U.S. vetoes UN security council resolution demanding immediate ceasefire in Gaza

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Axios

2 hours ago


The U.S. on Wednesday vetoed a draft UN security council resolution demanding "an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza."

Why it matters: This was the first time the U.S. used its veto power to blocks UN security council resolutions on the war in Gaza during the second Trump administration.

The U.S. is the lone member voting against the resolution, with the other 14 member states voting in favor of it.

The resolution is not conditioned on releasing the remaining 58 hostages held by Hamas, including four Americans.

Driving the news: The draft security council resolution expressed "grave concern over the catastrophic humanitarian situation" in Gaza, and demanded the "immediate and unconditional lifting of all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza."

The draft supported the efforts of the Trump administration, Egypt and Qatar to reach a new ceasefire agreement, and demanded "the immediate, dignified and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups."

What they're saying: Acting U.S. ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea said after the vote that the draft resolution didn't condemn Hamas, didn't call it to disarm and didn't call on it to leave Gaza.

Read more: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/04/us-vetoes-un-security-council-resolution-demanding-immediate-ceasefire-in-gaza

[Lovie777]

1. GQP..........

no one to blame but them.

[Polybius]

7. Biden or Harris would have vetoed it too

Don't kid yourself, Schumer is praising this.

[WiseElder]

2. Resoultion should have also required the hostages release.

No reason not to include

[moniss]

4. It did. nt

[Beastly Boy]

6. It didn't.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/23/world/middleeast/document-security-council-draft-resolution-israel.html

[moniss]

10. It did.

"The draft Security Council resolution had also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and others."

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-backed-gaza-aid-group-halt-distribution-wednesday-un-vote-ceasefire-demand-2025-06-04/

"The other 14 members voted in favour of the document, which also demanded the release of all hostages and the lifting of humanitarian aid restrictions."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g60p1xgdlo

Also from the same BBC report:

"The US Ambassador to the UN, Dorothy Shea, said the resolution would "undermine diplomatic efforts" to reach a ceasefire, adding that the UN has not labelled Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Hamas is described as such by the US, UK and the EU.

"We would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza," she said."

Not a single mention about the US using the basis of anything about the hostages. But some people are using the word "condition" to imply it in a way that would mean that release would be required before a ceasefire. So one interpretation says the release was not included apparently hanging on the word "condition" while others say, rightly so that the resolution called for the "unconditional release". For people who claim the release of the hostages was not in the draft is false. The AP report:

"Similarly, the current resolution demands those taken by Hamas and other groups be released, but it does not make it a condition for a truce."

https://apnews.com/article/gaza-ceasefire-un-security-council-e14ee5e3dc7e8e9a161f058f0381513d

The original comment I responded to was:

"Resoultion should have also required the hostages release.
Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)
Wed Jun 4, 2025, 06:34 PM

No reason not to include"

I responded it did include a requirement for the hostages release as delineated by the links I provided just like the draft demanded other things as well. But it really doesn't matter because Israel would not abide by it anyway. Just like many other UNSC resolutions. In fact the draft calling for "unconditional release of the hostages" is stronger than trying to demand "conditions" around their release.

[Beastly Boy]

11. You are citing media reports on the resolution. I posted the actual text of the resolution.

I couldn't find any reference in it about release of hostages.

By all means, find any mention of releasing the hostages in the actual resolution, and I will accept it.

Until then, I am going to believe my lying eyes and not the media reports.

[moniss]

12. You cited a media report from the NYT. I have zero faith in things that come from them

and you'll notice I usually don't bother with them. You can stick to whatever you want. Nobody cares.

[Beastly Boy]

13. My apologies.

The document published by NYT is the exact facsimile of the original resolution, but not the one we are talking about. I just noticed the date on it: DEC. 23, 2016.

[moniss]

14. No problem I nearly posted a

"reference" on an economic post that at first glance looked like the timely one from just a day ago when in fact that reference was similar to what I wanted but it was from 2 years ago. But it happens and I thank you for noting the correction.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. How special.

[moniss]

5. Reading between the lines it is safe to say

that the mis-administration of Crumb The 1st is cool with continuing to kill civilians until it and Netanyahu get unconditional surrender.
Not really a negotiation since it's "surrender or die and even if you surrender we're not stopping" as the stated position of Netanyahu.

[Beastly Boy]

9. Actually, the terms of surrender and capitulation are subject to negotiations.

Including unconditional surrender.

But right now, Hamas is negotiating the terms of extortion for the lives of hostages they hold. And even if they get everything they want, they are not stopping.

[Grins]

8. Voted "No!" On a ceasefire. Can the world hate us any more?

Hell, even I hate us.