US Vetoes UN Ceasefire Resolution in Gaza, Drawing Criticism
The United States has once again vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. This marks the third time the US has used its veto power to block such a resolution, citing concerns that it would undermine negotiations over a hostage deal. The resolution, put forward by Algeria, received support from 13 countries, including close allies of the US who emphasized the urgent humanitarian needs of Palestinians.
However, the US decision to veto the resolution has drawn widespread criticism, particularly as the situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate. With nearly 30,000 Palestinians killed and over 2 million people at risk of famine, many argue that a vote in favor of the resolution would have been a show of support for the Palestinians’ right to life. The Algerian envoy to the UN, Amar Bendjama, stated, “Voting against it implies an endorsement of the brutal violence and collective punishment inflicted upon them.”
The Algerian resolution also called for the implementation of provisional measures ordered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January. These measures instructed Israel to mitigate its offensive to protect civilians, lift impediments on aid flow into Gaza, and take action against Israeli politicians using genocidal language. Bendjama highlighted the lack of progress in improving the situation in Gaza since the ICJ ruling and emphasized the need for action and truth.
The Chinese ambassador, Zhang Jun, criticized the US for its continued avoidance of an immediate ceasefire, likening it to giving a green light to the ongoing slaughter. In response to the criticism, the US has drafted an alternative resolution that calls for a temporary ceasefire “as soon as practicable” and urges Israel not to proceed with a planned offensive on Rafah, a city where over a million Palestinians have sought refuge.
However, the US resolution is not expected to go to a vote for several days, further complicating the situation. The timing of the US’s third veto on a ceasefire resolution is also embarrassing as the US seeks to build international solidarity in condemning Russia on the second anniversary of its invasion of Ukraine.
US envoy Linda Thomas-Greenfield defended the veto, stating that President Joe Biden was currently engaged in negotiations with Israel, Egypt, and Qatar to secure a comprehensive hostage deal. She argued that demanding an immediate ceasefire without an agreement requiring Hamas to release the hostages would not bring about lasting peace and could potentially prolong the fighting between Hamas and Israel.
Despite sharing the US’s reservations about the lack of condemnation of Hamas in the Algerian resolution, Washington’s allies, including France, Slovenia, and Switzerland, voted in favor of it. They emphasized the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza and prioritized ending the fighting over other concerns.
The UK abstained from voting, calling for an immediate suspension in fighting to allow aid to enter and hostages to be released, leading to a permanent sustainable ceasefire. However, the UK echoed the US’s arguments that simply calling for a ceasefire would not make it happen and could even hinder hostage negotiations.
The US’s decision to share its alternative draft resolution with other council members before the vote was seen as an attempt to avoid giving the impression that the veto supported an Israeli attack on Rafah. The inclusion of a clause specifically calling on Israel not to mount such an attack is seen as a signal of President Biden’s growing impatience with Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
Richard Gowan, the UN director of the International Crisis Group, commented on the US’s veto, stating that it is “awfully embarrassing” for the Americans. He believes that using a veto just days before the security council meeting commemorating Russia’s assault on Ukraine will fuel discussions about US double standards.
In conclusion, the US’s decision to veto a UN ceasefire resolution in Gaza for the third time has sparked criticism and raised concerns about the worsening humanitarian situation. While the US argues that the resolution could hinder ongoing negotiations for a hostage deal, many believe that immediate action is necessary to protect Palestinian lives. The international community remains divided on how to address the conflict, with Washington’s allies voting in favor of the resolution despite reservations. The US’s alternative resolution and its timing further complicate the situation, highlighting the challenges of finding a lasting solution to the conflict in Gaza.
