United States vetos UN resolution for cease-fire for the third time

The United States has once again exercised its veto power against an immediate humanitarian cease-fire in the conflict-ravaged Gaza Strip.

The US said that its veto against the Algerian resolution, backed by Arab nations, is due to the potential interference with critical negotiations aimed at securing the release of hostages taken in Israel by Hamas.

The conflict, which has unfolded over more than four months, saw the Security Council’s vote conclude with 13 members in favour, the US opposing, and the United Kingdom abstaining.

The proposed resolution sought to bring an end to hostilities that began with a Hamas incursion into southern Israel, resulting in significant loss of life and the taking of hostages.

The Gaza Health Ministry reports that the ensuing Israeli military offensive has led to over 29,000 Palestinian deaths, predominantly among women and children.

Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, and the European Union. However, the United Nations and some other countries view it as a political movement rather than designating it as a terrorist organization.

This US veto marks the third refusal of a Security Council resolution aimed at ceasing hostilities in Gaza.

A day prior to the veto, the US had circulated an alternative resolution that endorsed a temporary halt in the fighting, contingent on a comprehensive hostage release and the assurance of unrestricted humanitarian aid delivery.

The international community’s concern is particularly acute regarding Gaza’s southern city of Rafah, home to 1.5 million Palestinian refugees.

US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield articulated the US position, emphasizing the delicate nature of ongoing negotiations: “This resolution would negatively impact the sensitive negotiations on a hostage deal and a pause in fighting for at least six weeks. With that pause, we can work towards building a more enduring peace.”

The US-proposed resolution aims to “pressure Hamas to accept the hostage deal currently on the table and secure a pause that allows humanitarian assistance to reach Palestinian civilians in desperate need,” as opposed to the Arab-backed draft which, according to Thomas-Greenfield, failed to link the ceasefire to the hostages’ release, potentially allowing Hamas to benefit from a cessation in fighting without any concessions.

Algeria’s UN Ambassador Amar Bendjama, speaking on behalf of the Arab bloc, underscored the moral imperative behind their resolution: “This resolution stands for truth and humanity, standing against the advocates for murder and hatred. A vote in favor of this draft resolution is a support to the Palestinians’ right to life.”

Israel’s UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan criticized the cease-fire narrative as overly simplistic, stating, “The word cease-fire… is used as if it is a silver bullet, a magical solution to all of the region’s problems… A cease-fire in Gaza would enable Hamas to rearm and regroup.”

In stark rebuke, Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour lamented the consequences of the US veto: “It means that human lives that could have been saved are instead being forsaken to Israel’s genocidal war machine, deliberately, knowingly, by those who oppose a cease-fire.”

China’s Ambassador to the UN Zhang Jun has said that the United States’s veto “stifles” “overwhelming consensus” among the UNSC’s members on a ceasefire in Gaza.

“The US veto sends a wrong message, pushing the situation in Gaza into a more dangerous one,” added Zhang on his social media post.

The outcome of today's vote clearly shows that on the issue of a ceasefire to halt the fight in Gaza, it is not that the Security Council does not have an overwhelming consensus, but rather it is the exercise of veto by the United States that stifles the Council consensus. The US… https://t.co/5vXPWXdd8i

— Zhang Jun (@ChinaAmbUN) February 20, 2024

France’s UN envoy, Nicolas de Riviere, expressed regret that a UNSC ceasefire resolution “could not be adopted, given the disastrous situation” in Gaza.

Algeria’s ambassador to the UN, Amar Bendjama said that rejection of a UN Security Council (UNSC) ceasefire resolution shows “approval of starvation as a means of war”

Looking ahead, the Arab Group may advance their resolution to the UN General Assembly, where it is expected to pass, though it would not have the binding force of a Security Council resolution.

Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield signalled the US’s readiness to negotiate its resolution, seeking a balanced solution that allows humanitarian aid while addressing the hostages’ plight.