4d ago

US vetoes Security Council resolution demanding permanent ceasefire in Gaza

news.un.org /en/story/2025/06/1164056

The text, co-sponsored by Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia – collectively known as the E-10 – received 14 votes in favour, with the US casting the lone vote against.

As one of the council’s five permanent members, the US holds veto power – a negative vote that automatically blocks any resolution from going forward.

Had it been adopted, the draft would have demanded “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza” to be respected by all parties.

28 comments

UN security concil vetos are really interesting because it is like saying "I have nukes, and I disagree and could nuke you or we can stop this motion".
At least it can be proposed.
Really frustrating. Who is really in favor of this continuing besides the defense industry and the AIPAC stooges in the U.S.?
- it’s obviously genocide joe’s fault
  
  it's everone giving them the weapons and diplomatic cover to do so; joe included.
  
  Oh, did this start January 20th? That’s probably news to Gazans.
- Really frustrating is this is in no way the first veto USA has done.
Sounds like next there should be fourteen votes in favor of ignoring what the US wants now and moving forward.
- There is a mechanism to remove a country from the Security Council:
  “A Member of the United Nations who has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
  And the US would have to abstain from the vote since they are a party in the matter. But first you need to get enough of the other members to vote to remove them in the Security Council, and not veto it beforehand, followed by the General Assembly.
  Trumps burning goodwill but I still don't the US getting removed from the Security Council anytime soon.
  
  Ngl, as a US citizen, the US should lose it's place in the UN until it starts acting like a country led by adults capable of empathy.
  
  I don't think it applies to permanent members.
Three of the five permanent members are bloody fascist regimes. The fourth isn't far behind, and the fifth is far from clean. (Look at the mess that Haiti has been left in).
At this point, I really don't see any other course forward but to start over.
- I honestly can't disagree with this. The UN is functionally useless and any effort on their part is wasted. The veto power of the permanent members makes it difficult to actually pass anything and even if they do pass the member states don't really have to implement it back home.
  The UN reminds me of the US under the Articles of Confederation, basically a toothless paper tiger. What doesn't help is that the UN has passed quite a lot of resolutions and conventions which make basically any sort of conflict illegal and then admitted a bunch of countries which are actively opposed to each other. Admission to the UN should have been a lot more like the EU in my opinion, selective and binding.
- If you remember that the UN was founded in response to fascist-made war, this is rather discouraging.
- Israel and the usa voted no for condemning russian agression on ukraine it didn't stop europe and canada for doing their best to help ukraine
  Those resolutions are useless. Europe and canada refuse to do their job against the genocide despite the usa losing day by day influence
Shithole country.
- Corporate dictatorship
  
  No, it’s a government of and by the people, so the people are shit.
  All of them.
  Including me.
Thought exercise: the US government has greatly enabled the Gaza genocide. If another 9/11 happened in the US and it was attributed to Palestinians, would anyone feel like we weren't all reaping exactly what we've sown? Or that it was at all unfair? I cant imagine newscasters would be analyzing "why did they attack us?"
- Would anyone feel like we weren’t all reaping exactly what we’ve sown? Or that it was at all unfair? I cant imagine newscasters would be analyzing “why did they attack us?”
  Are you being coy? I would bet my life savings that the majority of Americans would feel unjustly attacked, that it was unfair, and every news station would be drumming up support for a military conflict. Pro-Gaza support in the US would disappear overnight (either silenced or fear of being silenced), Pro-Israel support would multiply, and the US would be flying drones down Gaza and the West Bank.
  Remember that when 9/11 happened the US had been meddling in the Middle East for well over a decade already and had meddled with the Israel-Palestine conflict plenty. When 9/11 happened a majority of the world jumped on the side of the US. It's possible that if another attack occurred it wouldn't play out the same way (most likely because of Trump), but my guess is that it would.
- That's what people said about 9/11 before 9/11 happened
  I recommend reading Blowback. The author had to adjust the forward to say "I told you so" after 9/11 happened
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#Blowback:_The_Costs_and_Consequences_of_American_Empire

28 comments