' fill='%230E4F97'%3E%3Cg id='Group-5' transform='translate(370.000000, 11.000000)'%3E%3Cg id='avatar' transform='translate(6.000000, 4.000000)'%3E%3Ccircle id='Oval' cx='8' cy='4' r='4'%3E%3C/circle%3E%3Cpath d='M7.12864205,10 L8.87135795,10 C11.558649,10 14.0087196,11.5384024 15.1762205,13.958831 L16,15.6666667 L16,15.6666667 L15.3374858,17.5134983 C15.228016,17.8186575 14.9774027,18.051811 14.6651459,18.1389975 L8,20 L8,20 L1.33485405,18.1389975 C1.02259733,18.051811 0.771984007,17.8186575 0.662514216,17.5134983 L0,15.6666667 L0,15.6666667 L0.823779545,13.958831 C1.99128041,11.5384024 4.44135104,10 7.12864205,10 Z' id='Rectangle'%3E%3C/path%3E%3C/g%3E%3C/g%3E%3C/g%3E%3C/g%3E%3C/svg%3E)
After vetoing resolution last month, US envoy pressed to explain abstention on similar draft
Jacob Magid is The Times of Israel's US bureau chief
United States Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield is pressed to explain why the US allowed a Security Council resolution that called for humanitarian pauses in Gaza and a release of all hostages to pass yesterday after vetoing a resolution a month ago that made those same two demands.
“Over 7,000 Palestinians have died since Brazil put forward its resolution last month, does the United States regret not having abstained earlier?” Thomas-Greenfield is asked during a press stakeout at the UN.
“We made a decision on that resolution because that resolution did not provide for Israel’s rights of self-defense,” Thomas-Greenfield responds.
A reporter pushes back, noting that the latest resolution makes no mention of Israel’s right to self-defense either, yet the US still abstained and allowed it to pass yesterday.
“This was a resolution that specifically addressed the humanitarian needs. The other resolutions did not,” Thomas-Greenfield retorts.
Both yesterday’s and last month’s resolutions detailed the humanitarian needs in Gaza.
