The relationship between the US and Israel in the United Nations’ rooms.

Translated by Irene Cecchi

After the explosion of pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon, on October 18th and 19th, the conflict at the border between Israel and Lebanon turned on again after many years, with bombs and threats of ground operations.

Worried about the possible escalation in the Middle East, for many already on the horizon, the representatives of the United Nations joined in a summit in New York and it’s precisely on occasion of this meeting in the UN that the American policy regarding the Israeli ally seems to have reached a turning point.

On September 25th, during an interview with ABC News, the Secretary of State Anthony Blinken commented on the Middle East situation: “Since last October 8th, Hezbollah has been launching missiles and rockets to Israel from South Lebanon. The almost 70 thousand people who lived near the Northern border had to flee their homes so Israel understandably and legitimately wants a safe environment to allow its citizens to go back home. The best way to solve things is through diplomacy, an agreement to withdraw the troops and let both Israeli and Lebanese people go back home. The best way to do so is not through war but diplomacy”.

The international community took a different stance in New York, a position that already emerged in the evening of September 24th when, during a dinner with the G7 Countries, the French President Emmanuel Macron and the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom David Lammy publicly supported the need of a ceasefire at the border between Israel and Lebanon. The US, instead, said they were looking for a different solution, a more complex one, as Biden revealed during an interview with ABC Television when he implied that a total war was impossible but “we are still working on a solution that may radically change the whole region”.

The joint position of France and the UK is what made possible in the Security Council the proposal of a ceasefire at the Lebanese border. Anyways, this request ended up in impasse because of the same US representatives who lodged objections.

The US’s public opinion is way different since, the reaction to Nethanyahu’s visit in New York on September 24th, in order to give a speech to the UN General Assembly, caused many public demonstrations against the Israeli Prime Minister. The presence of a 50 people group of Jewish and Israeli people who declared to be against any occupation and any war has been exemplary: “Stop killing children, stop the war, sign the agreement, bring hostages back home, there is no military solution”. When the name of the Israeli Prime Minister popped out in speeches, the crowd would say all together “shame”. This position has been confirmed also by Phylisa Wisdom, the executive director of the New York Jewish Agenda: “There is no solution apart from the diplomatic one and we will fight until Nethanyahu, our government and all the allies get this message, so that they reach a peace in which people’s lives are the priority”.

Also pro-Palestine protesters took the spotlight, starting from the New York Public Library, waving Palestine flags and showing “free-Palestine” posters and heading to the UN palace.

The diplomatic machine has been started, also by the words of the UN Secretary General Antonio Gutierres “Hell is breaking loose”, and on September 26th Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron presented a joint proposal for a ceasefire, with a singular characteristic: the temporality of 21 days. The two leaders, who met beyond the UN General Assembly, declared they worked on a temporary ceasefire to “allow diplomacy to avoid further escalations”. The temporality is a pivoting element: it allows the US not to formally equate Israel and Hezbollah, that they consider respectively an ally and a terrorist group.

The proposal, that has been signed by the UK, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, says: “the situation between Lebanon and Israel after October 8th 2023 is unbearable and it’s a risk for a wider regional escalation. This is not in anyone’s interest, neither Israeli people’s nor Lebanese one’s”. According to the American representative, the time frame of 21 days is necessary to open an operating space for the negotiation of a lasting agreement between the two countries that can allow people to go back home without fearing any more violences or another October 7th. Robert Wood, the American representative at the UN, insisted on underlining that the conflict broke out because of Hezbollah’s decision to break the peace in the area.

The ceasefire proposal received wide support, also by the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdallah Bou Habib who said his Country is facing a crisis that might “compromise its own existence”. He also commented: “Diplomacy is not always easy but is the only way to save innocent lives. Lebanon sees an opportunity in the American-French initiative to gain momentum, to make steps forward for the crisis solution”.

Ultimately, Netanyahu got to New York among the protests, inside and outside of the UN Glass Palace, and he gave a speech to the UN General Assembly: “We will go on attacking Hezbollah with all our power and we won’t stop until we reach our goal, first of all letting people back home safely” he said while showing two different maps indicating his future intentions.

While other signatory countries were calling on the US’ cold reception of the proposal, the American Spokesman on National Security John Kirby clarified: “It was not a shot in the dark. It was the result of long consultations, not only with signatory Countries but also with Israel. We were right in thinking that it was necessary for them too to know every detail of the proposal. We wouldn’t have done it without knowing for sure it would have been received as seriously as we wrote it”.

In the panorama there is a growingly heated crisis, a weakening alliance and a stronger determination of Netanyahu, who said during his speech at the UN: “There is no place in Iran that Israel arms can’t reach, and this applies to all Middle East”.

“We’ll win”

Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2024