The United States of America renewed its use of its veto power in the UN Security Council and obstructed a draft resolution prepared by the “ten” non-permanent countries in the Council calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
All members of the Security Council voted in favor of the draft resolution proposed for a ceasefire in Gaza, except for the United States of America.
The draft resolution called for “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire, which must be respected by all parties,” and also affirmed its demand for an “immediate halt,” and the unconditional release of all detainees. In addition, the document rejected “any attempt to starve the Palestinians.” It called for immediate humanitarian assistance to the civilian population in the Strip necessary for their survival, and the project also called for facilitating “the full, rapid, safe and unhindered entry of humanitarian aid on the required scale” into Gaza.
The draft resolution called on “all parties to fully comply with international law, including international humanitarian law, in particular its provisions relating to the protection of civilians, especially women, children and persons hors de combat, as well as its provisions relating to the protection of civilian objects.”
It is noteworthy that since the beginning of the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly tried to help stop the fighting in the Gaza Strip, and the Westerners, led by the United States, have used their veto power against draft resolutions.
The number of victims of the continuous Israeli bombing on the Gaza Strip for the 411th day has risen to 43,985 dead and 104,092 wounded, while a number of victims are still under rubble and on the roads and ambulance and civil defense crews cannot reach them.
Two statements by “Hamas” and “Islamic Jihad” after the American veto against the immediate ceasefire decision in Gaza
The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” confirmed today, Wednesday, that “the United States’ use of its veto against the draft resolution for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza is a hostile position that nullifies the will of the international community.”
The movement said in a statement: “We condemn in the strongest terms the United States’ use of its veto power in the Security Council against the resolution that was presented to the Council tonight and demands an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of the Zionist occupation forces from the Gaza Strip and to save our people from the repercussions of the humanitarian catastrophe created by the occupation with American cover. Throughout the months of war, especially in the north.”
The statement added: “Once again, the United States of America proves that it is a direct partner in the aggression against our people, that it is a criminal, that kills children and women, and destroys civilian life in Gaza, and that it is directly responsible for the war of genocide and ethnic cleansing, just like the occupation.”
Hamas continued in the statement, “We call on the United States to stop this foolish, hostile policy if it truly seeks to end wars and achieve security and stability in the region, as we heard from the elected administration. We also call on the international community to put an end to this American encroachment on the international will, which has only been achieved.” Wars, death, destruction and chaos in the region and beyond.”
For its part, the “Islamic Jihad” movement in Palestine confirmed that “the American administration’s use of its veto in the Security Council to abort a decision for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip clearly indicates that the American administration is the one conducting the war of genocide and the crimes of ethnic cleansing against our people in the Gaza Strip and supervising For all the massacres committed by the Nazi Zionist occupation forces.”
Last updated: November 21, 2024 – 12:51
Suggest a correction
How does the international community’s support for a ceasefire in Gaza reflect changing attitudes towards U.S. foreign policy?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Dr. Julia Carter, International Relations Expert
Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Carter. The recent veto by the United States in the UN Security Council regarding a draft resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza has sparked intense debate. Can you give us some context on why the U.S. exercised its veto power?
Dr. Carter: Absolutely, and thank you for having me. The U.S. has traditionally used its veto power in the UN Security Council to support Israel, especially during times of conflict. The resolution in question called for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire and humanitarian assistance for the Palestinians. While many countries supported it, the U.S. has significant strategic interests in the region and strong ties with Israel, which influences its stance.
Editor: It’s interesting to note that all other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution. What does this say about the international community’s view on the situation in Gaza?
Dr. Carter: It highlights a growing divide between the U.S. and many other nations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The broad support for the ceasefire resolution reflects a widespread concern for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where the civilian toll has been catastrophic—over 43,000 reported dead and many more wounded. It suggests that other countries are increasingly pressuring for a humanitarian approach rather than military solutions.
Editor: The resolution emphasized adherence to international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians. How does this veto affect perceptions of the U.S. role in international law?
Dr. Carter: The U.S. veto can be viewed as undermining its stated commitment to international law. When the U.S. positions itself against a call for humanitarian action and civilian protection, it opens itself to criticism—not just from regional powers but from its allies as well. This situation places the U.S. in a challenging position, as it tries to balance strategic alliances with moral obligations under international law.
Editor: Hamas condemned the U.S. action, framing it as a hostile position against the international community’s will. How important are these statements from groups like Hamas in shaping the narrative around the conflict?
Dr. Carter: Such statements are critical. They serve to galvanize support among their base and can influence public opinion in the region and beyond. By portraying the U.S. as complicit with Israeli aggression, these groups aim to delegitimize U.S. influence and create a narrative of resistance. This rhetoric resonates particularly during periods of escalated violence, as witnessed in Gaza.
Editor: Given the ongoing situation, what do you think could be the long-term implications of the U.S.’s veto for both Israel and Palestine?
Dr. Carter: The long-term implications could be significant. For Israel, continued U.S. support without regard for humanitarian concerns may embolden further military actions, but it could also lead to increasing isolation from the international community. For the Palestinians, this veto reinforces their narrative of being abandoned by a key global power. It can intensify grievances and potentially lead to greater radicalization among factions. Ultimately, without a shift towards more humanitarian considerations, the cycle of violence and retaliation could perpetuate.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for your insights. It’s clear that this issue extends far beyond the immediate conflict in Gaza and involves deeper questions about international relations and humanitarian responsibilities.
Dr. Carter: Thank you for having me. It’s a complex and urgent issue that we must continue to engage with.