Fourteen countries on UN Security Council voted for Gaza ceasefire. One country held out
The other 14 countries on the council voted in favour of the draft on Thursday (AEST) 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 US ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the council before the vote, arguing that it would also undermine US-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. Hamas-run health authorities in Gaza said Israeli strikes killed 45 people on Wednesday, while Israel said a soldier died in fighting.
Britain's UN ambassador Barbara Woodward criticised 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 UN ambassador Danny Danon told the council members who voted in favour 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 US veto, describing it as showing 'the US 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
6 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Hezbollah warns disarmament plan could spark civil war
Hezbollah has raised the spectre of civil war with a warning there will be "no life" in Lebanon if the government seeks to confront or eliminate the Iran-backed group. The government wants to control arms in line with a US-backed plan following Israel's military campaign against Hezbollah, which was founded four decades ago with the backing of Tehran's Revolutionary Guards. But the group is resisting pressure to disarm, saying that cannot happen until Israel ends its strikes and occupation of a southern strip of Lebanon that had been a Hezbollah stronghold. "This is our nation together. We live in dignity together, and we build its sovereignty together - or Lebanon will have no life if you stand on the other side and try to confront us and eliminate us," its leader Naim Qassem said in a televised speech on Friday. Israel has dealt Hezbollah heavy blows in the past two years, killing many of its top brass including former leader Hassan Nasrallah and 5000 of its fighters, and destroying much of its arsenal. The Lebanese cabinet last week tasked the army with confining weapons only to state security forces, a move that has outraged Hezbollah. Qassem accused the government of implementing an "American-Israeli order to eliminate the resistance, even if that leads to civil war and internal strife". However, he said Hezbollah and the Amal movement, its Shi'ite Muslim ally, had decided to delay any street protests while there was still scope for talks. "There is still room for discussion, for adjustments, and for a political resolution before the situation escalates to a confrontation no one wants," Qassem said. "But if it is imposed on us, we are ready, and we have no other choice ... At that point, there will be a protest in the street, all across Lebanon, that will reach the American embassy." The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, which left parts of Lebanon in ruins, erupted in October 2023 when the group opened fire at Israeli positions along the southern border in solidarity with its Palestinian ally Hamas at the start of the Gaza war. Hezbollah and Amal still retain influence politically, appointing Shi'ite ministers to cabinet and holding the Shi'ite seats in parliament. But for the first time in years, they do not hold a "blocking third" of cabinet, enabling them to veto government decisions in the past. Hezbollah retains strong support among the Shi'ite community in Lebanon, but calls for its disarmament across the rest of society have grown.
Sydney Morning Herald
36 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The one thing America could learn from us
A few weeks ago I watched as protesters braved the rain to cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge in a March for Humanity, calling for aid to Gaza. Among the Palestinian flags, one image stood out: the Indigenous flag, symbolising a shared history of dispossession. This week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that Australia will next month recognise a Palestinian state at the UN. These developments remind us that identity cannot be separated from politics. At a time when democracies elsewhere are fracturing under the weight of polarisation, Australia's institutional resilience should embolden us to embrace our differences more openly in political discourse – not frighten us. As an Australian studying in the US during both of Trump's presidential victories I saw first hand how identities can be politicised to fracture a society. After the October 7 Hamas attacks I witnessed, as a graduate student, how Harvard students retreated into ideological silos, avoiding dialogue with those whose identities they perceived to be at odds with their own. Australia feels different – partly because of how our political system is structured. Identity weighs less heavily on our social conscience, but perhaps that's why it's so often ignored. Identity politics refers to the idea that our race, gender, religion or class shapes our political views. Over time it has often been framed as divisive. Peter Dutton, after the 2023 Voice referendum defeat, said the result was a rejection of 'the madness of identity politics'. But his own loss in the 2025 election might suggest otherwise. A wave of post-election commentary emphasised the Liberal Party's need to better reflect 'modern Australia', with female representation highlighted as one of the most glaring absences in the party room. Loading Australia's electoral system structurally limits the worst elements of polarisation caused by identity politics. Unlike the US, where turnout hovers around 60 per cent, Australia's compulsory voting system ensures broad participation and fosters a more centrist politics. Our Westminster system means Australian voters elect a party to govern, not a singular leader. Our ballots are cast for local MPs, and the party with the majority elects our prime minister. In contrast, the US system centres on the direct election of a president, making national politics more personalised by design. Preferential voting also encourages engagement with more than one party and rewards coalition-building over extremism. This institutional design helps insulate us from the deep political tribalism seen in the US and gives us the space to explore identity in a less adversarial way. A few months ago, during the 2025 Australian federal election, the main topics on the campaign trail were the cost of living, Medicare, affordable housing and Australia's future energy mix – a far cry from the US presidential election, which focused on a 'war on woke' and employed rhetoric that divided American voters along lines of race, gender and sexuality. This contrast is driven in part by the need of American candidates to use emotionally charged narratives to boost voter turnout.
The Age
36 minutes ago
- The Age
The one thing America could learn from us
A few weeks ago I watched as protesters braved the rain to cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge in a March for Humanity, calling for aid to Gaza. Among the Palestinian flags, one image stood out: the Indigenous flag, symbolising a shared history of dispossession. This week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that Australia will next month recognise a Palestinian state at the UN. These developments remind us that identity cannot be separated from politics. At a time when democracies elsewhere are fracturing under the weight of polarisation, Australia's institutional resilience should embolden us to embrace our differences more openly in political discourse – not frighten us. As an Australian studying in the US during both of Trump's presidential victories I saw first hand how identities can be politicised to fracture a society. After the October 7 Hamas attacks I witnessed, as a graduate student, how Harvard students retreated into ideological silos, avoiding dialogue with those whose identities they perceived to be at odds with their own. Australia feels different – partly because of how our political system is structured. Identity weighs less heavily on our social conscience, but perhaps that's why it's so often ignored. Identity politics refers to the idea that our race, gender, religion or class shapes our political views. Over time it has often been framed as divisive. Peter Dutton, after the 2023 Voice referendum defeat, said the result was a rejection of 'the madness of identity politics'. But his own loss in the 2025 election might suggest otherwise. A wave of post-election commentary emphasised the Liberal Party's need to better reflect 'modern Australia', with female representation highlighted as one of the most glaring absences in the party room. Loading Australia's electoral system structurally limits the worst elements of polarisation caused by identity politics. Unlike the US, where turnout hovers around 60 per cent, Australia's compulsory voting system ensures broad participation and fosters a more centrist politics. Our Westminster system means Australian voters elect a party to govern, not a singular leader. Our ballots are cast for local MPs, and the party with the majority elects our prime minister. In contrast, the US system centres on the direct election of a president, making national politics more personalised by design. Preferential voting also encourages engagement with more than one party and rewards coalition-building over extremism. This institutional design helps insulate us from the deep political tribalism seen in the US and gives us the space to explore identity in a less adversarial way. A few months ago, during the 2025 Australian federal election, the main topics on the campaign trail were the cost of living, Medicare, affordable housing and Australia's future energy mix – a far cry from the US presidential election, which focused on a 'war on woke' and employed rhetoric that divided American voters along lines of race, gender and sexuality. This contrast is driven in part by the need of American candidates to use emotionally charged narratives to boost voter turnout.
