US Vetoes UN Security Council Call For Gaza Ceasefire
United Nations:
The United States on Wednesday vetoed a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that demanded an "immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire" between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza and unhindered aid access across the war-torn enclave.
The other 14 countries on the council voted in favor of the draft as a humanitarian crisis grips the enclave of more than 2 million people, where famine looms and aid has only trickled in since Israel lifted an 11-week blockade last month.
"The United States has been clear: We would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza," Acting U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Dorothy Shea told the council before the vote, arguing that it would also undermine U.S.-led efforts to broker a ceasefire.
Washington is Israel's biggest ally and arms supplier.
The Security Council vote came as Israel pushes ahead with an offensive in Gaza after ending a two-month truce in March. Gaza health authorities said Israeli strikes killed 45 people on Wednesday, while Israel said a soldier died in fighting.
Britain's U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward criticized the Israeli government's decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict humanitarian aid as "unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive."
Israel has rejected calls for an unconditional or permanent ceasefire, saying Hamas cannot stay in Gaza. Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon told the council members who voted in favor of the draft: "You chose appeasement and submission. You chose a road that does not lead to peace. Only to more terror."
Hamas condemned the U.S. veto, describing it as showing "the U.S. administration's blind bias" towards Israel. The draft Security Council resolution had also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and others.
RIVAL AID OPERATIONS
The war in Gaza has raged since 2023 after Hamas militants killed 1,200 people in Israel in an October 7 attack and took some 250 hostages back to the enclave, according to Israeli tallies. Many of those killed or captured were civilians.
Israel responded with a military campaign that has killed over 54,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities. They say civilians have borne the brunt of the attacks and that thousands more bodies have been lost under rubble.
Under global pressure, Israel allowed limited U.N.-led deliveries to resume on May 19. A week later a controversial new aid distribution system was launched by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, backed by the U.S. and Israel.
Israel has long accused Hamas of stealing aid, which the group denies. Israel and the U.S. are urging the U.N. to work through the GHF, which is using private U.S. security and logistics companies to transport aid into Gaza for distribution at so-called secure distribution sites.
"No one wants to see Palestinian civilians in Gaza go hungry or thirsty," Shea told the Security Council, adding that the draft resolution did not "acknowledge the disastrous shortcomings of the prior method of aid delivery."
The U.N. and international aid groups have refused to work with the GHF because they say it is not neutral, militarizes aid and forces the displacement of Palestinians.
No aid was distributed by the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation on Wednesday as it pressed the Israeli military to boost civilian safety beyond the perimeter of its so-called secure distribution sites after a deadly incident on Tuesday.
The GHF said it has asked the Israeli military to "guide foot traffic in a way that minimizes confusion or escalation risks" near military positions, provide clearer civilian guidance and enhance training of soldiers on civilian safety.
'DELAYS AND DENIALS'
The GHF posted on Facebook that "ongoing maintenance work" would delay the opening of its distribution sites on Thursday. It said on Tuesday that it has so far distributed more than seven million meals since it started operations.
Despite U.S. and Israeli criticism of the U.N.-led Gaza aid operation, a U.S. ceasefire plan proposes the delivery of aid by the United Nations, the Red Crescent and other agreed channels. Israel has agreed to the ceasefire plan but Hamas is seeking changes that the U.S. has rejected as "totally unacceptable."
Ahead of the U.N. Security Council vote, U.N. aid chief Tom Fletcher again appealed for the U.N. and aid groups to be allowed to assist people in Gaza, stressing that they have a plan, supplies and experience.
"Open the crossings – all of them. Let in lifesaving aid at scale, from all directions. Lift the restrictions on what and how much aid we can bring in. Ensure our convoys aren't held up by delays and denials," Fletcher said in a statement.
The U.N. has long-blamed Israel and lawlessness in the enclave for hindering the delivery of aid into Gaza and its distribution throughout the war zone.
"Enough of suffering of civilians. Enough of food being used as a weapon. Enough is enough is enough," Slovenia's U.N. Ambassador Samuel Zbogar told the Security Council.
A similar humanitarian-focused draft resolution is now expected to be put to a vote in the 193-member U.N. General Assembly, where no countries have a veto power and it would likely pass, diplomats said.
