The U.N. Security Council has passed its initial resolution since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas conflict, urging immediate and prolonged humanitarian breaks in Gaza to address the worsening crisis for Palestinian civilians amid Israel’s air and ground assaults. Israel promptly rejected the resolution. The vote in the 15-member council resulted in a 12-0 outcome, with the United States, United Kingdom, and Russia opting to abstain. The U.S. and U.K. refrained due to the resolution’s omission of condemnation of Hamas’ unexpected cross-border attacks into Israel on Oct. 7, while Russia abstained as it did not call for a humanitarian ceasefire, a stance opposed by Israel and the United States. According to Russia, a ‘pause cannot replace a ceasefire,’ and what the devastated civilians in Palestine currently require is a ceasefire. The adoption of this resolution comes more than a month after the attacks began, resulting in over 10,000 civilians becoming victims of Israeli bombardment. The delay can be traced back to the United States’ consistent use of its veto power, preventing the passage of resolutions advocating for a ceasefire. The implication is that if the U.S. had refrained from using its veto, numerous lives in Israel could have been preserved.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) vote on resolutions concerning the Israel-Gaza conflict exposed the United States’ ‘delicate diplomatic balancing act’. On one hand, the US claims to be a neutral arbiter, supporting humanitarian ceasefires and international law, but on the other, it consistently exercises its veto power to shield Israel from critical resolutions, sparking accusations of hypocrisy. The most recent veto revolved around whether Hamas was explicitly labeled as a “terrorist” group in the resolution, but some argue that the USA would have found another reason to veto even if this designation was included.
In the UNSC vote a few weeks back, the USA stood alone, casting a veto and blocking a resolution condemning Hamas’s attack on Israel while calling for a pause in the fighting to allow humanitarian assistance into Gaza. With 12 members voting in favor and Russia and the United Kingdom abstaining, the vote drew widespread attention and criticism. The Brazilian-drafted resolution aimed to stop violence against all civilians but was criticized by the USA for not sufficiently emphasizing Israel’s right to self-defense. This implies that, according to the USA, Israel’s attacks on Palestinian civilians are justified as ‘self-defense.’ Once again, many human rights activists ask: What threats do Gazan children and women pose to the armed Israeli forces, who have been attacking and shooting the Arab population for decades?
The American decision to cast a veto to keep the war going has led to allegations of hypocrisy, particularly due to the USA’s repeated use of its UNSC veto power to protect Israel from resolutions critical of its actions. The USA justifies these actions as promoting Israel’s security and interests. However, the recurrent use of this veto power raises doubts about the USA’s role as an impartial peace mediator.
The root of the problem lies in the USA’s reluctance to be critical of Israel’s actions in the Israel-Gaza conflict. While the US has called on Israel to avoid killing Palestinian civilians, its support for Israel remains unwavering, even in cases where Israeli air raids have led to substantial civilian casualties. This perceived double standard has been widely criticized, both internationally and domestically.
It is essential to acknowledge that the Israeli-Gaza conflict is a complex and deeply entrenched issue, resulting in the loss of countless lives and immense suffering, making it a high-stakes situation for all parties involved. Israel argues that it must defend itself against attacks from groups like Hamas, which it deems terrorist organizations, and that its actions are proportionate responses to these threats. On the other hand, Palestinians and their supporters argue that Israel’s military operations are aimed at wiping out the indigenous Arab population of the region, a situation that has persisted since 1947.
The question of whether Hamas should be explicitly labeled as a “terrorist” group in the UNSC resolution has been a point of contention. The draft resolution chose not to include this label, and the US argued that this omission made it unacceptable. The UK abstained, citing concerns about how Hamas was using ordinary Palestinians as human shields. The debate over whether Hamas is a terrorist organization is not new, but it underscores the challenges in finding common ground at the UN and in addressing this conflict. The dilemma emerges: does a meaningless title hold greater significance for our world than the countless lives lost in an asymmetric conflict?
One significant issue underlying this debate is that of perspective. While the US and Israel may view Hamas as a terrorist organization, Hamas is also the de facto governing authority in Gaza, receiving support from some Palestinians. Therefore, any resolution that condemns Hamas can be viewed through multiple lenses. Around 30% of Palestinians support Hamas, perceiving it as a defending force.
The UNSC veto and the US’s stance on this matter are not isolated incidents. In the past, the US has used its veto power to block resolutions calling for humanitarian corridors into Gaza, a cessation of hostilities, and the lifting of orders for civilians to leave the north of the besieged territory. Some of these resolutions contained criticism of “heinous terrorist crimes by Hamas.” In the recent Brazilian-drafted resolution, the term “humanitarian pause” was used instead of explicitly calling for a ceasefire.
This pattern of US vetoes, accompanied by the argument of protecting Israel’s right to self-defense, has drawn criticism from various countries and observers. Russia has also accused the US of hypocrisy and double standards. China expressed its disappointment, while France and Japan broke with the US by backing the motion. The use of the US veto has undoubtedly hindered the UNSC’s ability to address the ongoing crisis and has raised questions about its credibility as a mediator.
The use of vetoes in situations like these also highlights the limitations and weaknesses of the United Nations as an international organization. While the UN has played its role in peacekeeping and mediating certain conflicts, it is in instances like these where much-needed peace cannot be achieved due to power dynamics, rendering the United Nations weak and ineffective, at least in this case. Previously, Israel gave an ultimatum to Gazans to evacuate, but the UN could do little more than issue statements.
The USA’s use of its UNSC veto, regardless of the specific details of each resolution, reinforces the perception of bias in its approach to the Israel-Gaza conflict. The US’s selective approach to addressing violations and its unwavering support for Israel have led to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy. If the situation escalates, it may undermine years of diplomacy aimed at building relationships between Israel and Arab states, potentially affecting the broader Middle East dynamics that the US desires.
Taut Bataut – is a researcher and writer that publishes on South Asian geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.