ignores the suffering of the Palestinians
En mayo de 2021, mientras Gaza ardía bajo el peso de una escalada de violencia, el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU se convirtió en escenario de otra batalla: la de las palabras y los silencios diplomáticos. Estados Unidos bloqueó una reunión pública convocada para el viernes, y China, desde la presidencia del Consejo, interpretó ese silencio como una elección moral. En el fondo de este enfrentamiento entre potencias late una pregunta que la humanidad no termina de responder: ¿quién habla por los que sufren cuando los poderosos miran hacia otro lado?
- Mientras los bombardeos sobre Gaza dejaban edificios en escombros y familias desplazadas, Washington frenó en seco una reunión pública del Consejo de Seguridad que buscaba visibilizar la crisis.
- China, presidiendo el Consejo ese mes, acusó abiertamente a Estados Unidos de ignorar el sufrimiento palestino, convirtiendo un desacuerdo procedimental en una confrontación política de alto voltaje.
- Washington rechazó dos declaraciones conjuntas que pedían el cese de hostilidades, argumentando que serían contraproducentes, mientras insistía en el derecho de Israel a defenderse de los cohetes de Hamás.
- La aceptación tardía de una sesión dominical no logró disimular la fractura: el daño al proceso diplomático ya estaba hecho y el conflicto en el terreno continuaba sin pausa.
- El choque refleja una división geopolítica más profunda sobre quién tiene la responsabilidad de proteger a las poblaciones civiles cuando los intereses de las grandes potencias entran en colisión.
A mediados de mayo de 2021, mientras la violencia entre Israel y las fuerzas palestinas se intensificaba hora a hora, una batalla paralela se libraba en Nueva York. Estados Unidos bloqueó la reunión pública del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU prevista para el viernes, impidiendo que el organismo se pronunciara abiertamente sobre la escalada en Gaza. China, que presidía el Consejo ese mes, no tardó en responder.
La portavoz del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores chino, Hua Chunying, fue directa: Washington decía preocuparse por los derechos de los musulmanes, pero ignoraba el sufrimiento de los palestinos. La acusación ponía en palabras una grieta que venía abriéndose desde el lunes, cuando Estados Unidos había aceptado participar en dos videoconferencias privadas sobre el conflicto, pero se había negado a respaldar declaraciones conjuntas que pedían el fin de las hostilidades, calificándolas de contraproducentes.
La postura estadounidense era coherente con su política histórica: Israel tenía derecho a defenderse de los cohetes lanzados por Hamás, aunque Washington también llamaba a la contención y pedía evitar bajas civiles. China, en cambio, usó su posición en el Consejo para hablar en nombre de quienes consideraba las víctimas del conflicto, y vio en el bloqueo del viernes no un tecnicismo, sino una decisión política que ponía los intereses de un aliado por encima del clamor internacional.
Al final, la reunión del domingo se celebró, pero el momento ya había revelado algo más duradero que cualquier sesión diplomática: la profunda divergencia entre las grandes potencias sobre quién merece protección y quién tiene la responsabilidad de garantizarla. En Gaza, mientras tanto, los edificios seguían cayendo.
In the middle of May 2021, as violence between Israel and Palestinian forces intensified by the hour, a diplomatic standoff was unfolding in New York. The United States had blocked a public meeting of the UN Security Council scheduled for Friday to address the escalating conflict in the Middle East. China, which held the council's presidency that month, saw the move as a deliberate effort to silence discussion of Palestinian suffering, and said so publicly.
Hua Chunying, spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, delivered the accusation on Friday with pointed language. "The United States repeatedly claims it cares about the rights of Muslims," she told reporters, "but it ignores the suffering of the Palestinians." The statement reflected a widening rift between Washington and Beijing over how the international community should respond to the violence unfolding in Gaza.
The sequence of events had been telling. Starting Monday, the United States had agreed to two private, urgent video conferences about the Israeli-Palestinian situation. But when it came to public statements, Washington drew a line. The U.S. rejected two proposed joint declarations calling for an end to hostilities, arguing they would be counterproductive at that moment. The Friday meeting was blocked entirely, though the Americans eventually accepted a Sunday session instead.
The U.S. position throughout the crisis had remained consistent: Israel had the right to defend itself against rocket attacks from Hamas, the Islamist movement controlling Gaza. At the same time, Washington called for an end to the escalating violence and urged Israel to take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties. It was a careful balance—support for Israeli security paired with appeals for restraint.
China, by contrast, used its platform as council president to advocate directly for the Palestinians. The country had a history of wielding its veto power to protect its allies, including Syria, and it was now positioning itself as a voice for those it saw as the victims in this conflict. The blocking of the Friday meeting, from Beijing's perspective, was not a procedural delay but a choice to prioritize one side's interests over international concern.
The disagreement exposed deeper fractures in how the world's major powers viewed their responsibilities in the Middle East. The U.S. saw its role as supporting a key ally while encouraging de-escalation. China saw American obstruction as a failure to acknowledge the human cost of the conflict—the destruction in Gaza, the displaced families, the mounting death toll. A photograph from May 13 captured the scale of that cost: a fireball engulfing the Al-Walid building in Gaza City after an Israeli airstrike reduced it to rubble.
As the weekend approached, the Sunday meeting would proceed. But the damage to the diplomatic process was already done. The U.S. had made clear it would not endorse calls for a ceasefire in the language the international community wanted to use. China had made equally clear that it saw this as a betrayal of principle. The conflict on the ground would continue, and so would the argument about who bore responsibility for the suffering it caused.
Citas Notables
The United States repeatedly claims it cares about the rights of Muslims, but it ignores the suffering of the Palestinians.— Hua Chunying, China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the U.S. block the Friday meeting if it was going to allow one on Sunday anyway?
It wasn't really about whether a meeting would happen. It was about whether it would be public and whether it would produce a joint statement calling for a ceasefire. A private video call is different from a public session—less visibility, less pressure, less of a formal record.
So the U.S. was trying to control the narrative?
More than that. The U.S. was trying to prevent the Security Council from issuing language that would treat both sides as equally responsible for the violence. Washington wanted to preserve space for Israel to act without international condemnation.
And China saw through that?
China didn't just see through it. China was presiding over the council that month, which gave it the power to call meetings and shape the agenda. Beijing used that position to push back against what it saw as American favoritism.
But the U.S. still has more diplomatic weight than China in the Middle East, doesn't it?
In some ways, yes. But this moment showed the limits of that weight. The U.S. couldn't stop the conversation entirely—it could only delay it and refuse to sign on to certain language. That's a different kind of power, and it's weaker.
What happens next?
The Sunday meeting happens, statements are made, and the conflict continues. The diplomatic split between Washington and Beijing becomes one more layer of the problem, not a solution to it.