IN a deeply regrettable but entirely unsurprising move, the US has once again used its veto power at the UNSC to shield Israel from international accountability.
By blocking a resolution that demanded an “immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza, alongside unrestricted humanitarian access and the release of all hostages, Washington has reaffirmed its historical role not as a neutral arbiter for peace, but as an enabler of Israel’s decades-long persecution of the Palestinian people.
The vote—14 in favour, 1 against—was a clear signal from the international community: the violence in Gaza must stop.
Over two million Palestinians remain under siege, facing starvation, displacement, and relentless bombardment.
Yet the U.S., isolating itself once again, cast the sole veto, arguing that the resolution undermines “ongoing diplomacy” and fails to acknowledge “Israel’s right to defend itself.
” But this justification rings hollow.
What kind of diplomacy justifies the mass suffering of a civilian population?
What right of defence allows for the annihilation of entire neighbourhoods, hospitals and schools?
This is not a new posture.
The US, under successive administrations, has consistently backed Israel—militarily, diplomatically, and politically—even as global outrage has mounted over war crimes and systemic violations of international law.
From supplying billions in military aid to vetoing resolutions that even modestly hold Israel accountable, the U.S. has acted less like a peace-broker and more like a co-belligerent.
President Trump, who has often boasted of his role in facilitating a ceasefire between Pakistan and India and expressed enthusiasm for resolving the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, exemplifies the contradiction at the heart of American foreign policy.
Moreover, this episode once again exposes the structural inadequacies of Security Council.
The power of a single permanent member to nullify the will of the overwhelming majority has rendered the body impotent in the face of profound human suffering.
It is an undemocratic anachronism in a world that desperately needs cooperative, multilateral action.
The time has come to reform the UNSC—to replace the tyranny of veto with a system that respects majority consensus and moral clarity.
The US must also undertake a deep and honest review of its foreign policy.
It must reckon with the contradiction of standing with the oppressor while preaching democracy and human rights to the rest of the world.
