UNITED NATIONS — In a dramatic session at the United Nations Security Council, the United States has vetoed a resolution that called for an immediate and permanent cease-fire in Gaza, leaving Washington as the lone dissenting voice against the measure. All 14 other members of the Council voted in favor.
The draft resolution, introduced by several member states, urged an urgent halt to hostilities, the lifting of restrictions on humanitarian aid, and unrestricted access to civilians trapped in Gaza’s worsening conflict. International organizations have repeatedly described the humanitarian situation as “catastrophic,” citing shortages of food, water, and medicine, along with widespread destruction and mass displacement.
Speaking after the vote, Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea defended the decision, calling the resolution “unbalanced.” She argued that it drew a “false equivalence” between Israel and Hamas and failed to address key issues, including the disarmament of Hamas, its withdrawal from Gaza, and the release of hostages. Washington maintains that any cease-fire must be tied directly to the liberation of hostages still held by Hamas.
Criticism of the U.S. stance was swift. Diplomats from across the globe expressed frustration that the international community’s united call for an end to the violence was blocked once again. Humanitarian groups warned that the veto would prolong civilian suffering and undermine aid operations already struggling to reach those in need.
This veto is the latest in a series of U.S. rejections of cease-fire measures during the conflict. While Washington insists its approach preserves leverage for ongoing diplomatic negotiations, many nations view the move as a shield for Israel against mounting international pressure.
The Gaza crisis continues to deepen, with thousands displaced, infrastructure devastated, and humanitarian aid bottlenecked at entry points. Meanwhile, the U.S. administration says it is working behind the scenes on what it describes as a “balanced” peace framework that addresses both security concerns and humanitarian needs.
For now, the stalemate at the UN underscores the deep divisions within global diplomacy between those pushing for an immediate halt to fighting, and those who argue that peace cannot come without addressing the root causes of the conflict.
