Paradox is that China's reasonable voice, which initially Beijing expressed clearly in a very tense moment, is today shared by many other countries, which have slowly found the courage to express what they think. Aloud. Fearing less the consequences of a stance that Washington seems unable to consider. Even less to endorse.

Thirdly, the unreasonableness of the line adopted by the US. An attitude that found itself so anachronistic as to lead not only to the abstention on March 25, but also to a totally incomprehensible reaction in the face of the latest abuse against civilians: the killing of a group of volunteers from the American NGO World Central Kitchen in Gaza on April 1.

Is the US ready to sacrifice what it claims to be its core values in the name of hypocrisy? Hope not. However, what matters today is that a transversal consensus has been identified, at least as regards the crisis in the Middle East. It's an extraordinary success for the people who are suffering this conflict; a success that could become even more groundbreaking if it were transformed into a new era of transversal negotiations aimed at identifying solutions for many other crises. A battle that China and Europe could carry on together.

(The author is an independent researcher based in Paris. The views are her own.)

Special Reports