Russian Ambassador to Roger Waters: Palestinian Reps Told Us Not to Veto ‘Board of Peace’ Resolution at UN

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’re 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:

Russia and China have, for transactional reasons, thrown the Palestinian people under the bus, thrown international law under the bus, and abdicated their responsibility as P5 members in the Security Council. They could have and they should have vetoed it. They know what the problems are. They said those in their own statements. And yet they went along with it.

Dimitri Lascaris, an influential Canadian lawyer and journalist, likewise concluded that Russia had an obligation to veto, and found their explanation that they were simply deferring to the Arab countries and Palestinians unconvincing and inadequate.

He discussed it at length in an interview with Jamarl Thomas the day after the resolution was adopted:

At timestamp 10:35, he says:

I saw a report in the Israeli media that a few days [before the vote on Resolution 2803], Vladimir Putin called the war criminal Netanyahu. And apparently he initiated the call. There’s no way they didn’t talk about this resolution. Of course they talked about this resolution. And I can only guess that there was some kind of a deal struck there. And it may have involved the Americans, and there’s something that matters to the Russians in that region; maybe to the Chinese.

I have no doubt also that they were being pressured by the Arab autocracies, but they know full well that Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Bahrain and all those tyrants, their leaders are in the back pocket of Washington. They know that. And they’re not exercising independent judgement, and they’re not acting in the interest of the Palestinian people or even their own people for that matter. They know all of that! So, I don’t think that pressure at the end of the day shouldn’t have mattered much. They should have said, “We can’t in good conscience allow this resolution to pass.”

And I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Mahmoud Abbas was pressuring the Russians and the Chinese to sign off on this. He wants Hamas to be disarmed. I don’t care what he’s saying publicly — he wants Hamas to be disarmed. He wants them to be removed from power. And he wants to be inserted, ultimately — or his successor — into a leadership role in the Gaza Strip, in the whole of occupied Palestine, where he can then proceed to collaborate with the occupier throughout the entirety of what remains of Palestinian territory.

So maybe, I don’t know — if there wasn’t a secret deal, maybe they just felt they didn’t want to offend all of these local players in a region that’s strategically important. But it’s completely inconsistent, as I say — I just can’t stress this enough — in every conceivable way with Russia’s and China’s obligations under core treaties of the international legal order.

A short while earlier, Lascaris went into more detail about the “international legal order” and his opinion on the broader implications of these abstentions, stating in part:

Recent history leads inexorably to the conclusion that the Chinese and Russian government do care deeply about sovereignty, but really only about their own sovereignty. They don’t really care at the end of the day — not enough to take meaningful action — about the sovereignty of other states. And they’ll do business with anybody. (…) We already knew — it was easily determined — that China was one of the largest trading partners of Israel. Well, I recently learned that Russia is one of the largest suppliers of [fuel] to Israel. And this came through a report by Oil Change International about which countries have been providing the main fuel supplies to Israel during the past two years. (…) Would they do that if they cared about international law? If they believed in the Geneva Convention? The Genocide Convention? Would they refrain from exercising a damn veto?

So basically I’m completely convinced that Russia and China don’t really care about the international legal order at all. They care only about themselves, the governments of these countries. And you may say that’s perfectly legitimate. You may say, that’s their job — their job is to prioritize the interests of their own people to the exclusion of all others, and if they refrain from vetoing their resolution, evidently they believed there was some benefit to their countries in so doing. I don’t really give a damn. At the end of the day they are signatories to the Genocide Convention. They are signatories to the UN Charter. They are signatories to the Geneva Conventions. No one put a gun to their heads and told them to sign those treaties, amongst others. I could name quite a few others that they’re parties to that oblige them to put a stop to this. And instead, they can’t even exercise their veto.

I just — I don’t want to put the primary blame on them. To be clear, the people who are primarily responsible are those who are arming Israel and who are putting forward this resolution, and who say they are going to send in their troops to disarm the Palestinians, the victims of this genocide, while leaving Israel armed to the teeth. They’re the ones who are primarily culpable. But don’t tell me that China or Russia care a damn about an effective international legal order and the treaties — the foundational humanitarian treaties — that they have signed onto. We now have proof beyond a shadow of doubt that they don’t. They prioritize their own sovereignty and national interest over everything else.

