Thursday, June 19, 2025
HomeGlobal AffairsConflicts & DisastersUN Veto Fuels Gaza War: Who’s Against Peace?

UN Veto Fuels Gaza War: Who’s Against Peace?

Date:

Related stories

Is Russia on the Verge of Losing Another Middle East Ally?

The Middle East has long been a critical arena...

Markets on Edge as Israel-Iran Conflict Escalates

As geopolitical tensions in the Middle East enter a...

Visa-Free No More? EU Tightens Rules Against Travel Abuse

In a major policy shift aimed at tightening control...

UN Says No to Unilateral Punishment

In a landmark decision reflecting mounting global concern over...
spot_img

The Israel-Palestine conflict, particularly in Gaza, remains a global flashpoint in 2025, with the UN Security Council’s failure to pass a ceasefire resolution on June 4, 2025, reigniting debates over who truly seeks peace. The resolution, backed by 14 of 15 members but vetoed by the US, aimed to halt Israel’s military operations and address Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. Palestine’s UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour accused Israel of perpetuating genocide, while Israel’s Danny Danon blamed Hamas for rejecting peace deals. Russia and China condemned the US veto as enabling violence, while European nations expressed frustration.

The US Veto and Global Impact

On June 4, 2025, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution, drafted by 10 non-permanent members (E10), demanding an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza, the release of hostages, and unrestricted humanitarian aid. The veto, the fourth by the US since the conflict escalated in October 2023, drew widespread criticism for shielding Israel’s ongoing offensive, which has killed over 44,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. The resolution’s failure risks escalating violence, with UN chief António Guterres warning that Gaza faces “the cruellest phase” of conflict, with 1 in 5 people at risk of famine by September 2025.

Globally, the veto has deepened distrust in US leadership, particularly among Muslim-majority nations, and fueled accusations of bias. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee warned of rising Islamophobia, as the veto reinforces perceptions of Western hostility toward Palestinians. The deadlock also undermines international cooperation, potentially destabilizing the Middle East further, as seen with recent Israeli operations in Lebanon and Hezbollah’s rocket attacks.

Muslim World’s Perspective

The Muslim world, represented by figures like Palestine’s Riyad Mansour and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), views the US veto as a betrayal of humanitarian principles. Mansour called the resolution a “simple goal” to stop “genocide” and end Israel’s blockade, which has pushed 2 million Gazans, including 1 million children, toward famine. Algeria’s UN envoy, Amar Bendjama, warned that rejecting the ceasefire endorses “brutal violence” against Palestinians, a sentiment echoed by Muslim nations like Qatar and Egypt. Iran and Turkey are likely to amplify anti-US rhetoric, as seen in 2024 when Iran labeled US actions a “green light” for Israel’s operations. Social media on X reflects outrage, with users like @egyptiaanwitch accusing the US of enabling genocide. This perception risks fueling anti-American sentiment and extremist narratives across the Muslim world.

Dividing the Global Community

The veto has split the global community into two camps: those prioritizing humanitarian urgency and those aligning with strategic interests. The 14-1 vote, with the UK abstaining, highlights the US’s isolation. China’s Fu Cong called the veto an abuse that “stifles the hopes of Gazans,” while Russia’s Vasily Nebenzia accused the US of enabling Israel’s “inhumane plans” to displace Palestinians. These criticisms suggest a geopolitical divide, with Russia and China leveraging the conflict to challenge US influence. The veto also alienates allies like France, which regretted the failure given Gaza’s “disastrous” situation. This division risks undermining UN credibility and could lead to reciprocal measures, such as travel bans or trade restrictions by Muslim nations, further fragmenting global unity.

European Stance

European nations, while varied, largely criticized the US veto, prioritizing humanitarian needs. France’s Nicolas de Rivière expressed regret, emphasizing the dire situation in Gaza, where famine looms. Slovenia and Malta echoed this, with Malta’s Vanessa Frazier calling the resolution the “bare minimum” needed. The UK’s abstention reflects caution, balancing support for Israel’s security with humanitarian concerns. French President Emmanuel Macron announced plans for a new ceasefire resolution, signaling Europe’s intent to bridge the gap. Europe’s stance, rooted in international law and human rights, contrasts with the US’s linkage of ceasefire to hostage release, highlighting a transatlantic rift.

Dangers of the Impasse

The failure to secure a ceasefire poses severe risks:

  • Humanitarian Crisis: Gaza’s population faces starvation, with aid blocked since March 2025, exacerbating famine risks.

  • Escalation: Israel’s planned Rafah offensive could displace 1.5 million civilians, risking regional spillover with groups like Hezbollah.

  • Radicalization: The veto fuels extremist narratives, as Hamas accused the US of enabling a “genocidal war.”

  • Diplomatic Strain: The US’s isolation could weaken alliances, particularly with Arab states, and hinder cooperation on issues like climate and security.

  • Erosion of Two-State Solution: Israel’s settlement expansion and Gaza operations threaten the viability of a Palestinian state, as noted by Russia and China.

Who Really Wants Peace?

Palestine’s Mansour argues that Israel’s actions—blockade, war crimes, and displacement—show it does not seek peace, a view supported by Russia and China. Israel’s Danon counters that Hamas’s refusal to release hostages and accept deals proves its disinterest in peace, a stance backed by the US. Russia and China, while advocating a two-state solution, face accusations of politicizing the issue to counter US influence. The US’s veto, tying ceasefire to hostage release, suggests a conditional approach to peace, criticized as enabling Israel’s offensive. Europe and the E10 push for unconditional ceasefire, aligning with humanitarian priorities, but their influence is limited by veto powers.

Mitigation Efforts

Efforts to break the deadlock include an upcoming international conference in June 2025, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, to advance the two-state solution. The UN General Assembly, free of vetoes, adopted resolutions in December 2024 to support peace talks, reflecting global support for a ceasefire. Civil society groups like Human Rights Watch criticized the US veto as ensuring Israel’s impunity, urging renewed pressure. Diplomatic efforts by Qatar, Egypt, and the US continue, though Hamas’s intransigence and Israel’s Rafah plans complicate progress.

Russia and China exploit the conflict

The question “Who really wants peace?” in the Gaza conflict reveals a complex web of motives. Palestine and its allies accuse Israel of prioritizing territorial control over peace, while Israel and the US point to Hamas’s rejection of deals. Russia and China exploit the conflict to challenge US dominance, while Europe pushes for humanitarian solutions. The US veto, blocking a ceasefire, risks escalating violence, famine, and global division, underscoring the urgent need for compromise. As the June 2025 conference looms, the international community must prioritize dialogue to prevent further catastrophe and revive the two-state solution.

Latest stories

Publication:

spot_img

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Privacy Overview

THE THINK TANK JOURNAL- ONLINE EDITION OF This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.