Russian Ambassador to Roger Waters: Palestinian Reps Told Us Not to Veto ‘Board of Peace’ Resolution at UN
"We can't be more Palestinian and more Arab than Arabs themselves..."
By now, you’ve probably heard of the so-called “Board of Peace” (BoP), the Orwellianly-named, US government-led organization that’s supposed to oversee the implementation of Trump’s Gaza “peace” (takeover) plan.
If you’ve been following this story closely in recent weeks, you probably also know that Trump himself is slated to chair the BoP (potentially for life); that its Executive Board includes Tony Blair, Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner; and that Kushner — the largest shareholder of a major Israeli firm that reportedly “stands to gain from expanding Israeli settlements” — recently presented slides of their “Master Plan” to “redevelop Gaza” at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
They had their first meeting last week.
What you may or may not remember is that this plan was originally announced by Trump — the self-described “best friend” Israel has ever had in the White House — at a joint press conference with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late September.
What you may or may not also know is that the UN Security Council formally co-signed this plan exactly seven weeks later, on November 17, 2025, adopting a US-backed resolution which endorsed Trump’s so-called “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict.”
This included welcoming the establishment of the BoP and authorizing “the Board and Member States working with it to establish a temporary International Stabilization Force in Gaza,” sometimes referred to as the “ISF.”
‘A Resolution from Hell’
Hamas and other Palestinian resistance factions issued a statement at the time calling the plan “a new attempt to impose another form of occupation on our land and people, and to legitimise foreign trusteeship,” urging Algeria to reject the resolution.
A coalition of dozens of Palestinian human rights organizations and NGOs published a position paper denouncing it as “inherently unlawful” and warning that it “was imposed on the Palestinian people without their consent, constituting a blatant violation of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” (among many other criticisms) and calling on states to reject its implementation.
Palestinian writer Mosab Abu Toha said that it represents “another extension of occupation and colonization” and yet another example of “the illusion of peace processes that only entrench injustice.”
International lawyer and former UN human rights official Craig Mokhiber called it “a resolution from Hell,” writing that it “openly flouts key provisions of international law, disempowers and further punishes the victims, and rewards and empowers the perpetrators.”
“Most disturbingly, it hands control of Gaza and the survivors of the genocide over to the United States, a co-perpetrator of the genocide,” he said, adding that:
In adopting this resolution, the Council, in effect, has become a mechanism of U.S. oppression, an instrument for the continued unlawful occupation of Palestine, and a complicit actor in Israel’s genocide.
Not since the UN partitioned Palestine in 1947 against the will of the indigenous people, setting the stage for 80 years of Nakba, has the UN acted in such a baldly colonial (and legally ultra vires) way, and trampled so recklessly on the rights of a people.
Human Rights Watch’s UN director Louis Charbonneau has said that the BoP is a “club of impunity, not peace,” noting that “those signing up appear to be a rogues’ gallery of leaders and governments with human rights records ranging from questionable to appalling.”
The list of denouncements could go on and on, so the question is: How and why did the Security Council pass such a resolution?
The answer — or at least a significant part of it — has to do with Russia and China’s inaction.
‘Palestinians Implored Us Not To Veto It’
To quickly review for those who don’t know or may have forgotten: The UN Security Council has 15 total members. Ten of them are “non-permanent” members, elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly. The other five — Russia, China, the US, UK, and France — are “permanent” members who remain on the Council at all times as other countries come and go.
Permanent members also have another major differentiator: the power to veto resolutions.
That means that if any one of those five countries wants to prevent a resolution from passing, it can.
The US has (quite infamously) used this power six times over the past couple years to block Gaza ceasefire resolutions, often as the sole “no” vote.
When it came time to vote on the US’s Gaza resolution establishing the so-called “Board of Peace,” the UK, France, and (of course) the US voted in favor, but Russia and China did not.
What they also did not do, however, is veto the resolution. Both countries abstained, allowing it to pass 13-0.
The question of why Russia chose to do this was raised last month by musician and activist Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd fame) during a notable exchange with Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s deputy representative at the UN at the time the resolution was passed — a clip of which appears below.
It took place on the program “Live on the Fly” — whose host Randy Credico is heard interjecting numerous times trying to cut the two of them off and regain control of the show — and was brought to our attention by journalist Sam Husseini.
The video and subtitles here are ours. What you hear is the original, unedited audio taken straight from the podcast:
At the time the episode was recorded (January 2, 2026), Polyanskiy had just been appointed to a new role representing Russia at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna.
After congratulating him on his appointment and wishing him “all the good will in the world,” Waters pivoted to the November 17, 2025 Security Council resolution, which he said the two of them had previously discussed privately, but that he wanted to ask about publicly for the benefit of the audience as well as his own.
“I still completely don’t understand why Russia didn’t veto that resolution,” Waters said. “And if you can explain it to me, I’m sure there’s a lot of other people that would like to understand it as well.”
