The United States on Friday used its veto power in the United Nations Security Council to block the passage of a resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire that would require Israel to halt its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The US opposed the draft resolution because the text was “divorced from reality”, according to US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield.
The US decision to veto the resolution was met with criticism from various countries, including the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, and Egypt. The resolution was proposed by Tunisia and Norway, and was backed by the majority of the council, including the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia.
The US’s veto of the resolution was seen as a sign of support for Israel, which has been engaged in a brutal war against Hamas since May 10. The conflict has seen hundreds of Palestinians killed and more than 10,000 injured, and has led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands more.
The US’s veto was seen by some as a violation of the UN Charter, which states that “the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations” and that “the members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
The US’s decision to veto the resolution was also seen as a repudiation of the international community’s efforts to bring an end to the conflict and provide humanitarian aid to civilians in the Gaza Strip. The US argued that the resolution did not address the root causes of the conflict and did not provide any incentives for Hamas to halt its attacks against Israel.
The US’s decision was also viewed as a sign of support for Israel, as the US has consistently refused to call for an immediate cease-fire or to condemn Israel’s actions in the conflict. The US has argued that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas’s attacks.
The US’s veto of the resolution was seen by many as a sign of its continuing commitment to Israel, and to its policy of not taking sides in the conflict. The US has consistently argued that the conflict must be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, and not through military action.
The US’s decision to veto the resolution was also seen as a sign of its commitment to the principle of self-defense and to its policy of not taking sides in the conflict. The US has consistently argued that the conflict must be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, and not through military action.
The US’s veto of the resolution was also seen by many as a sign of its commitment to the principle of self-determination and to its policy of not taking sides in the conflict. The US has consistently argued that the conflict must be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, and not through military action.
The US’s decision to veto the resolution was seen by many as a sign of its continuing commitment to Israel, and to its policy of not taking sides in the conflict. The US has consistently argued that the conflict must be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, and not through military action.
The US’s veto of the resolution was also seen by many as a sign of solidarity with the people of Israel, and with the Jewish state’s right to defend itself against Hamas’s attacks. The US has consistently argued that the conflict must be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, and not through military action.
The US’s decision to veto the resolution was seen by many as a sign of its commitment to the goal of peace in the region, and to its policy of not taking sides in the conflict. The US has consistently argued that the conflict must be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, and not through military action.
The US’s veto of the resolution was also seen by many as a sign of its commitment to upholding international law, and to its policy of not taking sides in the conflict. The US has consistently argued that the conflict must be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, and not through military action.
The US’s decision to veto the resolution was seen by many as a sign of its commitment to the rule of law and to its policy of not taking sides in the conflict. The US has consistently argued that the conflict must be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, and not through military action.
The US’s veto of the resolution was seen by many as a sign of
