Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at a UNSC Briefing on the Situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question
Mr. President,
We thank Tor Wennesland for his briefing.
Today, The Middle East is going through perhaps one of the most dramatic periods in its entire history, as a wave of violence engulfing it is sweeping now increasingly more countries and peoples. Exactly 400 days have passed since the escalation in Gaza began. This date is disheartening and symbolic, because all this time the international community – owing to the efforts of one State that deems itself the leader of the Western world – has not been able to take any effective measures to halt the violence.
The British Foreign Secretary is very fond of historical forays on colonialism. We urge him to reflect on a very simple question that has a direct impact on what is happening today. However, he will hardly be able to do that, since, as you can see, he is absent from the ministerial meeting he himself convened. What are the real sources of the vortex of instability in the Middle East, which the entire region is being sucked into deeper and deeper? After all, the narratives that we have been hearing from our Anglo-Saxon colleagues in the Security Council all these months abound with black and white labels, painting one side as barbarians and the other side as innocent victims of terrorism, which can be forgiven for any savagery, since all this – they say – is “self-defense”.
Every time Western delegations try to start the clock of the history of the Middle East conflict from October 7, 2023, as if before that date peace reigned in the region. This distorted picture is clearly reflected in the concept note drafted by the UK presidency for today's meeting. It is outrageous that it contains no mention whatsoever of Israel's punitive operation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which has already claimed the lives of 43,000 Palestinians, or of that country's land invasion of Lebanon.
October 7 as “day zero” of the conflict is a very handy version for the Anglo-Saxon world. Behind this version, as behind a screen, it tries to hide the ugly truth that the roots of the current bloody tragedy lie in the unprincipled colonial policy of Great Britain towards Mandatory Palestine and its brutal political engineering with respect to Arabs and Jews.
Throughout the history of the Middle East, the British Empire viewed this region exclusively as a launching ground for its “great game”. It bossily meddled in the affairs of regional states, drawing inter-ethnic borders literally with a ruler, sowing discord, pitting neighbors against each other, and trying to establish regimes that suites UK’s self-centered interests without any regard for the opinion of the peoples. The British and French partition of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration and Churchill's White Paper are epitomes of colonial policies, whereby the fate of entire peoples was decided without their direct participation. The West continued the same divide-and-rule policy in the Middle East after World War II. The Soviet Union, on the contrary, invariably helped to establish sovereign Arab states, assisted them in gaining genuine independence, and built a future based on their national interests. The role of the USSR, unlike the legacy of Western colonizers, is still welcomed with gratitude in the Middle East region.
The label “British Empire” was replaced by the label “the Commonwealth of Nations”, but did that really change the imperialist and colonialist essence of British foreign policy? Has Britain once disavowed its colonial past (as it claims in public)? It is obvious to us that it has not.
The UK continues to provide Israel with massive military assistance, it voted against or abstained on all SC draft resolutions that contained direct calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. The British delegation has refused to support the Council's draft resolution on granting Palestine the status of a full-fledge member of the UN. Against this background, London's attempts to portray itself as a champion of peace in the Middle East and as an advocate of the two-state solution look like nothing but the highest degree of hypocrisy.
It is noteworthy that while hypocritically lamenting the humanitarian situation in Ukraine or Sudan, London in the vein of its intrinsic “double standards” has not yet uttered a single word (like its transatlantic patron) to condemn Israel’s heinous attacks on civilian objects in Gaza, its targeted strikes on educational and medical facilities, which are actually aimed at wiping from the map the health care system in the enclave, condemning many more thousands of peaceful Palestinians to a painful death. From the very beginning of the escalation in Gaza, the US and the UK have effectively given Israel a “license to kill” the Palestinian population, providing, including at the UN, international political cover for any actions by West Jerusalem, not only in Gaza, but also with regard to Lebanon and UNIFIL peacekeepers, who on a daily basis face a threat to their lives deliberately created for them by the Israeli military. In any other country context, such steps would immediately qualify as war crimes. But when we are talking about self-serving geopolitical game of the Anglo-Saxons, they seem instantly to forget about international law and the rules of morality.
Distinguished Colleagues,
Given such excellent credentials of our Anglo-Saxon colleagues, who are as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, we have no illusions that at least a sliver of responsibility and humanism will awaken in them. For all these months, they have been throwing the whole arsenal of political pressure, manipulation and sometimes even threats to prevent the UN Security Council from adopting an unambiguous call for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Against that background, we would like to commend Guyana's courage and integrity, as well as the consistent stand of other non-permanent members of the Council. It is Guyana that brought before the Council a strong draft resolution containing a call for the parties to establish an immediate, unconditional and open-ended ceasefire. Of course, this was too late for the 43,000 Palestinians killed, but better late than never. Tomorrow’s vote (I do hope it will take place tomorrow) will be the moment of truth for the Anglo-Saxon tandem in the Security Council. If this tandem once again refuses to support the resolution under far-fetched cynical pretexts, it will mean only one thing: despite all its fine and well-calibrated words and slogans, its erroneous concerns for the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians, Washington and London openly support and encourage the continuation of Israel's punitive operation, unlawful Israeli occupation, killings of innocent civilians, starving them to death, inflicting suffering on hostages and illegally detained Palestinians. History will never forget that, just as it has not forgotten all the colonial sins of British imperialism.
Mr. President,
Unlike the Western players, who still think today – just as they did centuries ago – in self-centered neo-colonial terms, we believe in the wisdom and maturity of our friends in the Middle East and their ability to independently, without external interference, determine their own path to building a peaceful and prosperous region, which has huge potential and global historical, civilizational, religious and cultural significance. We fully support the work of pan-Arab and pan-Islamic structures, which play a key role in upholding the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
Lasting peace in the region is possible not until a just solution to the Palestinian question is found. Our position remains unchanged: along with measures to overcome the acute phase of the crisis, it is necessary to begin creating preconditions for direct dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis on the entire range of final status issues. The outcome of that process should be the achievement of the internationally endorsed two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine coexisting in peace and security within the 1967 borders.
Thank you for your attention.
