OPINION:
The White House’s defense of its failure to veto an anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolution doesn’t pass muster (“White House defends its refusal to block cease-fire resolution,” web, March 25). Indeed, it contradicts the established record as well as America’s illustrious history of fighting the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias.
White House national security spokesman John Kirby has claimed President Biden is “perplexed” that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled a trip by top Israeli officials in protest of America’s abstention on a resolution calling for a cease-fire. Yet for months the White House has vetoed U.N. resolutions demanding precisely that. What changed, it seems, was the political calculus.
Some have argued the White House is concerned about losing votes among the progressive, anti-Israel fringe in key battleground states such as Michigan. This may explain the administration’s decision to let the resolution pass.
What is clear, however, is that there was a cease-fire already in place — and that Hamas violated it on Oct. 7 by carrying out the largest slaughter of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust. A cease-fire now would enable Hamas to live to fight another day, something that Israeli officials of various political stripes have called a nonstarter.
It is unsurprising that the U.N., with its long history of feting dictators and condemning Israel, would move to limit Israel’s ability to defend itself. But it is truly perplexing that the U.S. would stand aside and let it happen.
SEAN DURNS
Senior research analyst, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis
Washington
Please read our comment policy before commenting.