U.S. Veto Halts Gaza Ceasefire: Humanity on Hold

The Security Council Votes on the Humanitarian draft resolution for cease fire in Gaza and unimpeded aid delivery- UNPhoto/Mark Garten

By: Ahmed Fathi

UNHQ, New York: The United Nations Security Council failed to adopt a resolution demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, after the United States vetoed the measure despite overwhelming support from the other 14 Council members. The blocked text—drafted by Slovenia on behalf of the 10 elected members—sought to halt hostilities, ensure the release of all hostages, and guarantee unimpeded humanitarian access to the besieged enclave.

The U.S. Representative Amb. Dorothy Shea "Vetos" Gaza Humanitarian Resolution

The United States stood alone in opposition, using its veto power to shut down what several nations called a moral and humanitarian imperative. “Any product that undermines our close ally Israel’s security is a non-starter,” said Ambassador Dorothy Shea, the U.S. Chargé d’Affaires ad interim to the United Nations. “This resolution is unacceptable for what it says, what it omits, and the process behind it.”

The move triggered sharp criticism across the Council. Algeria’s Ambassador Amar Bendjama, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, called the failed vote a symbol of “the agony of multilateralism,” arguing that the Security Council was enabling Israel’s continued operations in Gaza through inaction. “Silence cannot hold the hand of the dying,” he said. “We must speak—loudly.”

Russia’s Permanent Representative, Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, condemned the veto as another political maneuver that prioritizes alliances over human lives. “Today we all had another opportunity to see who really wants peace in the Middle East, and who wants to continue playing political games,” he said. Nebenzia described the resolution as the “bare minimum” of what should have been offered to a population on the brink of annihilation.

China’s Ambassador Fu Cong criticized the U.S.-Israel-controlled aid mechanism as a “death trap,” pointing to repeated civilian casualties near aid distribution points and accusing Israel of using humanitarian aid to further displace civilians. “Military means are not the solution,” he warned, emphasizing that impartiality and neutrality are being undermined. Fu underscored that continued military escalation only deepens civilian suffering and discredits the Council’s legitimacy.

The United Kingdom, while condemning Hamas’ attacks, also rebuked Israel’s expanded military operations and severe aid restrictions as “unjustifiable, disproportionate, and counterproductive.”

Several non-permanent members expressed dismay.

, co-author of the draft, insisted the text had no hidden agenda. “It was never our intention to provoke a veto,” said its representative. “This was a humanitarian draft.” Sierra Leone called it “the bare minimum required,” while Panama noted it represented the lowest common denominator the Council should be able to defend.

Riyad Mansour, the observer for the State of Palestine, accused Israel of weaponizing aid and using starvation as a tool of collective punishment. “An entire civilian population is brought to the edge of famine,” he said. “You cannot even say something about that?” He warned that failure to act effectively greenlights what he described as “engineered starvation.”

Pakistan’s Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad called the vote “another low in the history of this august body,” stating that “to kill civilians seeking bread and water is to criminalize survival.” Somalia’s representative demanded an end to the occupation, calling it the only path to lasting peace. Denmark’s envoy emphasized that humanitarian assistance must never be politicized: “We have all seen the chaotic scenes at recently established aid distribution sites,” she said.

Even France, a close U.S. ally, expressed dissatisfaction. Its envoy declared: “We all know the tragedy taking place under our very eyes in Gaza—few words are needed.” France reiterated its commitment to co-hosting a two-State solution conference with Saudi Arabia in mid-June.

Israel’s Ambassador Danny Danon, in stark contrast, defended the U.S. veto, insisting it had prevented a deeply flawed resolution from advancing. “Today, this Council stood at a crossroads, and most of you chose wrong—you chose appeasement,” he said. He accused the resolution of failing to condemn Hamas and of undermining real efforts to retrieve hostages. “No resolution, no vote, will stand in our way,” he added.

The U.S. justified its veto by arguing that the proposed ceasefire would leave Hamas intact and militarily capable. Ambassador Shea claimed the draft resolution drew false equivalencies and failed to account for what she described as Hamas' abuse of past aid mechanisms. “Performative actions designed to draw a veto,” she added, “are harmful while delicate diplomacy is at work.”

With the resolution blocked, attention now shifts to a likely emergency session of the UN General Assembly. Though its resolutions are nonbinding, the session may amplify global frustration over the Council’s paralysis.

As Gaza's humanitarian disaster accelerates, the vote cast a harsh spotlight on the Security Council’s structural limitations—and the deadly consequences of political deadlock. “The price of delay,” said one African envoy, “is being paid in bodies.”