The unconditional support of the US for its Ally

On Wednesday, the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution, drafted by ten nonpermanent council members, sought an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” while separately demanding the release of hostages.

Robert Wood, the US Deputy Ambassador to the UN, explained Washington’s position, stating that a ceasefire must be tied to the immediate release of hostages held by Hamas. “A durable end to the war must come with the release of the hostages,” Wood said. “These two urgent goals are inextricably linked.”

The United States argued that the resolution, as written, would have sent a “dangerous message” to Hamas, suggesting there was no urgency to return to negotiations. President Joe Biden’s administration has provided consistent diplomatic and military support to Israel throughout the conflict, while also attempting to negotiate a deal to secure the release of hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. Despite these efforts, Washington has repeatedly vetoed or blocked earlier UN resolutions that aimed to halt hostilities, citing similar concerns.

This latest veto is part of a broader pattern. In March, the US abstained from a vote allowing a resolution demanding a ceasefire to pass, marking a rare exception to its stance. According to US officials, Britain introduced compromise language to address concerns, which the US would have supported. However, this language was reportedly rejected by some elected council members, who were allegedly influenced by Russia and China. A senior US official accused certain members of prioritizing a US veto over achieving a consensus.

The veto underscores deep divisions within the Security Council on how to address the Gaza conflict. While the US emphasized hostages as central to any resolution, critics argue that its stance prioritizes political considerations over the immediate humanitarian need for a ceasefire.

This move, coupled with the continued provision of arms to Israel, highlights the Biden administration’s delicate balancing act between backing its ally and responding to calls for de-escalation from the international community.

The debate leaves a pressing question: how can the international community align its demands for peace with the realities on the ground, including the plight of hostages?