‘Let’s Put It In Motion’?

One particularly notable part of Russian Ambassador Polyanskiy’s exchange with Roger Waters is that he specifically named Riyad Mansour as one of the “Palestinians who work at the UN” who (he says) asked him “not to veto” the resolution.

From his discussion with Waters:

Palestinians were asking us not to veto this resolution… Not Abbas, but Palestinians who work in the UN. And they represent—they’re supposed to represent their country… [Riyad Mansour] said this is the first [step]… 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.”

Ambassador Mansour, who is now 78 years old, has been Palestine’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations since 2005. We’ve previously published clips of him speaking at the Security Council.

Mansour was born in Palestine, but has reportedly lived in the U.S. since at least 1967. In a 2019 profile, The New York Times called him the “son of an Ohio steelworker,” describing his early background as follows:

His father, a Palestinian refugee, came to the United States in the 1950s, found employment as an Ohio steelworker and later brought over Mr. Mansour and the family’s six other children from Ramallah, in the West Bank.

When Mr. Mansour attended college in Ohio, he plunged into student activism. He marched not only to protest Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and other land seized in the 1967 war but also for civil rights and to get the United States out of Vietnam.

His circle of contacts, he said, included antiwar activists like Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. He once helped lead a demonstration at Kent State University against a speech by the Ku Klux Klan’s grand wizard, David Duke.

They went on a short while later:

Long involved in Palestinian politics, Mr. Mansour began his professional career as a research assistant at Youngstown State University, his alma mater. He moved into diplomacy in 1983 as the deputy in what was then the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations.

Mr. Mansour detoured from diplomatic life starting in 1994, joining the management of an Orlando investment firm and teaching at the University of Central Florida, among other pursuits. He returned to the United Nations in 2005 as ambassador of the Palestinian observer mission, which was not then regarded by the global body as representing a state.

They also said:

At 72, Mr. Mansour likes to cite his background as a steelworker’s son to underline his humble roots. But he is better known as a leading critic of both Israel and the United States for what he sees as their collaboration to foil Palestinian statehood.

In an attempt to corroborate or refute Polyanskiy’s claim that Mansour and other Palestinians at the U.N. asked them not to veto Resolution 2803, we searched through posts from the official X account of the Palestinian Mission to the UN for contemporaneous posts about the resolution and/or the Board of Peace. You can replicate our search using this link if you have an X account.

Here’s what we found —

On November 14, they posted a video and quotes of Palestinian Ambassador Feda Abdelhaty arguing at the UN General Assembly a day earlier that “the renewal of UNRWA’s mandate is urgent.”

On November 15, they posted a video clip of Yassar Arafat with the caption: “On this day in 1988 in Algiers, the Palestinian National Council declared: ‘In the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.’ “

On November 16, they didn’t post on X at all.

On November 17, the day the resolution was passed, they posted:

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates strongly condemns the inciting statements issued by the so-called Minister of National Security in the occupation government, Itamar Ben-Gvir, which explicitly call for the assassination and targeting of the Palestinian leadership, including the call to arrest His Excellency President Mahmoud Abbas—may God protect him.

They posted a longer statement hours later which also called upon “the US administration and the international community to pressure the Israeli government to halt its incitement campaign against the Palestinian people and their leadership.”

None of these posts from November 14-17 appear to mention Resolution 2803 or “Board of Peace” at all.

On November 18, Ambassador Mansour put out a statement — parts of which his Mission quoted on X — condemning Israel’s ongoing “lethal attacks, colonization measures, dehumanization of the Palestinian people and blatant ethnic cleansing campaign,” which only mentioned the resolution in passing while once again condemning Ben Gvir’s threats against Abbas and “other senior Palestinian government officials” and not mentioning the “Board of Peace” at all. He said in part:

Israel’s “National Security Minister” and extremist settler Ben-Gvir… recently claimed that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people” and that the only solution for Gaza is “voluntary migration,” code in Israel for forced transfer of Palestinians.