Polyanskiy first clarified that he was on vacation when the vote took place and was therefore not personally present at the Security Council at that time.
“It doesn’t mean that if I were there we would have acted otherwise,” he added. “I’m absolutely not willing to say so. But just to be clear, I wasn’t there at that time.”
Here’s a transcript of the rest of the exchange:
POLYANSKIY: Secondly, there were a lot of things happening in the run up to this meeting. And when we spoke with you in our private conversation, I always tried to explain to you that no matter what we think, no matter what we do, we can’t be more Palestinian and more Arab than Arabs themselves. It’s their region, and it’s absolutely a tradition in the Security Council that those who live in this region, they have the biggest say. It’s not, uh…
WATERS: Well that’s a terrible tradition! Sorry to interrupt you. That’s insane!…
POLYANSKIY: I know, I know…
WATERS: …to say because the UAE wants to, you know, kill everybody. That’s no reason why you…
POLYANSKIY: It’s not U– it’s not UAE.
WATERS: Or the Saudis. Or Jordan.
POLYANSKIY: It’s not UAE.
WATERS: Listen…
POLYANSKIY: It’s not the Saudis. It’s not Jordan.
CREDICO: Alright, we can’t have arguments here! Please!…
POLYANSKIY: No no, I just try to explain.
WATERS: Okay.
POLYANSKIY: Palestinians were asking us not to veto this resolution.
WATERS: You mean Abbas?
POLYANSKIY: Not Abbas, but Palestinians who work in the UN. And they represent—they are supposed to represent their country. The whole Arab group, the Palestinian, Islamic group, by the way, was also asking us not to veto this resolution. Roger, can—
WATERS: Why? Why?
POLYANSKIY: Ask them. Ask them.
WATERS: Well they’re not on this program, so I can’t. But if they were I would. Mr. Mansour, who I know quite well—is that his name?
POLYANSKIY: Yeah. Yeah.
WATERS: The guy… yeah. Okay. I mean I…
POLYANSKIY: He—he said that this is the first...
WATERS: I’ve known him for 20 years.
POLYANSKIY: This is the first step, he said. “Let’s try it, let’s put it in motion, and then we’ll see how it develops.” But we said what we wanted to say, Roger, in our statement. And if you analyze it you will understand our real approach to that. But the…
WATERS: I listened.
POLYANSKIY: The golden rule is to listen to the region. And of course when Palestinians implored us not to veto it, what could we do? We had to abstain.
Russia’s ‘Real Approach’
Note how Polyanskiy refers Waters to their “statement.” He may be talking about what Russia said at the UN Security Council on the day of the vote, where they gave their explanation of why they “simply could not support” the resolution — but also didn’t veto it.
After laying out some of their reasons for finding it unacceptable (which are worth reading), they concluded with the following (bold added):
To sum up, the US document is yet another pig in a poke. In essence, the Council is giving its blessing to the US initiative relying exclusively on Washington’s honor, we leave the Gaza Strip at the mercy of the Board of Peace and the ISF, whose working methods are still unknown to us. The most important thing here is making sure that this document does not become a smokescreen for unbridled experiments by the US and Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) nor turn into a death sentence for the two-state solution.
Russia has taken note of Ramallah’s position, as well as that of many Arab-Muslim States that spoke in favor of the American draft so as to avoid renewed bloodshed in the enclave. In this regard, we chose not to submit our own draft, which was aimed at amending the US concept to bring it in conformity with long-standing UN resolutions agreed previously. But there is no cause for celebration: today is a sorrowful day for the Security Council. Besides the wishes of the parties concerned, there is also such notion as the integrity of the Security Council. And today, with the adoption of this resolution, that integrity and the prerogatives of the Council have been undermined.
In this case, we wish we were proven wrong, and we do hope that we can count on the US demonstrating its peacekeeping potential in practice. And this potential will be assessed by its ability to successfully ensure a lasting peace, whereby Israel and Palestine coexist in peace and security within the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem becoming the capital of both States as per UNSC and GA resolutions, international law, and prior agreements that meet both the interests of Israelis in ensuring their own security and the right of Palestinians to have a State of their own. Now the implementation of President Trump’s Plan falls squarely on the shoulders of its authors and supporters, primarily from among the eight Arab-Muslim nations that endorsed the Plan.
Regrettably, we’ve already had the unfortunate experience when decisions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which were pushed through by the US, led to the opposite to what was intended. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.
A day later (November 18), Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out another press release commenting on the Security Council’s adoption of the resolution, which said in part (bold added):
The document, prepared by Washington, establishes a so-called Board of Peace to govern Gaza, headed by Donald Trump and, according to him, involving other “most powerful and respected leaders throughout the World.” The Board is, in turn, authorised to deploy certain International Stabilisation Forces in coordination with Israel and Egypt. These forces are tasked with peace enforcement functions, including the demilitarisation of the enclave and the disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups.
