United States Mission to
the United Nations

You just heard me make the case for a resolution that I believe all of us can agree to. In fact, the points in the proposed resolution have all been articulated by the other 14 members of this Council.

These were not just U.S. ideas. They were all of our ideas that I have heard nearly every member of this Council discuss both privately and publicly.

Ideas that would not put sensitive negotiations in jeopardy, that could lay the foundation for a sustainable peace.

And yet, we were forced into a vote that did not reflect that consensus. You might ask why. I’ll leave that to you to opine on. Perhaps some on the Council did not actually want a resolution to pass.

Because if they did, today’s vote would not have happened. Over the last several weeks, I communicated the United States’ concerns publicly and privately.

We submitted numerous – numerous – rounds of edits. We implored our colleagues not to rush towards failure.

And so, having put forward an alternative path, we intend to take it.

The draft we’ve presented is a forward leaning resolution. And it is one that we intend to work on in good faith with other Council members to ensure it gets over the finish line.

That kind of process was, disappointingly, absent from negotiations on the text we just voted on.

All to say, we are not giving up.

We are eager to continue working with the Council on this proposal: One that would see a temporary ceasefire as soon as practicable, based on the formula of all hostages being released. And one that would get aid into the hands of those Palestinians who so desperately need it.

All told, we intend to do this the right way, so that we can create the right conditions for a safer, more peaceful future. And we will continue to actively engage in the hard work of direct diplomacy on the ground until we reach a final solution.

MR. NATE EVANS: We have time for a couple (of questions). I think we can start with Rami of Al Jazeera.

QUESTION: Thanks, Nate. Ambassador, so far everything that Israel has announced it has done despite the protestations of the UN and the rest of the international community, almost 30,000 Palestinians are dead. Israel is now threatening to attack Rafah, the last supposedly safe zone in Gaza, if the hostages are not released by Ramadan. Do you really think that your draft resolution, if adopted, would prevent Israel from attacking Rafah, as they are already in violation of many Security Council resolutions, including Resolutions 2712 and 2720? And why doesn’t your government instead put effective limits on Israel like conditioning military support to meaningfully impact their decision making?

AMBASSADOR LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Look, we have made it clear – I’ve made it clear in my statement today, the President has made it clear, the Secretary’s made it clear – that no attacks on Rafah should take place, given current circumstances. And we will keep pressing that. We’ve heard what Israel has said. They have not gone in to attack Rafah. And we will keep engaging, and urging, and pushing in that direction to ensure that that does not happen.

QUESTION: What about conditioning military support?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: I can’t give you advance information on what we are saying to the Israelis related to that issue, but I can be clear that we are pressing the Israelis urgently, every single day.

MR. EVANS: We’ll go to Michelle.

QUESTION: Thanks, Ambassador. You mentioned in the Council, that the call in your resolution for a temporary ceasefire reflects the language used by President Biden last week. After months of the U.S. not wanting to refer to the word “ceasefire,” what’s brought about the change in this language? Is this to sort of appease domestic pressures, global pressures, what’s brought that on?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Look, Michelle, I’ve been clear from the very beginning that we are working around the clock, on the ground, to get humanitarian pauses that will allow for the hostages to be released, and for assistance to get in, and that happened in November. And we got close to 100 hostages out. And we got needed humanitarian assistance in. And we are continuing to work on this. This is not a change. It is not –

QUESTION: The language has changed. It’s a change in language.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: It reflects what we’ve been doing all along. It hasn’t changed what we’ve been doing.

MR. EVANS: Ibtisam.

QUESTION: Thank you, Ambassador. Ibtisam Azem of Al-Araby Al-Jadeed Newspaper. I have two questions. First, you have been saying that the Security Council – that you are not agreeing to a resolution under different reasons, but among others that the Security Council doesn’t condemn Hamas. But as a matter of fact, on October 18, it was the U.S. that vetoed a resolution that condemned Hamas. This is one thing. The second thing, I think a lot of Palestinians ask the question: What is the line? When is enough Palestinians? There have been more than 29 (thousand) Palestinian civilians who were killed. Majority of whom, women and children. And people are asking: How many deaths are enough for the U.S. to stop delivering weapons and to call for a ceasefire immediately for humanitarian reasons? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Look, in answer to your first question, there were a number of other issues with that resolution. It did call for a condemnation of Hamas, it did not recognize Israel’s right to self-defense, which is a right that Israel has. And there were other issues with that particular resolution. Since that time, we still have not gotten condemnation of Hamas, despite the fact that I think almost every Council member will say that in their statements. We think it should be reflected in a resolution, even a humanitarian resolution.

And let me just say, every life matters. And so, it is important, that we find a solution that will stop the killing, and deaths, and suffering of the Palestinian people. And that’s why we’re on the ground 24/7. No one else is putting their people out there. No one else is putting skin and boots on the ground to find a solution to this situation. And we’ll keep working on that every single day.

MR. EVANS: I think we have time for one more.

QUESTION: Hi, Ambassador. China described your position that the Algerian draft would undermine regional efforts at the hostage deal as completely untenable given the situation on the ground. Explain then, Ambassador, how the Algerian draft would have placed those talks in jeopardy given that the Algerian text also called for the immediate release of those hostages.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Yes, but they also call for an immediate ceasefire, which would give Hamas the cover of not releasing the hostages. Part of the ceasefire that we are working on requires that they do exactly that. And this resolution did not make that connection. And it was our concern that it would send the wrong message to Hamas. That this resolution would actually give them something that they have asked for without requiring them to do something in return would have meant that the fighting would have continued. Because without the hostage releases, we know that the fighting is going to continue.

MR. EVANS: Thanks everyone.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Thank you, all.

###