Danon warned: "Don't waste more of your time, because no resolution, no vote, no moral failure, will stand in our way."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
26 minutes ago
- News18
Netanyahu Confirms Israel Arming Groups Opposed To Hamas In Gaza: 'What's Bad About That'
Last Updated: Israel- Hamas War: Benjamin Netanyahu defended the decision, saying, 'What's wrong with this? It saves the lives of Israeli soldiers." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that Tel Aviv is arming factions in Gaza that oppose Hamas, prompting fierce criticism and warnings from former officials as well as defence analysts. It was earlier reported that Benjamin Netanyahu personally approved the transfer of weapons to a Gaza-based group led by Yasser Abu Shabab, a controversial figure linked to a local clan in Rafah. In a video posted on social media, Benjamin Netanyahu defended the decision, saying, 'What's wrong with this? It saves the lives of Israeli soldiers. Publicising it only helps Hamas." Defence Officials Confirm Weapons Transfers Reports claimed, citing Israeli defence sources, that the weapons- primarily Kalashnikov rifles, including some seized from Hamas- were provided to the Abu Shabab group with Benjamin Netanyahu's authorisation to the clan which operates in the Rafah area, currently under Israeli military control. Earlier, Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party and former defence minister, accused Benjamin Netanyahu of bypassing cabinet approval to arm a group of 'criminals and felons, identified with the Islamic State group". He said, 'To my knowledge, this did not go through cabinet," adding that the move endangers Israeli national security. Clan Backed By Benjamin Netanyahu Accused of Looting Aid, Ties Denied The armed group, which calls itself the Popular Forces, claims its purpose is to protect humanitarian aid convoys in Gaza. However, reports suggest the faction has instead been looting those convoys. The European Council on Foreign Relations previously labelled Abu Shabab's group a 'criminal gang." Hamas has condemned the group, accusing its members of 'theft and betrayal". Meanwhile, Abu Shabab, in a statement posted online, denied receiving Israeli support, saying, 'Our weapons are simple, outdated, and came through the support of our own people." Benjamin Netanyahu 'Restless'? Former deputy IDF chief and opposition politician Yair Golan, who leads the Democrats party, called the move 'reckless." In a post on X, he wrote, 'Netanyahu is a threat to Israel's national security. Instead of securing a deal to bring home the hostages and ensuring the safety of Israeli citizens, he's creating a new ticking time bomb in Gaza." About the Author First Published:
NDTV
27 minutes ago
- NDTV
Impossible To Ignore China In Confrontation With Pak: Shashi Tharoor
Washington: China is an 'absolutely impossible factor to ignore' in India's latest confrontation with Pakistan, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor has said, emphasising that a thaw in relations between Delhi and Beijing over the past few months was 'seemingly making good progress' before the conflict. Mr Tharoor, who is leading a multi-party parliamentary to the US, said, 'I'm not going to mince my words, but we are aware that China has immense stakes in Pakistan." His remarks came during an interaction with representatives of think tanks organised at the Indian Embassy here on Thursday. The largest single project under the Belt and Road Initiative is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Mr Tharoor said, adding that 81 per cent of Pakistani defence equipment is from China. 'Defence may be the wrong word here. Offense in many ways,' he said. "China is an absolutely impossible factor to ignore in what has been our confrontation with Pakistan,' Mr Tharoor said. He noted that despite the tensions between China and India since the Galwan Valley clashes in June 2020, "we had actually begun a thaw with China in September of last year, which was seemingly making good progress before this tragedy occurred.' Mr Tharoor added that 'then we saw a very different China' in terms of its practical support for Pakistan, even on the Security Council. 'We have no illusions about what the challenges are in our neighbourhood, but I want to remind you all that India has consistently chosen a path of keeping open channels of communication, even with our adversaries," he said. "We have tried as much as possible to focus on development, on growth, on trade. Our trade with China is still at record levels. It's not that we are adopting a posture of hostility, but we would be naive' not to be aware of these other currents around, he said. Pakistan is currently a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. Following the April 22 Pahalgam attack, the UN Security Council had on April 25 issued a press statement on the 'terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir' in which the members had condemned it in "the strongest terms'. 'The members of the Security Council underlined the need to hold perpetrators, organisers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism accountable and bring them to justice,' the press statement had said. However, the press statement did not mention The Resistance Front as the group responsible for the attack after Pakistan managed to get the name removed with the support of China. In October last year, India and China firmed up a disengagement pact for Depsang and Demchok, the last two friction points in eastern Ladakh. Days after the agreement was finalised, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping held talks in Kazan, Russia, and took a number of decisions to improve ties. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar met Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in November last year in Rio de Janeiro on the sidelines of the G20 Summit and the two met again in February this year in Johannesburg. During a conversation at the Council on Foreign Relations earlier in the day, Mr Tharoor was asked about the Chinese military equipment that Pakistan used in the conflict against India and if there is a reassessment over this. 'Frankly, the reassessment took place while the fighting was going on,' Mr Tharoor said. He added that when India saw what the Pakistanis were attempting to do using Chinese technology, for instance, the 'kill chain' that the Chinese specialise in, where the radar, GPS, planes and missiles are all linked together and they react instantly, 'we simply did things in a different way. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been able to hit' 11 Pakistani airfields and 'we wouldn't have been able to breach the Chinese-supplied air defences. 'So it's clear that assessments were taking place while the fighting was happening, and we were recalibrating our strategies in order to end as effectively as we were able to end,' Mr Tharoor said. 'The fact is China has immense stakes in Pakistan, the largest single project on the Belt and Road Initiative is the one in Pakistan - the China- Pakistan Economic Corridor. So we have no illusions about the degree of commitment that China may well be feeling towards Pakistan.'