However, the participation of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) in governing the sector or in determining the future of the Palestinians based on the two-state formula is not envisaged. Nor does the resolution stipulate obligations for Israel as the occupying power, including the renunciation of annexing Palestinian lands or the withdrawal of its forces.
The UN Security Council and the UN Secretariat have been entirely sidelined, both in terms of oversight and accountability for the structures being established in Gaza, and the practical modalities for deploying and stationing the international contingent.
Also telling are the rushed, indeed ultimatum-like, methods employed to advance the American draft – without genuine discussion, without addressing the substantive concerns of other delegations, and under direct threats of renewed large-scale bloodshed in Gaza. Even the circulation of a Russian counter-draft, aimed at overcoming the disagreements in the UN Security Council by returning to consolidated international legal foundations for Palestinian-Israeli settlement, failed to rectify the situation.
Thus, it must be acknowledged that Resolution 2803, as adopted, does not grant the Security Council the requisite prerogatives to maintain peace and security. It contradicts the spirit of genuine peacekeeping and universally recognised international legal decisions, which envisage the creation of an independent and territorially contiguous State of Palestine within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, coexisting peacefully and securely with Israel.
Russia abstained in the voting, taking into account the stance of the PNA leadership, the position of concerned Arab and Muslim countries in support of the American document, and to avoid a recurrence of violence and military actions in Gaza.
It bears reminding that the war and the suffering of civilians in the enclave could have been halted long ago had Washington not consistently – six times in the past two years – used its veto to block draft resolutions demanding an immediate ceasefire.
The paramount concern now is that this decision does not become a fig leaf for unbridled experiments in the occupied Palestinian territories, nor a final verdict on the legitimate rights of Palestinians to self-determination or the aspirations of Israelis for security and peaceful coexistence in the region.
So, Russia’s public position at the time of the vote and immediately after was that the resolution could actually be “a death sentence for the two-state solution,” but that they were nevertheless choosing to stand down on vetoing, largely in light of “Ramallah’s position” and “the stance of the PNA leadership” in addition to supportive statements made by “concerned Arab and Muslim countries.”
China put out a similar statement on November 17. After laying out their “major concerns” with the resolution — which they said has “many issues” and called “deeply worrisome” — they cited “the positions of the regional countries and Palestine” as one of the main reasons they abstained. This is how their statement ended (bold added):
Notwithstanding the above-mentioned many issues in the draft resolution and China’s major concerns about it, considering the fragile and severe situation in Gaza, the imperative of maintaining the ceasefire, and the positions of the regional countries and Palestine, China abstained in the vote. It must also be noted that our concerns and worries remain. The Security Council must maintain close attention to the situation in Gaza and the Palestinian question. The Palestinian question lies at the heart of the Middle East issues. It is a matter about international equity and justice. The international community must steadfastly advance the two-State solution and pursue the political settlement of the Palestinian question. It means establishing an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the basis of the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, therefore realizing the Palestinian people’s right to statehood, survival. and return. China has always firmly supported the just cause of the Palestinian people in restoring their legitimate national rights. We stand ready to work with the international community to make unremitting efforts for a comprehensive, just, and lasting solution to the Palestinian question.
Dissenting Views
Decide for yourself whether Russia’s and China’s explanations sufficiently justify their abstentions. Journalist Ali Abunimah, executive director of The Electronic Intifada, has argued to the contrary, writing on November 18, 2025:
UNSC Resolution 2803 is so counter and so devastating to norms of international law, the UN Charter and the right to self-determination and sovereignty for all peoples, that Russia, China, Britain and France were obligated to veto it, no matter what Arab regimes and Palestinian collaborators with Israel advised. Obviously, since France and Britain are open enemies of the Palestinian people and their rights and possess no sovereignty of their own as mere puppet regimes of Washington, they would only ever have supported it. That leaves Russia and China who purport to uphold these principles, and the more I read this resolution and analyses about it, the more it is clear to me that they had an obligation to veto it that transcends the Palestinian issue, to the extent that they still believe that the UN system matters at all. I find no way around that.
Abunimah elaborated on this days later during a podcast with human rights lawyer Craig Mokhiber, who generally agreed, stating in part…
READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE FOR FREE HERE: https://decensored.news/russian-ambassador-roger-waters-board-of-peace-un-resolution-mansour/
The full story is too long to fit in an email, but it contains more analysis from Craig Mokhiber and Dimitri Lascaris, and a little-known speech we dug up showing Ambassador Mansour, on behalf of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, praising Resolution 2803. We also tried contacting the Palestinian Mission to the UN with some questions. The article continues at the link above.
Decensored News is an independent, reader-supported publication. If you value our work, please help us grow and produce more of it with a monthly or one-time contribution. We can’t do this work without you. For more reporting like this, follow us on multiple platforms, bookmark the website, and subscribe here on Substack:
Thank You DN