The US vetoes a ceasefire resolution in Gaza at the UN for the third time

The US ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, vetoes the draft resolution for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, this Tuesday in New York. EDUARDO MUNOZ (EFE)

The US veto of a proposed resolution for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza has once again blocked any attempt by the UN Security Council to remedy the catastrophe in the Strip, with almost 30,000 dead and the population at risk. brink of famine.

Presented by Algeria after weeks of arduous negotiations and supported this Tuesday by 13 of the 15 members of the Council, the proposal has been met with the third consecutive veto by the United States since the war began, on October 7.

The United Kingdom has abstained.

Washington's rejection thus clears up its last-minute maneuver, a counterproposal for a temporary ceasefire resolution subject to many conditions, with which Washington intends to save face in the face of a new veto that confirms its isolation not only in the UN, but in the international community.

In the last few hours, Washington has counterscheduled the weeks of negotiation around the Algerian proposal with an alternative of temporary cessation of hostilities that, despite being formulated for the first time as a ceasefire - that is the only novelty -, does so with so many nuances so as not to anger Israel, opposed to interrupting its offensive on Gaza, which for diplomatic sources represents little more than a disguised toast to the sun.

The US draft, under negotiation, “supports a temporary ceasefire in Gaza as soon as feasible, based on the formula of the release of all hostages and [on] the lifting of all barriers to the provision of aid large-scale humanitarian

It is true that the concept of “ceasefire” appears for the first time in a US text presented to the Security Council, but the material conditions for its application seem far from being substantiated.

According to the US delegation to the UN, the draft includes the term used by President Joe Biden last week in a telephone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The US draft also rejects a ground offensive on Rafah, a territory in southern Gaza that concentrates more than a million Palestinians, as Biden did last week, given that "under the current circumstances a major ground offensive would cause more harm to civilians and further displacement, potentially including to neighboring countries, which would have serious consequences for regional peace and security.”

The proposal emphasizes that due to its magnitude, said ground offensive should not be carried out "under the current circumstances", when tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians from the north of the Strip are crowding into that town, bordering Egypt.

The American position is quite similar to the scenario prior to this proposal: the United States continues to oppose, like Israel, any attempt at a formal ceasefire because, the two allies argue, that would give Hamas time to rebuild after four months of war.

It is the fourth time in total that the United States has prevented the Council from calling for a ceasefire, because it also vetoed an amendment presented on December 22 by Russia for that purpose (in total, it has exercised three vetoes on two draft resolutions and another on an amendment, which was rejected thanks to his veto).

On December 22, the Council approved a resolution on aid to Gaza weakened by pressure from the United States. The permanent threat of Washington's veto then reduced the initial demands for a cessation of hostilities to “measures necessary to allow humanitarian aid.”

That same month, and faced with the Council's blockade due to the US veto, the General Assembly approved by a large majority a ceasefire resolution, unlike those of the Council, which were non-binding.

Washington's counterproposal for a ceasefire or, more clearly, a temporary cessation of hostilities was greeted with fanfare by the main American media, although they immediately toned down the tone of the information by adding that the offer is conditioned by a host of imperatives on the ground. , derived from Israel's determination to fight Hamas until its last breath and from the four-way diplomatic negotiations with Egypt and Qatar.

Proof of Washington's more than relative willingness to support the ceasefire in Gaza are the pressures that it exerted on the rest of the members of the Security Council, the highest executive body of the UN, in the hours prior to this Tuesday's vote. the one in charge of ensuring world peace and security.

The US representation at the UN asked Council members to abstain from voting on Algeria's proposal when it became aware of the broad endorsement of the text by the ten non-permanent members, the group known as E10, to whom At the time of the vote, France, Russia and China, three of the five permanent ones, joined.

Under Council rules, at least nine positive votes are needed to force a veto.

Washington's argument is that Algeria's draft resolution gives Hamas an alternative to the deal Washington is negotiating with the help of Qatar and Egypt.

The US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said Saturday that her country would veto the draft resolution for fear that it could jeopardize talks between the United States, Egypt, Israel and Qatar, which aim to negotiate a pause in the war and the release of the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.

“Any action the Council takes at this time must help, not hinder, these delicate ongoing negotiations.

And we believe that the resolution we have on the table [the one presented by Algeria] would negatively affect those negotiations,” Thomas-Greenfield told the Council this Tuesday before the vote.

“Demanding an immediate and unconditional ceasefire without an agreement that forces Hamas to release the hostages will not lead to lasting peace.

On the contrary, it could prolong the clashes between Hamas and Israel,” the diplomat added.

Several diplomats sitting on the Security Council say privately that the devastating humanitarian and human rights situation in Gaza is affecting them emotionally as they watch Israel pre-announce its offensives - such as the one in Rafah - and then carry them out while the body in charge to maintain international peace and security is prevented from acting and aligning with world opinion, represented by the majority of the UN.

“A vote in favor of this draft resolution represents support for the Palestinians' right to life.

On the contrary, voting against means supporting the brutal violence and collective punishment inflicted on them,” Algeria's ambassador to the UN, Amar Bendjama, told the Council before the vote.

The United States already warned last week that it would veto the Algerian text, supported by the entire global south, so, in order not to be exposed again to the international community with the image of Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield raising her arm in sign of veto, has put forward its own proposal, still in the early stages of development and which in principle is not expected to be put to the vote this Tuesday, since, according to Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, haste is counterproductive in such a negotiation.

Follow all the international information on

Facebook

and

X

, or in

our weekly newsletter

.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_