No, če je po glasovanju v Združenih narodih uspelo to pogruntati in napisati novinarjem v The Economistu (katerega lastništvo je znano in uredniška politika tudi), ki citira izjavo evropskega diplomata v duhu zgornjega naslova, potem se je najbrž splošni globalni sentiment res precej premaknil v smeri obsodbe dvojnih standardov ZDA, ki aktivno z orožjem podpira izraelski genocid v Gazi.

“THE RUSSIANS are not the bad guys any more. Now it’s the Americans.” Thus, explains a European diplomat at the UN, the war in Gaza is eclipsing the one in Ukraine. These days many countries are wary of criticising Russia’s aggression. Instead their outrage is directed at Israel and, increasingly, at America for arming and protecting the Jewish state. The accusation of Western double standards, gleefully amplified by Russia and China, resonated across the halls of UN headquarters on September 18th as the General Assembly adopted a far-reaching resolution to exert pressure on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories within a year. It passed with an overwhelming 124 votes in favour to 14 against (and 43 abstentions).

The war is hastening the broader realignment of global forces: America, stretched by multiple crises, is losing its old supremacy. Russia has recovered the military initiative and is determined to disrupt the America-built order. China hopes to refashion it to its liking, convinced of its own inexorable rise. And lesser states seek opportunity in the space created by competition among the big powers.

This new world disorder will be on display as leaders gather in New York this week for the UN’s annual summitry. Much about the talkfest is, inevitably, theatre. The Security Council is increasingly paralysed by the rivalry between the big powers. Even so, the diplomatic battles reflect the shifting power balance of the world beyond, and affect it.

…

Palestine is the oldest obsession at the UN. In 1947 the organisation voted to partition the British-ruled territory into a Jewish state, creating Israel; and a Palestinian one, which neither diplomacy nor war has yet been able to establish. Many members regard Palestine as the last great anti-colonial cause; many in Israel see the UN as anti-Israeli, if not antisemitic. The recently departed Israeli ambassador, Gilad Erdan, wore a yellow star, a symbol used by the Nazis to identify Jews, to protest against the UN’s failure to condemn Hamas formally for its attack on October 7th.

One front in the international battle has been the creeping recognition of Palestine as a quasi-state at the UN. It currently ranks as a non-member observer, akin to the Holy See. In May, after America vetoed Palestine’s bid to become a full member, the General Assembly conferred several new privileges on the Palestinians, including the right to submit resolutions.

Another front has been legal. Two recent rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s judicial body, have turbocharged the campaign against Israel. In January an interim ruling appeared to give some credence to South Africa’s submission that Israel was committing acts of genocide (the case is separate from war-crimes accusations against Israeli and Hamas leaders by prosecutors at the International Criminal Court). In July the ICJ issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip—territories it captured in 1967—was illegal.

Using their new privileges, the Palestinians tabled a resolution at the General Assembly, intended to give force to the ruling. It tells Israel to withdraw from all Palestinian land, sea- and air-space; dismantle Jewish settlements; return seized property; and pay reparations. It also calls on countries to create an international register of damages, similar to one being set up by the Council of Europe, a regional group, to prepare Ukrainian claims against Russia. Furthermore, countries are urged to impose arms embargoes on Israel; restrict trade in products from Jewish settlements; and impose travel bans and asset freezes against “natural and legal persons” maintaining Israel’s occupation.

The resolution was passed with the support of Russia and China, but also some American allies, including France and Japan. Israel and its small band of loyal friends—among them America and some Pacific island states—opposed it. Britain, Canada and Australia abstained.

The resolution will not end the bloodletting in Gaza. Nor will it create a Palestinian state. General Assembly texts are not binding on members, and would be vetoed by America if presented to the Security Council. Still, it could encourage more countries to recognise Palestine as a state, as Ireland, Norway and Spain did in May. It could also encourage more arms embargoes against Israel, such as the partial one imposed by Britain this month.

More extreme upheavals are possible. The Palestinians could make another bid for full membership, which America would again veto. The General Assembly might then resort to the nuclear option: stripping Israel of its voting rights in the body, as it did with apartheid-era South Africa in 1974. Such a move would provoke fury from America’s Congress, which could decide to halt its funding for the UN. An existing law already commits Congress to stop payments to any UN body that treats Palestine as a full member. America remains the UN’s biggest contributor, paying for about a third of its spending, counting both mandatory and voluntary contributions.

Palestinian officials say legal and political pressure on Israel is the best alternative to a wider war. For Israel, it is the flip-side of a campaign to delegitimise and ultimately destroy the Jewish state. “The Palestinians work with both arms,” says Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UN. “Hamas commits terrorism on the ground. The Palestinian Authority commits diplomatic terrorism.”

…

As for the war in Europe, Ukraine enjoyed Palestine-like levels of support at the General Assembly for the first year of Russia’s all-out invasion, such was the shock at the blatant breach of the UN Charter’s injunction against taking territory by force. Until February 2023 Ukraine won a succession of votes, with more than 140 countries supporting it and no more than seven backing Russia—a rogue’s gallery including Belarus, North Korea and Syria.

By the summer of 2023, as Ukraine’s counter-offensive faltered, support for Ukraine began to fade. Martin Kimani, a recently retired Kenyan ambassador to the UN, now at the Centre on International Co-operation, a think-tank in New York, notes that Russia’s narrative—that the war was provoked by NATO’s eastward expansion—“found a ready ear” among many in the global south, where suspicions of Western imperialism still run deep. The memory of America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 brought charges of hypocrisy. Since the war in Gaza, though, anti-American feeling has intensified. The West stands accused of caring more about carnage inflicted by Russia than by Israel.

On the back foot, Western diplomats these days urge Ukraine not to submit resolutions, fearing they would expose falling support for it. It does not help that Ukraine abstained in a General Assembly vote in May seeking to advance Palestine’s full membership of the UN. Nevertheless, in July Ukraine presented a resolution about the safety of the Russia-occupied Zaporizhia nuclear power plant. It passed with 99 votes to nine, but many Arab and Islamic countries abstained.

Vir: The Economist