On October 7, 2023, I awoke to news that shocked many worldwide—an attack by Hamas left over 1,200 innocent individuals, including Israelis and Americans, dead. The images broadcasted on television were gut-wrenching, showcasing the brutality of the violence, such as a baby who lost his family in front of him. Even peace activists weren’t spared, brutally killed. To make matters worse, around 250 hostages were taken, some held for over 20 months.
Later that day, the United States pushed for an emergency UN Security Council meeting to address what was described as one of the most significant terrorist attacks in recent history, one that echoed the harrowing events of the Holocaust. I represented the US at the meeting on October 8, seeking a statement from the Council that explicitly condemned Hamas for these acts of terrorism.
However, Russia, China, and several other members were unwilling to support this statement, which was both baffling and outrageous. It’s frustrating to note that, to this day, the Security Council has not officially classified Hamas as a terrorist organization.
During the Emergency Security Council meeting, it was clear that Israel had garnered a lot of global sympathy. There was widespread expectation for a military response from Israel. But under Article 51 of the UN Charter, once Israel acted to protect itself, many countries, especially from the Global South, accused Israel of disproportionate retaliation, using it to further their agendas against Israel.
This tension with the UN has deep roots—Israel’s relationship with the organization has shifted significantly since its formation in 1948, particularly following the decolonization movements of the 1960s. Some countries interpret the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of their historical struggles against colonialism, painting Israel as the oppressor.
In 1991, the UN General Assembly passed a controversial resolution that equated Zionism with racism, a move that was later revoked but has had lingering effects.
During my time as an ambassador, I’ve engaged in numerous difficult diplomatic discussions related to Gaza. The US has vetoed two draft resolutions that failed to condemn Hamas or make a connection to the need for a ceasefire linked to the release of hostages. If those resolutions had passed, they would have likely given Hamas more time and breathing space amidst the conflict.
As the conflict progressed, the US regularly proposed alternatives to ceasefire language, but many other Council members continued to emphasize explicit calls for immediate ceasefires. Progress was sometimes made on the humanitarian front, focusing on assisting civilians, yet finding consensus remained challenging.
When some members of the Council chose to pursue resolutions that contained unacceptable ceasefire language, the United States felt it had no option but to exercise its veto. Each veto came with an understanding of potential damage to America’s global standing but was deemed necessary to prevent the passage of imbalanced resolutions that would complicate the already fragile situation.
The US believes in establishing reliable negotiation channels as vital to achieving a long-term, effective resolution. The Biden administration opted for a phased diplomatic approach aimed at suspending hostilities while securing the release of hostages.
One complicating factor in the Council’s unity regarding Gaza is the ongoing exploitation of the situation by Russia and China. I’ve often reminded Council members that it’s hypocritical for Russia to criticize others given its military actions in Ukraine.
While I hoped for a more hostile stance from Russia and China, I was disappointed to see US allies on the Council, like Slovenia, Algeria, and Guyana, aligning with these two and further complicating matters.
As tensions remain high, the push to isolate Israel continues from various UN member states, advocating for sanctions and embargoes. This is exacerbated by the recent US veto of another resolution, which provides momentum for those seeking to undermine Israel’s position within the UN system.
Since the onset of this tragic conflict, it has puzzled me why some UN officials think that instructing Israel to halt its response would somehow end the violence. It’s crucial to recognize Israel’s legitimate national security concerns. While the US has significant influence, expecting it to dictate what Israel should do in the face of perceived threats is, quite frankly, unrealistic.
Many of the ongoing challenges in achieving peace can be traced back to the strategic decisions of member states regarding their stance on Hamas. Ignoring the violence perpetrated by Hamas only fuels its actions, leading to continued suffering in Gaza. For peace to be realized, Hamas must disarm and disband. Until that happens, the people of Gaza will struggle to secure a peaceful future.