The Wire
29 minutes ago
- The Wire
Silencing the Academy: From Trump's Harvard Offensive to Modi's War on Free Thought
'Every relationship of hegemony is necessarily an educational relationship.' — Antonio Gramsci In both, the United States and India, universities – once bastions of critical inquiry – are increasingly being reimagined as threats to national integrity. In May 2025, US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping crackdown on Harvard University, threatening to revoke over USD 2 billion in federal research funding over allegations of antisemitism and political bias. While framed as a culture war manoeuvre, this move serves as political discipline – punishing elite institutions for tolerating student dissent and pro-Palestinian activism. In India, the Narendra Modi government has been charting a parallel course. Since 2014, public universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University have faced repeated assaults – from budget cuts and bureaucratic interference to arrests of student activists and the slashing of scholarships. Notably, in 2022, the government quietly scrapped the Maulana Azad National Fellowship, a crucial program supporting minority scholars pursuing PhD degrees. The message was unambiguous: support for marginalised voices in higher education is no longer a priority. What binds these seemingly disparate actions is a growing consensus among right-wing regimes: dissent within the classroom is a political liability. Students who critique the state, question foreign policy or demand historical justice are increasingly treated not as engaged citizens but as internal adversaries. In both countries, this assault on universities is being waged under the banner of the taxpayer. Trump's administration argues that public funds should not support 'radical leftism' or 'wokeness.' Similarly, Modi's government accuses public universities of squandering resources on 'anti-national' thought and fostering a liberal elite disconnected from 'real' India. This rhetoric constructs a false moral economy: critical thinking is recast as indulgence, the humanities as sedition and student protest as criminality. By claiming to represent the apolitical, hardworking taxpayer, these regimes obscure the essential role of universities in a democracy – to question, to debate, and to envision alternatives. The campaign is not about accountability; it is about control. The university curriculum has become a central front in this ideological war. In the US, efforts to defund universities are part of a broader culture war targeting critical race theory, gender studies, and climate science. In India, the New Education Policy promotes a sanitised, mythological version of Indian history, marginalising critiques of caste and erasing Muslim contributions to the subcontinent's past. A recent and telling example is the recommendation by Delhi University's standing committee for academic affairs to remove Karl Marx and Thomas Malthus from the sociology syllabus. The paper 'Population and Society,' which introduces students to foundational theories of population dynamics, currently examines Malthusian perspectives and Marx's critiques. According to faculty members, Malthus's theory remains essential for understanding population growth, and Marx's critiques provide critical context. The proposed removal of these thinkers reflects an ongoing effort to reshape academic discourse to align with a particular ideological narrative. Such curricular changes are not isolated incidents but part of a systematic attempt to transform universities from spaces of open-ended inquiry into sites of nationalist education. The goal is not to produce informed citizens but compliant subjects. The suppression of dissent within academia cannot be disentangled from broader racial and religious hierarchies. In the US, campus activism around Palestine has become a flashpoint. The Trump administration has intensified immigration enforcement, targeting scholars and students involved in pro-Palestinian activism. Notably, Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student at Columbia University, was detained and faced deportation under a rarely-used provision allowing the Secretary of State to expel individuals deemed adverse to US foreign policy. A federal judge later ruled this action likely unconstitutional, highlighting concerns over free speech violations. Similarly, Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University scholar, recounted his harrowing experience of being detained without due process, allegedly for social media posts critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. These cases underscore a disturbing trend where academic critique and political activism are met with punitive measures, eroding the foundational principles of free expression and academic freedom. In India, the situation is more acute: Muslim scholars like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Dr. Hany Babu have been jailed under sweeping anti-terror laws for exercising their constitutional rights. For Muslim academics, intellectual life is now entangled with existential precarity. They are compelled to demonstrate loyalty to the nation before being permitted to contribute to its scholarly discourse. This systemic repression is not merely about individuals – it aims to silence a worldview that sees power as accountable, citizenship as plural and justice as an ongoing pursuit. Despite these challenges, universities remain potential sites of resistance. Across campuses, students and faculty continue to challenge authoritarian drift. From Harvard's Palestine Solidarity encampments to Jamia's anti-CAA protests, the university persists as one of the few spaces where democratic dissent endures. However, this space is shrinking. Funding is being slashed, fellowships are disappearing, international scholars face deportation and the cost of posing critical questions is escalating. If we allow universities to become echo chambers for state power, we risk losing more than academic freedom. We jeopardise the very notion that public life should be governed by reasoned debate rather than fear. The global assault on universities – from Trump's offensive against Harvard to Modi's dismantling of minority fellowships and curricular purges – is not coincidental. It reflects a political moment wherein the capacity for critical thought is perceived as a threat to national coherence. In place of knowledge, these regimes offer nostalgia; in place of critique, conformity. To defend the university today is to defend the possibility of a freer, more just society tomorrow. This defence must emanate not only from within the academy but from all who value democracy beyond a mere slogan. It must involve public intellectuals, journalists, educators, students, and civil society at large. Because once critical thinking itself is criminalised, we find ourselves already inhabiting a post-democratic world. Ismail Salahuddin is a writer and researcher based in Delhi, focusing on Muslim identity, caste and the politics of knowledge. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
