Why did the US block a resolution demanding an end to Israel's war on Gaza?
The United States has blocked another United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
It's the fifth time Washington has used its veto power since Israel's war began in October 2023.
The US says it will continue to support its close ally while Israel says it will continue the war in Gaza until Hamas is defeated.
So do the veto powers of the permanent Security Council members undermine the body itself?
Even when resolutions are passed, does the UN have the capability to enact them?
Presenter:
Mohammed Jamjoom
Guests:
Stephen Zunes – professor of politics at the University of San Francisco
Luigi Daniele – associate professor of international law at Molise University in Italy
Firas El Echi – journalist and host of the Here's Why podcast
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
LIVE: Israel kills 5 Gaza aid seekers in latest distribution point violence
Israeli forces have killed at least five Palestinians this morning who were waiting near an aid point in al-Akhawah, near Rafah in south latest killing of aid seekers comes despite the inconsistent opening of US- and Israel-backed aid points, which the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation said yesterday would shut down war on Gaza has killed at least 54,677 Palestinians and wounded 125,530, according to Gaza's Health estimated 1,139 people were killed in Israel during the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, and more than 200 were taken captive. Update: Date: 2m ago (06:03 GMT) Title: A recap of recent developments Content: Update: Date: 5m ago (06:00 GMT) Title: Welcome to our live coverage Content: Thank you for joining our live coverage of Israel's war on Gaza, as well as its attacks on the occupied West Bank and the wider region. Follow this page for continuous updates and analyses of the latest developments. You can read about key events from Friday, June 6, here.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Israel warns of more strikes on Lebanon if Hezbollah not disarmed
The Israeli military will continue to bomb Lebanon if Hezbollah is not disarmed, Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz has warned, saying 'there will be no calm in Beirut' and 'no order or stability in Lebanon' unless Israel's security is assured. 'Agreements must be honoured, and if you do not do what is required, we will continue to act, and with great force,' the Israeli minister said in a Friday statement. Israel's military launched a series of strikes targeting Beirut's southern suburbs on Thursday night, sending huge numbers of residents fleeing their homes on the eve of the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday after issuing a forced evacuation order an hour earlier. Israel claimed, without providing evidence, that its latest attack was launched against Hezbollah 'drone factories' in the Lebanese capital. The Israeli military said Hezbollah was 'operating to increase production of UAVs [drones] for the next war' with Israel in 'blatant violation' of the terms of November's ceasefire. Lebanon's state-run National News Agency reported that Israeli fighter jets had carried out about a dozen strikes in the attack. A Hezbollah statement said a preliminary assessment showed nine buildings had been destroyed, while dozens of others were damaged. Hezbollah also denied there were drone production facilities in the targeted locations. The Israeli attack was the fourth, and heaviest, carried out targeting Beirut's southern suburbs – a Hezbollah stronghold – since the ceasefire ended hostilities on November 27. Israel's last attack on the Lebanese capital, in which it claimed to destroy 'infrastructure where precision missiles' were being stored by Hezbollah, came in late April. Across Lebanon, Israel has violated the ceasefire on a near-daily basis in the seven months since it was signed, according to the Lebanese government of President Joseph Aoun, Arab nations and human rights groups. Aoun has appealed to the United States and France, guarantors of the November ceasefire, to rein in Israel's attacks. Speaking late on Thursday, Aoun voiced 'firm condemnation of the Israeli aggression', labelling the attacks a 'flagrant violation of an international accord … on the eve of a sacred religious festival'. On Friday, Ali Ammar, a Hezbollah lawmaker, urged 'all Lebanese political forces … to translate their statements of condemnation into concrete action', including diplomatic pressure. In the months since the ceasefire, Israeli strikes in Lebanon have killed at least 190 people and wounded nearly 500 more, the Lebanese government said in April. Under the ceasefire agreement, the Lebanese military has been tasked with disarming Hezbollah – a political party and paramilitary group once believed to be more heavily armed than the state. But following Thursday's attack, Lebanon's army warned that such attacks are weakening its role in the ceasefire. It added that Israel rejected its proposal to inspect the alleged drone production sites in southern Beirut in order to prevent an air strike. 'The Israeli enemy violations of the deal and its refusal to respond to the committee is weakening the role of the committee and the army,' the military said in a statement. It added that continued Israeli attacks could lead the army to freeze its cooperation with the monitoring committee 'when it comes to searching posts' and dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure near the Israeli border in southern Lebanon. The war between Israel and Hezbollah re-erupted in the wake of Israel's war on Gaza in October 2023, as the Lebanese group launched cross-border attacks on northern Israel in solidarity with Hamas. Subsequent Israeli attacks on Lebanon killed more than 4,000 people, including hundreds of civilians, before the ceasefire was signed. Hezbollah rocket fire in Israel killed a reported 87 Israeli military personnel and 46 civilians.
