On 20 November 2024, the UN Security Council's temporary 10 members raised a ceasefire agreement for Israel-Gaza. 10 temporary and 4 permanent members agreed but America was given vetoes again.
 |
| US vetoes Gaza ceasefire again |
 |
| Temporary 10 members raised a ceasefire agreement |
 |
| Palestine Representative Condemns US Vetoes |
 |
| Russian Representative Strongly Condemns US Vetoes |
The United
States’ veto of ceasefire resolutions in the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC) concerning Gaza is emblematic of its longstanding support for Israel in
international forums. This practice underscores the complexities of U.S.
foreign policy in the Middle East, its strategic alliance with Israel, and the
broader geopolitical calculations that influence American decisions. To fully
understand this phenomenon, we must explore the historical context, the reasons
for America’s veto power usage, and the implications for the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Understanding America’s Veto Power in the UNSC
The United
Nations Security Council consists of 15 members, of which five are permanent
members (the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) with
veto power. A veto from any permanent member can block the adoption of a
resolution, regardless of the majority support it may receive from the other
members.
Since the
founding of the UN in 1945, the U.S. has used its veto power frequently in
matters concerning Israel. According to records, more than 50 American vetoes
have been employed to block resolutions critical of Israel, including those
addressing ceasefires, human rights violations, and military operations in
Gaza. This pattern highlights the strong U.S.-Israel relationship and
Washington’s commitment to defending its ally on the global stage.
The U.S. and Ceasefire Resolutions in Gaza
The Gaza
Strip, one of the most densely populated areas in the world, has witnessed
repeated cycles of violence between Israel and Palestinian factions,
particularly Hamas. During escalations, the UNSC often seeks to pass
resolutions calling for ceasefires, humanitarian aid access, and measures to
protect civilians. While such resolutions generally garner broad international
support, the U.S. has consistently exercised its veto when it perceives the
resolutions to be unfairly critical of Israel or unbalanced in addressing the
root causes of the conflict.
Key Instances of U.S. Vetoes
- 2004 Resolution on Gaza: The U.S. vetoed a resolution
that condemned Israel’s military operation in northern Gaza, citing
concerns that the resolution did not equally address Palestinian militant
attacks on Israeli civilians.
- 2006 Gaza Conflict: During the Israeli operation
in Gaza in response to Hamas’ rocket attacks, the U.S. blocked a
resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, arguing that it failed to
hold Hamas accountable for initiating hostilities.
- 2014 Gaza War: Amid the devastating 2014
conflict, the U.S. vetoed resolutions calling for a ceasefire and
independent investigations into alleged war crimes. Washington maintained
that the resolutions did not adequately recognize Israel’s right to
self-defense against Hamas’ rocket barrages.
- 2021 Escalation: During an 11-day conflict in
May 2021, the U.S. blocked multiple ceasefire resolutions, asserting that
they did not align with diplomatic efforts led by the Biden administration
to de-escalate the situation.
Reasons for U.S. Support for Israel through Veto Power
The U.S.
vetoes of ceasefire resolutions in Gaza are driven by a combination of
strategic, political, and ideological considerations:
1. Strategic Alliance with Israel
Israel is a
key U.S. ally in the Middle East, a region of vital strategic interest due to
its energy resources, security dynamics, and geopolitical significance. The
U.S. views Israel as a bastion of democracy in a volatile region and a crucial
partner in countering terrorism, curbing Iranian influence, and maintaining
regional stability. Supporting Israel at the UNSC, including through vetoes,
reinforces this alliance.
2. Domestic Political Considerations
Support for
Israel enjoys strong bipartisan backing in U.S. politics, influenced by the
pro-Israel lobby, evangelical Christian groups, and the significant
Jewish-American community. Politicians from both parties often emphasize their
commitment to Israel's security, making it a key component of U.S. foreign policy.
This domestic consensus shapes Washington’s stance at the UN.
3. Perception of Bias at the UN
The U.S.
often argues that the UN disproportionately targets Israel, with a history of
passing numerous resolutions critical of Israeli policies while neglecting
actions by Palestinian factions such as Hamas. American diplomats frequently
justify their vetoes by claiming that proposed resolutions are one-sided and
fail to address the full context of the conflict, including Hamas’ role in
escalating violence.
