U.S. Vetoes U.N. Resolution Demanding Immediate Gaza Cease-Fire
Ten nonpermanent members of the 15-seat Council had put forth the resolution for a vote. It was the first time since President Trump took office that the Council had considered a cease-fire resolution on the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.
The United States was the only member to vote against the measure; the other 14 members of the Council, including Russia, voted in favor, once again highlighting Washington's isolation on the global stage over its policy of unconditional support of Israel.
'We believe this text reflects the consensus shared by all Council members that the war in Gaza has to come to an immediate halt, all hostages must be immediately and unconditionally released, and civilians in Gaza must not starve and must have full and unimpeded access to aid,' said a joint statement from the 10 nonpermanent members, which was read by Slovenia's ambassador to the U.N., Samuel Zbogar, at the Council meeting ahead of the vote.
A Security Council resolution must receive nine votes in favor and no vetoes from the five permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — to be adopted. Since the war broke out after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel, the United States has vetoed four Council resolutions calling for a cease-fire and has abstained from one, allowing it to pass, last June.
Dorothy Camille Shea, the interim U.S. representative at the U.N., repeated Washington's message that Israel had the right to defend itself, and she blamed Hamas for the suffering of Palestinians, saying the war would end if the group surrendered.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Samples before space suits: America must be smart about its mission to Mars
On day one of this administration, the president included his ambitions for Mars in his inaugural address, and again several weeks later to a joint session of Congress: 'We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars, and even far beyond.' President Trump's vision for Mars is correct, and now there is a plan for the next steps in how he achieves it. The U.S. has led the world in the exploration of Mars since Vikings I and II landed in 1976. We now stand on the precipice of two ultimate achievements: the return of samples from Mars to Earth, and sending the first humans — Americans — to the Martian surface. The fiscal 2026 presidential budget request proposed 'to terminate the Mars Sample Return Program given that current architecture options remain unaffordable.' But, it adds: 'It is anticipated that future missions to Mars will return samples for study on Earth.' We need those samples robotically returned for study on Earth. Delaying Mars Sample Return or waiting for astronauts to pick them up will make the human exploration of Mars significantly more expensive and dangerous — and for the first time ever, almost certainly cede decades of U.S. space exploration leadership to China. A lower-cost robotic Mars Sample Return would more than pay for itself from savings realized by simplified human missions. Martian soil has substances known to be toxic, as well as uncharacterized biological potential. Without Mars Sample Return, human mission designs must account for the full range of possibilities and the most demanding scenarios. Laboratory tests are needed to make direct measurements of the Mars samples to determine concentrations and forms of toxic materials to understand threats and develop solutions. This will be needed to design spacesuits and protect astronauts from the fine martian dust. It allows risk mitigation to shift from large and expensive requirements to quantifiable ones with reduced uncertainties. While no martian life has been detected yet, our exploration has shown that much of Mars would previously have been habitable, and parts of Mars may currently still be habitable. In advance of humans to Mars, we need to robotically return samples in a highly controlled manner to satisfy planetary protection back-contamination requirements to ensure that Mars does not have organisms that might impact human health or have adverse effects on Earth's biosphere. Mars Sample Return will accelerate U.S. leadership in space. Mars is several hundred times farther from Earth than the Moon. Using current propulsion technologies, a Mars round trip will take up to three years, with minimal abort opportunities, as compared to Apollo's round trip of days. Even then, there were three uncrewed and four crewed missions before Apollo 11, the first Moon landing. Completing Mars Sample Return supports technology demos needed for human missions, such as advancing from the current precision landing (7-10 km) to pinpoint landing (~100 m) to put astronauts in proximity to safe sites and pre-positioned supplies. Mars Sample Return also achieves a profound international first: the first samples — with potential for evidence of life — returned from Mars. These samples might once and for all answer the fundamental question of 'Are we alone in the universe,' and that is a question we most certainly want the United States to answer first. Lockheed Martin, my former employer, has been studying Mars Sample Return missions for more than 50 years, and is confident it can deliver an end-to-end architecture for under $3 billion — less than half of previous estimates — by leveraging heritage components, reducing design complexity, and streamlining the program structure. They have built and flown four highly successful Mars landers and four highly successful Mars orbiters, as well as pioneered all three of NASA's previous sample return missions (returning material from a comet, the solar wind and an asteroid), and have established credibility and mission success across a wide variety of additional deep space missions, from Venus to Saturn. NASA's Mars 2020 rover, Perseverance or 'Percy,' at Jezero Crater has been caching an unparalleled set of samples that will shed more light on the history of Mars than all previous Mars missions combined. China has announced it plans to launch a sample return mission to Mars in 2028, with an Earth return likely in 2031. If we forgo the timely return of Percy's superior set of samples, it will be China that leaps ahead. Mars soil and dust are uniquely different, and potentially dangerous — returning samples should precede astronauts going to Mars, while also maintaining our nation's pre-eminence in Mars exploration as NASA lays the groundwork for the next giant leap. Ben Clark has been a member of the science teams of every NASA mission to explore the surface of Mars, and designed the instrument on Viking that made the first analysis of martian soil. He was chief scientist for deep space exploration at Lockheed Martin. Currently, he helps analyze chemical compositions of the diverse samples the Perseverance rover has been acquiring during its multi-year trek on Mars.