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data
The United States Supreme Court has sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in two cases about government records — and who should have access to them. On Friday, the six-member conservative majority overturned a lower court's ruling that limited the kinds of data that Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could access through the Social Security Administration (SSA). In a separate case, the majority also decided that DOGE was not required to turn over records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a government transparency law. In both cases, the Supreme Court's three left-leaning justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan — opposed the majority's decision. DOGE has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign to reimagine the federal government and cut down on bureaucratic 'bloat'. Unveiled on November 13, just eight days after Trump's re-election, DOGE was designed to 'dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies'. At first, it was unclear how DOGE would interact with the executive branch: whether it would be an advisory panel, a new department or a nongovernmental entity. But on January 20, when Trump was sworn in for his second term, he announced that the existing US Digital Service — a technology initiative founded by former President Barack Obama — would be reorganised to create DOGE. The government efficiency panel has since led a wide-scale overhaul of the federal government, implementing mass layoffs and seeking to shutter entities like the US Agency for International Development (USAID). It also advertised cost-savings it had achieved or alleged fraud it had uncovered, though many of those claims have been contradicted or questioned by journalists and experts. In addition, DOGE's sweeping changes to the federal government made it the subject of criticism and concern, particularly as it sought greater access to sensitive data and systems. Up until last week, DOGE was led by Elon Musk, a billionaire and tech entrepreneur who had been a prominent backer of Trump's re-election bid. Musk and Trump, however, have had a public rupture following the end of the billionaire's tenure as a 'special government employee' in the White House. That falling-out has left DOGE's future uncertain. One of DOGE's controversial initiatives has been its push to access Social Security data, in the name of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Early in Trump's second term, both the president and Musk repeated misleading claims that Social Security payments were being made to millions of people listed as 150 years old or older. But fact-checkers quickly refuted that allegation. Instead, they pointed out that the Social Security Administration has implemented a code to automatically stop payments to anyone listed as alive and more than 115 years old. They also pointed out that the COBOL programming language flags incomplete entries in the Social Security system with birthdates set back 150 years, possibly prompting the Trump administration's confusion. Less than 1 percent of Social Security payments are made erroneously, according to a 2024 inspector general report. Still, Trump officials criticised the Social Security Administration, with Musk dubbing it 'the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time' and calling for its elimination. In March, US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked DOGE from having unfettered access to Social Security data, citing the sensitive nature of such information. Social Security numbers, for instance, are key to verifying a person's identity in the US, and the release of such numbers could endanger individual privacy. Lipton Hollander ruled that DOGE had 'never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA's entire record systems'. She questioned why DOGE had not sought a 'more tailored' approach. 'Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud,' she wrote in her ruling. 'Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.' The judge's ruling, however, did allow DOGE to view anonymised data, without personally identifying information. The Trump administration, nevertheless, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that Judge Lipton Hollander had exceeded her authority in blocking DOGE's access. The Supreme Court granted its emergency petition on Friday, lifting Lipton Hollander's temporary restrictions on the data in an unsigned decision. But Justice Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent (PDF), suggesting that the Supreme Court was willing to break norms to assist a presidency that was unwilling to let legal challenges play out in lower courts. 'Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them,' Brown Jackson wrote. She argued that the Trump administration had not established that any 'irreparable harm' would occur if DOGE were temporarily blocked from accessing Social Security data. But by granting the Trump administration's emergency petition, she said the court was 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process'. The second Supreme Court decision on Friday concerned whether DOGE itself had to surrender documents under federal transparency laws. The question was raised as part of a lawsuit brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group. It argued that DOGE's sweeping powers suggested it should be subject to laws like FOIA, just like any other executive agency. But CREW also alleged that the ambiguity surrounding DOGE's structures had kept it insulated from outside probes. 'While publicly available information indicates that DOGE is subject to FOIA, the lack of clarity on DOGE's authority leaves that an open question,' CREW said in a statement. The watchdog group sought to compel DOGE to provide information about its inner workings. While a US district judge had sided with CREW's request for records in April, the Supreme Court on Friday paused that lower court's decision (PDF). It sent the case back to a court of appeals for further consideration, with instructions that the April order be narrowed. 'Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade,' the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled. It also said that the courts needed to exercise 'deference and restraint' regarding 'internal' executive communications.
