In a pivotal session at the United Nations, the United States wielded its veto power, opposing an Arab-proposed U.N. resolution on Tuesday that urgently called for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire in the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict in the strife-laden Gaza Strip.
Within the 15-member Security Council, the vote tallied 13 in favor, 1 against (the United States), and the United Kingdom abstaining. This voting panorama underscored the broad international consensus favoring the cessation of the protracted conflict that originated from Hamas’ unforeseen incursion into southern Israel, resulting in approximately 1,200 casualties and 250 individuals held captive. Subsequently, over 29,000 Palestinians have lost their lives in Israel’s protracted military campaign, as reported by the Gaza Health Ministry. This tally, however, does not differentiate between civilians and combatants, but it emphasizes that the majority comprises women and children.
This marked the third instance of the United States exercising its veto power to quash a Security Council resolution seeking a cease-fire in Gaza. The Biden administration’s rationale for the veto centered around apprehensions that such a resolution might impede ongoing efforts to broker a deal between the conflicting parties, aiming to instigate a six-week hiatus in hostilities and the release of all hostages.
Taking an unexpected stance before the vote, the United States circulated an alternative U.N. Security Council resolution. This proposal advocated for a temporary cessation of hostilities in Gaza, contingent upon the release of all hostages, coupled with a plea for the removal of all restrictions on the distribution of humanitarian aid. The draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, asserts that these actions “would contribute to establishing conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities.”
Robert Wood, the U.S. deputy ambassador, articulated to several reporters that the Arab-backed resolution lacks efficacy in achieving the desired outcomes of hostage release, increased aid influx, and a prolonged pause in the conflict. He highlighted the U.S. draft as an alternative option under consideration, emphasizing ongoing discussions with allies on this matter.
Amid this diplomatic maneuvering, a senior U.S. official, speaking anonymously, emphasized a cautious approach, stating, “We don’t believe in a rush to a vote.” Acknowledging the urgency of the situation, the official hinted at intensive negotiations in the coming days, avoiding a specified timeline for the vote.
For several months, Arab nations, backed by a substantial number of the 193 U.N. member countries, have persistently called for a cease-fire. Tunisia’s U.N. Ambassador, Tarek Ladeb, representing the 22-nation Arab Group, underscored the urgent need for a cease-fire. He pointed to the 1.5 million Palestinians seeking refuge in Gaza’s southern city of Rafah, facing a potential “catastrophic scenario” if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proceeds with evacuating civilians from the city to shift Israel’s military offensive to the bordering area with Egypt, where Hamas fighters are believed to be hiding.
In addition to an immediate cease-fire, the Arab-proposed resolution demands the prompt release of all hostages, rejects the forced displacement of Palestinian civilians, advocates for unimpeded humanitarian access throughout Gaza, and reiterates the council’s call for both Israel and Hamas to “scrupulously comply” with international law, particularly in protecting civilians. Without explicitly naming either party, it condemns “all acts of terrorism.”
In a stern message directed at Israel, the U.S. draft resolution advises against proceeding with the planned major ground offensive in Rafah under existing circumstances. It warns that further displacement of civilians, potentially into neighboring countries such as Egypt, would carry severe implications for regional peace and security.
U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, in a statement, elucidated the United States’ protracted efforts in negotiating a hostage deal. President Joe Biden’s multiple calls with Netanyahu, along with leaders of Egypt and Qatar, were cited as instrumental in advancing the deal. Despite existing gaps, Thomas-Greenfield deemed the deal as the most viable opportunity to free hostages and achieve a sustained pause for delivering life-saving aid to needy Palestinians.
The Security Council members have engaged in three weeks of negotiations on the Arab-proposed resolution. Algeria, representing the Arab perspective on the council, postponed the vote at the U.S. request during Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s regional visit, aiming to facilitate a hostage deal. However, Qatar’s statement on Saturday indicated that the talks had not progressed as expected. Over the weekend, the Arab Group concluded that ample time had been given to the U.S., prompting them to finalize their resolution for a vote.
The aftermath of the anticipated U.S. veto remains uncertain. The Arab Group might take their resolution to the U.N. General Assembly, encompassing all 193 U.N. member nations, where approval seems likely but lacks legal binding akin to Security Council resolutions.
In subsequent deliberations, the Security Council is expected to delve into the more detailed U.S. draft resolution, which, notably, not only condemns Hamas’ October 7 attack but also addresses issues of hostage-taking, killings, murder, and sexual violence, including rape. This represents a departure from previous council resolutions on Gaza that omitted explicit condemnation of Hamas.
While the U.S. draft refrains from naming Israel, it explicitly condemns calls for the resettlement of Gaza and rejects any attempts at demographic or territorial changes violating international law.