Boston Globe
28 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
European leaders to join Ukraine's Zelensky for White House meeting with Trump
Advertisement 'It's a power struggle and a position of strength that might work with Trump,' he said in a phone interview. The European leaders' presence at Zelenskyy's side, demonstrating Europe's support for Ukraine, could potentially help ease concerns in Kyiv and in other European capitals that Ukraine risks being railroaded into a peace deal that Trump says he wants to broker with Russia. It wasn't immediately clear whether all or just some of them would be taking part in the actual meeting with Trump. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on X that she will take part in the talks, 'at the request of President Zelenskyy.' The secretary-general of the NATO military alliance, Mark Rutte, will also take part in the meeting, his press service said. Advertisement The office of President Emmanuel Macron announced that the French leader will travel on Monday to Washington 'at the side of President Zelenskyy' although it didn't immediately specify that he'll be in the meeting. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will also be part of the European group, but the statement from his office likewise didn't specify that he will be in the talks with Trump. The grouped trip underscored European leaders' determination to ensure that Europe has a voice in Trump's attempted peace-making, after the U.S. president's summit on Friday with Putin — to which Zelenskyy wasn't invited.
American Military News
28 minutes ago
- American Military News
No Ukraine Cease-Fire For Trump, And A Red-Carpet Welcome For Putin
Vladimir Putin wanted a world stage. Donald Trump wanted a peace deal. The Russian leader got his. The US president did not. At least not yet. The August 15 face-to-face summit between Trump and Putin was shaping up to be one of the most consequential in years: for US-Russian relations, for international security, for the largest land war in Europe since World War II. Confident in his deal-making prowess, Trump wanted to halt Russia's 42-month-old war on Ukraine, which has killed or wounded well over 1 million Russian and Ukrainian soldiers, and thousands of civilians, mainly Ukrainian. Confident of his military's ability to grind down Ukraine, Putin wanted to appear before global TV cameras, on US soil, shaking Trump's hand, free of international isolation, and negotiating as a peer. In the end, there was no deal to halt Russia's bloodletting in Ukraine. There was no deal announced for a new arms control agreement, as Putin had suggested ahead of time, nor new business investments, as Trump had suggested. 'Nothing Good Happened, But Nothing Bad Happened Either' It's possible there are deals in the works, not yet announced. In interviews and remarks afterward, Trump signaled some agreement could be forthcoming in the near future. 'Had there been even a small item to announce, you can bet Trump would have done so,' said Luke Coffey, a Russian analyst and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank. 'So the fact that there was nothing even minor [announced]… tells me that the talks truly got nowhere.' 'To look in a positive light, Trump didn't give anything away, at least from what we can know publicly,' Coffey said. 'He admitted from the podium that he's going to be taking time to consult with and update European leaders, including Zelenskyy, and he said that there's no deal until there's a deal.' Early on August 16, hours after the summit, Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke by phone for an hour, along with European leaders. There were 'positive signals' regarding possible US participation in security guarantees for Ukraine, Zelenskyy said. He also said he would travel to Washington on August 18. 'The Kremlin is touting this as a major reset in relations with the United States, given the red-carpet treatment Putin received and the possibility of another summit in Moscow,' said Stephen Flanagan, who twice served on the White House National Security Council. 'Putin's comment that to achieve a 'settlement, lasting and long-term, we need to eliminate all of the primary causes of the conflict,' suggests that Russia retains its hardline position on Ukraine,' he said. 'Putin would like to see a more compliant government in Kyiv and recognition of its territorial conquests.' Going into the summit, Trump had mentioned 'land swaps' as a possibility: recognizing Russia's claim to occupied Ukrainian territory in exchange for a cease-fire or other conditions. Zelenskyy professed that was a red line. Some in Europe, whose role in the Ukraine conflict has frequently been downplayed by the Trump administration, feared another 'Munich' – shorthand for when Western allies acquiesced to Hitler in 1938. Or another 'Yalta,' when Soviet leader Josef Stalin, US President Franklin Roosevelt, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill divided up post-WWII Europe. No land swaps were announced. Neither were any new punitive US sanctions on Russia announced, something Trump had threatened. 'Nothing good happened, but nothing bad happened either,' William Taylor, a former US ambassador to Ukraine, told the BBC. 'There was no Munich, and there was no Yalta, where Ukraine would have been sold.' 'The Welcome, The Red Carpet, The Handshakes' 'For Kyiv, it could obviously be worse,' said Stefan Meister, director of the Center for Order and Governance in Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia, at the German Council on Foreign Relations. 'Maybe they agreed on something. But if they had, it would have been announced,' he said. 'Trump is not ready to be the bad guy and force a terrible deal down the Ukrainians' throats,' said Eric Ciaramella, a former White House National Security Council adviser, now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'Nor is Putin willing to make any major compromises merely to give Trump a win.' Since launching the all-out invasion in February 2022, Putin has been deemed a pariah in the West, and in other places around the world, isolated, under US sanctions and under threat of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, refused to meet with him. The 'optics' of the summit – on US soil, red-carpet welcome, personal greeting by the US president – were a victory in itself for the Kremlin. 'Putin certainly got what he wanted out of this meeting,' said Mikhail Alexseev, a political scientist at San Diego State University and expert on Ukraine's governance. 'He got the welcome, the red carpet. He got the handshakes. He even got applause from Trump when he walked from the airplane. In essence, it normalizes his position as [a] world leader.' Senior International Correspondent Mike Eckel reported from Prague; North American correspondent Todd Prince reported from Washington.
