US blocks Gaza ceasefire resolution at UN Security Council
The United States vetoed Wednesday a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire and unrestricted humanitarian access in Gaza, which Washington claimed undermined ongoing diplomacy to resolve the conflict.
It was the 15-member body's first vote on the situation since November, when the United States -- a key Israeli ally -- also blocked a text calling for an end to fighting.
"This resolution would undermine diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire that reflects the realities on the ground and emboldens Hamas," Washington's United Nations envoy Dorothy Shea said ahead of the vote.
"This resolution also draws false equivalence between Israel and Hamas," she said.
The draft resolution had demanded "an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza respected by all parties."
It also called for the "immediate, dignified and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups."
Underlining a "catastrophic humanitarian situation" in the Palestinian territory, the resolution, had it passed, would have demanded the lifting of all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
The veto was the first wielded by Washington since US President Donald Trump took office in January.
Israel has faced growing international pressure to end its war in Gaza, which was triggered by the unprecedented October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas on Israeli soil.
That scrutiny has increased over flailing aid distribution in Gaza, which Israel blocked for more than two months before allowing a small number of UN vehicles to enter in mid-May.
The United Nations said that was not enough to meet the humanitarian needs.
- 'Judged by history' -
A US-backed relief effort called the Gaza Humanitarian Fund (GHF) has also faced criticism for going against long-standing humanitarian principles by coordinating relief efforts with a military belligerent.
Israeli bombardment on Wednesday killed at least 16 people in the Gaza Strip, including 12 in a single strike on a tent housing displaced people, the Palestinian territory's civil defense agency told AFP.
On Tuesday, 27 people were killed in southern Gaza when Israeli troops opened fire near a GHF aid site, with the military saying the incident was under investigation.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the UN, on Tuesday urged the Council to act.
"All of us will be judged by history as to how much have we done in order to stop this crime against the Palestinian people," he said.
Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Danon attacked the text ahead of the vote.
"This resolution doesn't advance humanitarian relief. It undermines it. It ignores a working system in favor of political agendas," he was to tell the council, according to remarks released by his office.
"It ignores the one party still endangering civilians in Gaza: Hamas."
abd-gw/nl
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Another UN failure — US had to veto a lopsided resolution that would not bring peace to Gaza
We wish that Elise Stefanik was sitting at the large C-shaped table in the UN Security Council chamber over on the East Side on Wednesday, where she would have ripped apart the fecklessness of the diplomats (from both friend and foe) who lined up to do the bidding of Hamas in support of a lopsided resolution that had to be vetoed by the United States. But due to D.C. politics and the narrowness of the Republican control of the House, Stefanik remains a congresswoman from upstate and is not the U.S. ambassador and the veto task fell to Chargé d'Affaires Dorothy Shea, a career Senior Foreign Service officer. Shea cast her veto, making for a 14-1 tally and correctly killing the resolution, which called for a ceasefire in Gaza without blaming Hamas, who started the fighting by launching the Oct. 7 onslaught against Israel and can stop the fighting by freeing the hostages, giving up, disarming and leaving Gaza. The way to peace is simple: get Hamas out and get aid in. They are stealing the supplies being shipped to the needy Palestinians in the territory. Hamas started this horrible situation by launching the Oct. 7 surprise attack on Israel, the deadliest day for Jews since Hitler's genocidal 1,000-year Reich was destroyed by the heroic soldiers and airmen of the Red Army and the Western Allies. Hamas has been defeated by Israel. Hamas has lost the war, but they are not willing to surrender and they are prolonging the agony for the innocent Palestinians by using them as human shields. The U.S., Egypt and Qatar have been conducting peace talks for months. Israel keeps saying yes, while Hamas keeps saying no, as recently as this past weekend. The U.S. policy has been consistent since Oct. 7: Hamas is the cause of the bloodshed and the suffering and any UN resolution must assign them the blame. The Biden administration vetoed prior Security Council resolutions that failed to condemn Hamas and now the Trump administration is continuing to do so. The Security Council cannot be allowed to deliver Hamas a propaganda victory, while in the real world, the terrorists refuse to accept a way out that the negotiators are offering. There was some hope for a breakthrough when Israel killed Hamas honcho Mohammed Sinwar last week, the younger brother of Yahya Sinwar, the fiend who masterminded Oct. 7 and who was killed last October. But this UN vote, which the Hamas champions will heap blame on Washington for, will only make a getting deal take that much longer and that means more suffering for the people of Gaza who have suffered under years of cruel Hamas dictatorship and now a war started by Hamas. But that's to be expected from the UN, which still hasn't labeled Hamas as a terror organization. As for what's happening in Gaza while the UN dickers, Hamas terrorists hide in their tunnels and ordinary Palestinians pay for their intransigence. There are still 58 Israeli hostages being held by Hamas, now for 608 days. The way forward is clear for Hamas: lay down your weapons, release the hostages and leave Gaza behind to be rebuilt. The Hamas legacy of death and suffering has to end. The UN is only postponing that day. _____
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nebraska needs a nuclear energy strategy
Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownville, Nebraska. (Courtesy of NPPD) In February 2021, thousands of Nebraskans found themselves in the dark of rolling blackouts. A brutal polar vortex froze wind turbines, strained natural gas supplies and exposed serious weaknesses in our energy grid. However, even as multiple power sources failed, one remained steadfast — nuclear energy. That moment was a wake-up call. We can no longer afford to treat energy policy as a matter of convenience or short-term cost. To avoid future blackouts and maintain affordable, resilient, firm and reliable power, Nebraska needs nuclear energy. Wind and solar are intermittent. Natural gas is a vital bridge fuel, but it is vulnerable to supply shocks in extreme weather. This is about building a reliable and resilient energy source that can deliver for Nebraska families, farmers and businesses when it counts. Nuclear energy, which currently generates 17% of Nebraska's power, brings unique strengths. It provides carbon-free baseload power that runs around the clock regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. During the 2021 deep freeze, Nebraska's lone nuclear plant kept running at full strength while other sources faltered. The United Nations 2021 report, 'Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options,' shows that nuclear has the lowest overall impacts on human health and the environment by any measure and from any perspective. The cost of new nuclear energy is within a penny per kilowatt-hour of other forms of new energy sources, including natural gas, wind and solar. Is that one cent too much to have a resilient, reliable power source for Nebraska? We've seen what happens when nuclear gets overlooked. Omaha Public Power District's Fort Calhoun plant and Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper Nuclear Station accounted for about a quarter of Nebraska's net generation capabilities before Fort Calhoun was shut down in 2016. The shut down was nearly two decades ahead of schedule, a casualty of market conditions that failed to account for long-term reliability and energy needs. Hundreds of skilled jobs were lost. Our energy safety net shrank. And just a few years later, that decision looked shortsighted as the grid buckled under pressure. To avoid repeating that mistake, policymakers should ensure that energy markets properly value reliability and resilience. As 26 House Republicans made clear in a late April letter to congressional leadership, protecting the federal nuclear production tax credit (PTC) is one way to do so. It has proven a huge help in incentivizing the development of nuclear power at a time when NPPD is exploring options. For Nebraska, the credit helps create and protect hundreds of high-paying, skilled jobs, generating local tax revenue and sustaining a stable source of affordable power. Another step Congress could take is expanding investment incentives for next-generation technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs). These compact, scalable reactors can serve Nebraska's rural areas and industrial parks where large traditional plants aren't practical, offering flexibility and grid stability. Policies like the Advanced Nuclear Production Credit and bipartisan permitting reform proposals can help accelerate local deployment. U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., has advocated for nuclear's role in America's energy future on the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee, where it helps Nebraska to have a voice in ensuring that our state's long-term energy interests remain protected. Nebraska's energy future isn't just about keeping the lights on. It's about protecting lives during extreme weather, powering our farms and factories and anchoring high-skilled jobs in our communities. If we want to avoid another round of blackouts, we should encourage policies that keep every reliable tool in the toolbox — including nuclear. Bruce Bostelman, a farmer and veteran from Brainard, served in the Nebraska Legislature from 2017 to 2025, including serving as chair of the Natural Resources Committee. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education
I've been a faculty member at the University of Chicago for 27 years; for 12 of them, I was married to the university's late president, Robert J. Zimmer. Bob was well known for his endorsement of the 'Chicago Principles' addressing academic free speech, which were formulated by a faculty committee he appointed in 2014. Now, in 2025, at a time when opposing ideological forces threaten to rip higher education apart altogether, it's clearer than ever we need to observe these principles if we are to maintain our universities as places for inquiry and learning rather than the nurturing of ideologies. First of all, let's be clear. Academic free speech and public free speech are not the same, and the Chicago Principles refer to the former, repeating a view of speech on campus with roots deep in the university's history. 'There is not an institution of learning in the country in which freedom of teaching is more absolutely untrammeled than in the University of Chicago,' remarked university President William Rainey Harper in 1902. Thirty years later, at a time of tension over a communist speaker on campus, President Robert M. Hutchins wrote that students 'should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.' Today, when being either for or against the position of our national government comes with undue risk and when free speech seems to many to be an insoluble problem, these principles — what they allow and what they do not — offer us simple guidelines as the American university faces two crises, both political in nature. The first crisis is one of free speech — and free thought — under attack. Faculty across the country face constraints on the ability to express a liberal opinion on any controversial matter, especially if related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or other 'woke' topics. One of my friends from another university worries that despite her U.S. passport (she's originally Japanese) the ICE men will kidnap her off the street because her work is in gender, disability and health. She doesn't expect her administration to step in if she's detained — too many college administrations are primarily worried about losing additional government funding. My friend is not being paranoid, and that's pretty terrifying in a country known for tolerance and freedom. Professors and students have been shut down or removed (or have fled the U.S.) for their views. Just think of Rümeysa Öztürk, whose great crime appears to have been co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed for her school newspaper while on a valid F-1 visa. Never mind the Chicago Principles, ICE's overreach in her case violates the First Amendment: The government shall not interfere with freedom of expression. Öztürk was not disruptive or violent. She simply published a point of view. Are we willing to let go of this democratic cornerstone that enables public discourse and government accountability? Don't we want to push back even a little? The second crisis is arguably one of pushing free speech too far. Some students and faculty on campuses around the country seem to be confusing vandalism and disruption with the function of learning. Is using a bullhorn an example of academic free speech? If you thereby chill the main function of a university, offering an education, by disrupting classes and students, the Chicago Principles would say it's not. Nor is taking over a campus quad, vandalizing university property, throwing paint or harassing people you disagree with. Free speech on campus is enabled by certain limits of time, place and manner that keep it manageable for all. The university 'may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment … or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.' Without such limits a university will have difficulty following its calling. If the future of the university itself is now at stake, as so many seem to agree, it would be a good time to reinstate our commitment to these principles. University presidents need not have to decide whether or not to call in the police if tent cities spring up on campus and administrative buildings are taken over. It should never get to that stage in the first place. ____ Shadi Bartsch is a professor in humanities at the University of Chicago and former director of the Institute on the Formation of Knowledge. _____
