The United States vetoed the move at the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday a draft resolution for an “immediate, unconditional and permanent” ceasefire in Gazaa measure to support its ally Israel.
The draft text called for “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire which must be respected by all parties,” and also “the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.”
Read also: Pope Francis called for investigation into a possible “genocide” in Gaza and provoked Israel’s response
But the way it was worded infuriated Israel, which denounced the project as a “betrayal.”
“We made it clear in the negotiations that we could not support an unconditional ceasefire without the release of the hostages,” Deputy US Ambassador to the UN Robert Wood explained after the vote.
In context: Israel bombed Gaza and Lebanon after Egypt proposed a truce, is this feasible?
“For us there should be a connection between the ceasefire and the release of the hostages. This has been our position from the beginning and we maintain it,” the diplomat said.
With the proposed resolution, Wood added, the Council would send Hamas “the dangerous message that there is no need to return to the negotiating table.”
The text “is nothing more than a betrayal” and would be equivalent to an “abandonment” of the hostages, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, had denounced before the vote.
Majed Bamya, Palestinian deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said there was no reason for Washington to veto the project.
“There is no justification, absolutely no justification to veto a resolution that attempts to stop the atrocities,” Bayma said after the vote.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas carried out an unprecedented attack on Israeli soil that left 1,206 dead, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official Israeli data.
Islamic militants also captured 251 people that day, of whom 97 remain captive in Gaza, although the Israeli army estimates that 34 of them are dead.
Since Israel launched its retaliation, 43,972 people, mostly civilians, have died in the Strip, according to the Ministry of Health of the Hamas-ruled territory. The UN considers these figures to be reliable.
What are the potential consequences of the US veto on the resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Middle East Conflict Expert
Editor: Good day and thank you for joining us. Today, we’ve seen a significant event take place at the UN Security Council, where the US vetoed a draft resolution calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent” ceasefire in Gaza. To help us understand the implications of this decision, we have with us Dr. Amina Alvi, an expert in Middle Eastern politics. Welcome, Dr. Alvi.
Dr. Alvi: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right into it. The US veto seems to have sparked varied reactions globally. What do you think are the implications of this decision on the ongoing conflict?
Dr. Alvi: The US veto carries considerable weight, especially given its role as a long-standing ally of Israel. By rejecting the draft resolution, which called for an unconditional ceasefire and the immediate release of hostages, the US is signaling its strong support for Israel’s current military stance. However, this action could escalate tensions further, not just in Gaza but throughout the region, as it may be seen as an endorsement of military operations that many consider disproportionate.
Editor: Speaking to that point, the wording of the vetoed resolution reportedly infuriated Israel, which responded by labeling it a “betrayal.” How crucial is this framing in international opinion and negotiations?
Dr. Alvi: The framing is incredibly important. Israel’s characterization of the resolution as a “betrayal” not only shapes its perception but also resonates with its constituents. This rhetoric helps rally domestic support by portraying external pressures as unjust and one-sided. For any peace negotiations to be effective, both sides must feel adequately represented and secure. When one party feels betrayed, it complicates the possibilities for dialog and reconciliation.
Editor: The resolution, as you mentioned, also emphasized the immediate release of hostages. How does the issue of hostages complicate the quest for a ceasefire?
Dr. Alvi: Hostages are a sensitive point in this conflict. For Israel, the release of hostages is non-negotiable and a matter of national security. For Hamas and other groups, the hostages can be leveraged as bargaining chips in negotiations. The insistence on their release underscores a fundamental challenge: both sides prioritize different outcomes. Until there is alignment on such critical issues, any ceasefire will face significant hurdles.
Editor: Given the current situation, what role do you think international actors, including the Pope’s recent calls for investigations into potential genocide, could play in this conflict?
Dr. Alvi: International actors wield varying degrees of influence. The Pope’s comments draw attention to humanitarian issues and have historically humanized the plight of those suffering in conflicts. Calls for investigations into serious allegations—like genocide—create pressure on both the Israeli government and Hamas. However, whether these moral appeals translate into tangible action or policy changes remains to be seen. They can, at the very least, foster a global dialog around the humanitarian implications of the conflict.
Editor: as an expert, what steps do you believe are necessary for progression toward peace in the region?
Dr. Alvi: Progress toward peace requires a multi-faceted approach. First, all parties must agree to cease hostilities and engage in negotiations with clear frameworks that prioritize humanitarian needs. This includes addressing the root causes of the conflict, such as territorial disputes and mutual recognition. Moreover, international mediators must play an active role in facilitating dialogues and ensuring that the voices of affected populations are heard. Only a balanced, inclusive strategy will lead to durable peace.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Alvi, for sharing your insights on these complex issues. It’s clear that the road ahead is fraught with challenges, but understanding these dynamics is essential.
Dr. Alvi: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important matters. I remain hopeful that dialog can pave the way for a lasting resolution.