UN Security Council Rejects Russian and US Resolutions on the Middle East

The US draft resolution on the Middle East was blocked by Russia and China, while the Russian document did not get the necessary number of votes. The UN Security Council on Wednesday, 25 October, again failed to adopt any of the proposed resolutions on the situation in the Middle East. Russia and China vetoed the American draft, and the Russian document did not get enough votes, according to the website of the world organization. Ten members of the UN Security Council voted in favor of the resolution proposed by the US, two countries - Mozambique and Brazil - abstained. In addition to Russia and China, the United Arab Emirates opposed it. Moscow’s option was supported by four countries, with two countries - the UK and the US - voting against it. Another nine members of the Security Council abstained from voting. What is the difference between the Russian and US resolutions The resolutions proposed by Russia and the US condemn violence, including Hamas attacks on Israel, and call for the delivery of humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, Russia calls for “an immediate, sustainable and fully respected ceasefire on humanitarian grounds.” Moscow also demands that Israel rescind the order to evacuate Gaza Strip residents to the south of the enclave. The US draft notes the right of any country to self-defense and calls for compliance with international law and the suppression of terrorist financing. It also suggests declaring “humanitarian pauses.” However, the US variant, unlike the Russian draft, does not call for a ceasefire, the UN claims. Criticism from both sides Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, called the US resolution “thoroughly politicized”, saying its aim is “not to save civilians, but to strengthen US policy positions in the region through labelling”. US Permanent Representative to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, in turn, accused Russia of “cynical and irresponsible behavior” for coming up with its draft “without any consultation” and “with a number of problematic sections”.