Referring to the prospects of a Security Council resolution proposed by the United States to consolidate the ceasefire plan and establish an international stabilization force, which was adopted yesterday as resolution 2803 (2025), Ben-Gvir made open threats against Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and other senior Palestinian government officials if the United Nations advanced recognition of a Palestinian State. If this were to happen, he declared: “Orders must be given for targeted killings of senior Palestinian Authority officials – who are terrorists in every respect – as well as an order for the arrest of Abu Mazen. There is a solitary confinement cell ready for him in Ketziot Prison.”

The international community must condemn such repugnant threats and incitement, and he and all other Israeli war criminals must be held accountable for the illegal, racist and dehumanizing policies that they continue to both foment and implement.

On November 19, the Palestinian Mission to the UN posted a link to an article on the UN website about how “living conditions for Gazans — particularly children — are still dire.” No mention of resolution 2803 or the “Board of Peace.”

On November 20, they posted a link to a Human Rights Watch article calling Israel’s forced displacements of Palestinians from refugee camps in the West Bank war crimes and crimes against humanity. No mention of resolution 2803 or the “Board of Peace.”

On November 21, they didn’t post on X at all.

On November 22, they didn’t post on X at all.

On November 23, they posted a short video from the AP showing raw footage of the destruction and Gaza and said, “This is Israel’s genocide.” No mention of resolution 2803 or the “Board of Peace.”

On November 24, they didn’t post on X at all.

On November 25, Ambassador Mansour delivered a speech at the UN “on behalf of” Mahmoud Abbas. The Palestinian Mission to the UN posted excerpts (quotes) in written form to their X account, but they did not link to the video or transcript of the full speech. This is particularly interesting since Abbas, via Mansour, explicitly praised Resolution 2803.

Watch:

Here’s a partial transcript. The language delivered by Mansour differs only slightly from the official transcript published on the website of Wafa, the official news outlet of the “Palestinian National Authority” (PNA), aka the “Palestinian Authority” (PA):

The State of Palestine welcomed the efforts of President of the United States Donald Trump and the fruitful efforts of the mediation by Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States to achieve and stabilize the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and secure the release of hostages and prisoners, and to ensure unimpeded humanitarian access. We reiterate our welcome of president Trump’s peace plan, which was adopted by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 2803.

Questions for the Mission

After doing this research, we wrote up a list of questions for Ambassador Mansour and Palestinian Mission to the UN.

We found what appears to be their official Facebook page, with nearly 10,000 followers, and tried reaching them via the contact email listed there. The email was immediately returned as undeliverable.

“The email account that you tried to reach does not exist.”

Their official website, palestineun.org, which is also listed on the Facebook page, no longer works:

“Error. Page cannot be displayed. Please contact your service provider for more details.”

It was operational as of 2021–2022, and for years prior to that, but appears to have stopped working in 2023.

They appear to have Direct Messages (DMs) turned off on X (we aren’t able to DM them, at least).

Here are our questions:

1. Did your Mission and/or Ambassador Mansour make any public statements about this resolution and the BoP on or around the date it was adopted, November 17, 2025? If so, can you please provide links to the statement(s)? (We did see the November 17 and 18 statements calling on the international community to join you in condemning Israeli minister Ben-Gvir for threatening Abbas and other senior Palestinian officials.)

2. Did your Mission and Ambassador Mansour support or oppose the resolution at that time? (Just asking what the position was — we know you weren’t able to vote on it since Palestine is not a member of the Security Council.)

3. Did Ambassador Mansour or anyone else from your Mission encourage Russia, China, or any of the other permanent members to veto the resolution? If so, which one(s), and why?

4. Did Ambassador Mansour or anyone else from your Mission encourage Russia, China, or any of the other permanent members NOT to veto the resolution? If so, which one(s), and why?

5. What is your Mission’s current position on this resolution and the BoP? What’s the best statement to use from the past month or so?

We still welcome a response from Ambassador Mansour and/or the Palestinian Mission to the UN, and will update this story with their response if they give one.

We know many people around the world would be interested in hearing it, and assume that many Palestinians — including and especially those in Gaza — would be as well.