The American veto on a resolution of the United Nations Security Council concerning the situation in Gaza has revived already sharpened tensions on the international scene. This veto, which was expressed while 14 of the 15 members of the Council supported an immediate and unconditional cease-fire, raises essential questions about the dynamics of power within the framework of peace negotiations, the responsibilities of states in the face of humanitarian crises, and the impact of these decisions on affected populations.
The text of the resolution, which was adopted by the majority of members, highlighted the seriousness of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, describing the situation as “catastrophic”. Indeed, according to estimates, around 2.1 million Palestinians are in a situation of extreme precariousness, with access to health care, drinking water and considerably reduced food. The voice of the Slovene ambassador, who stressed that “Starving Civilians and Inflicting immense Suffering is inhumane and Against International Law”, resonates with the concerns of a large number of humanitarian experts and human rights defenders.
The Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea, while justifying veto, said that the resolution did not take into account realities on the ground, in particular the question of hostages taken by Hamas during the attack on October 7, 2023. The United States, which has always affirmed its support for Israel, see the link between the release of hostages and a cease ally. This point of view raises questions about how allied countries can reconcile their positions on national security with humanitarian imperatives which affect millions of innocent civilians.
Critics of the American veto, emanating from the international community, illustrate frustrations in the face of what is perceived as excessive protection of Israel. The Chinese ambassador deplored that violations of international law by Israel have not been treated. The British representative has described certain Israeli actions as “unjustifiable and disproportionate”, words that reflect an increasing call within the international community for collective and balanced action in the face of this long -term conflict.
The American veto also raises wider concerns concerning the effectiveness and legitimacy of the UN Security Council. Voices, like that of the Pakistan ambassador, have expressed that this veto could be perceived as a complicity in Israeli actions, stressing the need for the Council to make unbian decisions, particularly in situations where human lives are so in danger.
In a context where diplomatic ways seem to be blocked, the role of the international community could take the form of various initiatives, both diplomatic and humanitarian. Resolutions at the General Assembly, although non -binding, could offer an alternative platform to assert the majority of international concerns and to encourage a broader discussion on the need for lasting peace.
While the situation in Gaza remains complex, it is crucial to explore solutions that promote security while satisfying humanitarian needs. In this context, the establishment of humanitarian corridors, the development of de -escalation agreements, and support for humanitarian organizations could be envisaged. By reflecting on these elements, we could get closer to a framework which could possibly allow to reconcile the security imperatives with the fundamental rights of the affected populations.
In a world marked by geopolitical fractures, it seems more than ever necessary to establish an honest, open and productive dialogue, allowing to understand the concerns of each party while looking for a solution that does not forget the civilians taken in the whirlwind of historical conflicts. The challenge is indeed to build bridges, instead of accentuating the walls, and promoting constructive exchanges which guide positive and durable results.