"What the hell is the point of the UN?" That was the question asked of State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller in Monday's briefing after the United States chose not to veto a United Nations Security Council vote demanding an Israel-Hamas ceasefire that was not conditioned on the barbaric terrorists releasing innocent hostages held in Gaza since the October 7 massacre.
"The resolution today is a non-binding resolution," Miller asserted, seeking to minimize the administration's abandonment of its ally Israel at the U.N.
"So what's the point, why did you abstain — why didn't you veto?" Miller was asked.
"We didn't veto because we thought the language...as it relates to the ceasefire and release of hostages, was consistent with the long-standing United States position," claimed Miller.
"So you don't believe anything is going to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution?" came the natural follow-up question.
"I think that separate and apart from this resolution we have active, ongoing negotiations to try to achieve what this resolution calls for which is the- an immediate ceasefire and a release of hostages," said Miller. "I can't say that this resolution's going to have any impact on those negotiations but those negotiations are ongoing," he reiterated, again undercutting the relevance of the United Nations.
"If that's the case, what the hell is the point of the U.N. or the U.N. Security Council?!" came the natural conclusion based on the narrative being cobbled together by the Biden administration in an attempt to suggest Israel need not be upset that it had just been deserted by the U.S.
Recommended
"We think it plays an important role," Miller insisted, despite just saying that Monday's resolution won't do anything and claiming the Security Council is powerless to enforce the measure.
Biden admin officials are arguing today that the new UN resolution calling for a cease-fire isn't binding and won't really have an impact, & that Israel need not be so angry about it.@APDiploWriter asks @StateDeptSpox: "If that's the case, what the hell is the point of the UN?"
— Gabby Deutch (@GSDeutch) March 25, 2024
Beyond that testy exchange, it's notable that Miller maintained that having the words "ceasefire" and "hostage release" appearing somewhere in general proximity is the Biden administration's consistent position, but that's just not true. The previous, and more logical position, taken by Team Biden was that a ceasefire was contingent on the release of hostages held by Hamas.
State Department defends abstention on Hamas Victory Resolution claiming the final text reflected "our principled position that any ceasefire text must be paired with text on the release of the hostages."
— Richard Goldberg (@rich_goldberg) March 25, 2024
Not so much.
It used to be that a ceasefire would be contingent on…
Just a short distance from the State Department at Monday's White House press briefing, the National Security Council's John Kirby also tried to dispel rightful concerns after the Biden administration abandoned Israel in the Security Council's ceasefire vote. According to Kirby, the U.S. failing to stop the resolution by using its veto power doesn't mean the Biden administration's policy toward its greatest Middle East ally has changed.
Kirby claims abstaining from U.N. vote today does NOT signal a shift in the Biden admin's policy toward Israel. pic.twitter.com/mFKKC8wx2n
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 25, 2024
His argument matched that of the State Department, showing that the official talking points had gone out: Monday's vote in the UN is just a "non-binding resolution" and therefore doesn't mean that Israel or Hamas is required to do anything.
KIRBY: "Of course we still have Israel's back...no change by this non-binding resolution." pic.twitter.com/Xb7QhvUFkg
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 25, 2024
So then, again, what is the point of the United Nations? And if Monday's resolution was so meaningless, why didn't the Biden administration veto it, causing no discernibly different outcome?
Ultimately, both the White House and State Department explanations come back to the same issue: Joe Biden is trying to appease a few thousand voters in the key state of Michigan ahead of November, and that means leaving Israel out to dry and abandoning a critical ally. Biden and his surrogates can now point out that they did not stop — while also not explicitly voting for — Monday's resolution calling for what radical anti-Israel protestors (and members of Congress) have demanded: "ceasefire now."
If the Biden administration is going to try riding the Israel-Hamas fence this hard, someone had better send over some tweezers to deal with the splinters.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member