4. Emphasis on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense
The U.S.
consistently underscores Israel’s right to defend itself against threats from
Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza. This principle often drives its
opposition to ceasefire resolutions that it believes restrict Israel’s military
actions without addressing the underlying security threats.
5. Diplomatic Calculations
The U.S.
prefers to address Israeli-Palestinian conflicts through direct diplomacy
rather than through the UN. By vetoing resolutions, Washington seeks to
preserve its role as a mediator, even though its impartiality is often
questioned by Palestinians and their allies.
Implications of U.S. Vetoes on Gaza Ceasefires
The American
use of veto power in ceasefire resolutions has significant consequences for the
conflict in Gaza, as well as for broader regional and international dynamics:
1. Humanitarian Impact
Blocking
ceasefire resolutions often prolongs hostilities, exacerbating the humanitarian
crisis in Gaza. The densely populated enclave suffers immense civilian
casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and severe shortages of basic
necessities during such escalations. Critics argue that U.S. vetoes contribute
to the suffering of innocent civilians by delaying international pressure for
peace.
2. Undermining the UN’s Role
Frequent
U.S. vetoes undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the UNSC in addressing
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This erosion of trust in multilateral
institutions complicates efforts to achieve lasting peace and reinforces
perceptions of U.S. bias.
3. Polarization in International Relations
American
vetoes often deepen divisions within the international community. While the
U.S. and its allies defend Israel, many nations, particularly in the Arab and
Muslim world, view these actions as shielding Israel from accountability. This
polarization hampers global consensus on addressing the root causes of the
conflict.
4. Empowering Extremist Narratives
Perceived
U.S. favoritism toward Israel fuels resentment among Palestinians and broader
Arab and Muslim populations. This dynamic can bolster extremist narratives,
undermining moderates and complicating efforts to revive negotiations for a
two-state solution.
How to Support America’s Pro-Israel Veto Policy
Support for
America’s pro-Israel stance in the UNSC involves understanding the rationale
behind its vetoes and advocating for balanced approaches to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here are some ways to support and justify this
policy:
1. Emphasizing Shared Values
Highlight
the shared democratic values and strategic partnership between the U.S. and Israel.
Advocates can stress Israel’s role as a reliable ally in a turbulent region and
its alignment with U.S. interests in counterterrorism and regional stability.
2. Addressing UN Bias
Supporters
can argue that the UN has a history of bias against Israel, as reflected in the
disproportionate number of resolutions critical of Israeli policies. They can
call for reforms to ensure balanced treatment of all parties involved in the
conflict.
3. Advocating for Israel’s Security
Proponents
of U.S. vetoes should underscore the threats Israel faces from Hamas, including
rocket attacks and tunnel incursions. They can argue that ceasefire resolutions
should not restrict Israel’s right to defend its citizens against aggression.
4. Promoting Comprehensive Solutions
Rather than
focusing solely on ceasefires, advocates can push for resolutions that address
the root causes of the conflict, including Hamas’ militarization, the blockade
on Gaza, and the broader Israeli-Palestinian impasse.
5. Engaging in Public Diplomacy
Public
campaigns and outreach efforts can help explain the rationale behind U.S.
vetoes to both domestic and international audiences. Emphasizing America’s
commitment to peace, security, and fairness can counter criticism of its
actions at the UN.
Conclusion
The U.S.
veto of ceasefire resolutions in Gaza reflects its steadfast support for Israel
and its broader strategic interests in the Middle East. While these actions are
rooted in strong bilateral ties and a commitment to Israel’s security, they
also draw criticism for prolonging violence and undermining multilateral
efforts to address the conflict.
To balance
its support for Israel with broader international expectations, the U.S. must
work to address the humanitarian impact of the Gaza conflict, advocate for
comprehensive solutions, and promote dialogue between Israelis and
Palestinians. By doing so, Washington can maintain its alliance with Israel
while contributing to long-term peace and stability in the region.
