Why did the U.S. veto the UN ceasefire resolution?

Question

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023, the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres invoked Article 99 of the U.N Charter on the situation in Gaza.

Article 99 allows the secretary-general to “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”

The invocation seems to be in line with the unfolding events in the middle east region.

• The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire and worsening by the minute
• The West Bank is agitating with violence
• Iran-backed militants in Iraq are repeatedly attacking U.S. forces
• Iran-backed Houthi in Yemen are attacking Israel-linked ships in the Red Sea and firing ballistic missiles at Israel
• Hezbollah is attacking Israeli military sites and soldiers in the north of Israel daily.

Apparently, the region is slowly drifting into a regional war which can rapidly escalate to World War 3! The U.S. has repeatedly expressed that it doesn't wish to see the conflict in Gaza expand to a regional conflict, yet it vetoes the UN attempt at a ceasefire resolution.

The longer the war in Gaza endures, the more there is a chance a regional war could break out, so why did the U.S. neutralize the UN ceasefire resolution? Does that not contradict its publicly articulated intentions?

Answer 1

Well, we can read what the U.S representative said the UN:

The US engaged in good faith on the text, said Deputy Permanent Representative Robert A. Wood, that would increase opportunities for hostage release and more aid to reach Gaza.

“Unfortunately, nearly all of our recommendations were ignored” leading to an “imbalanced resolution that was divorced from reality that would not move the needle forward on the ground in any concrete way. And so, we regretfully could not support it."

He said the US still could not understand why the resolution’s authors declined to include language condemning “Hamas’s horrific terrorist attack” on Israel, of 7 October.

It killed people from a range of nationalities, subjecting many to “obscene sexual violence.”

He said he had explained earlier in the day why an unconditional ceasefire would simply be “dangerous” and leave Hamas in place, able to attack again.

It was “a recipe for disaster for Israel, for Palestinians and for the entire region”.

Any ceasefire leaving Hamas in control would also deny Palestinians the chance to build something better for themselves, he added.

Moreover, the reasoning suggested in the OP that "the more the war in Gaza endures, the more there is a chance a regional war could break out" is not so obvious as it seems. Alternative view could say that if Israel stops now, the chances for WW3 would increase dramatically — it won't happen tomorrow, but probably in 2-3 years. As it would increase the likelihood that other factors would also try like Hamas to exterminate the Jews. In order to avoid war, U.S should show they are ready for war and are not afraid of it.

Answer 2

Since the Q suggests WW3 and what not, I'll just add this bit from a Nov 14 presser of the Pentagon.

Deterrence in the Middle East is working, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said today.

And yeah, the US says that's because they are striking back.

“Is deterrence working? We feel that it is," said Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh. "We have not seen this war spread into a wider regional conflict. The strikes that we are taking is to signal and to message very strongly to Iran and their affiliated groups to stop. That is the purpose of those strikes.”

"I think we are being very deliberate on how and when we conduct our strikes against these groups," she said. "And I think that Iran is certainly seeing that message.”

Answer 3

The UN Security Council and especially the veto powers used there are mostly a geo-policital platform and whatever the topic of the day is is mostly an afterthought.

During the Cold War, it was pretty much protocol for the USSR to veto anything the USA wanted and vice versa.

The US has used its veto on dozens of past resolutions against Israel. This is part of how the US expresses its political support for Israel. This veto is simply a continuation of what the US has always done. It has nothing to do with this particular resolution or its contents, and if the US feared an escalation of the conflict, it would use its direct influence on Israel rather than supporting a UN resolution.

Answer 4

Your approaching WW3 argument for making a ceasefire doesn't hold up - first off, why does this seem so close to WW3? Its basically Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran by proxy - hardly world powers. But besides for that, the Russia-Ukraine war is much, much, much, much closer to being WW3 - Putin clearly said that the US giving certain types of weapons to Ukraine would be considered an act of war against Russia. However, there is no effort whatsoever to make a ceasefire in that conflict.

The US' objection would be that, while the plight of the innocent civilians in Gaza is extremely unfortunate, there are a few problems:

1. Cease fires with Hamas don't work - there was a ceasefire on October 6th from the last conflict, Hamas broke it on October 7th. And its not nearly the first time they've broken ceasefires. A ceasefire is merely kicking the can down the road, except down the road the can will kill and kidnap civilians, and present a constant existential security threat.
2. There is no other country in the world that is held up to the absurd standards that Israel is - when the governing body of a land mass attacks its neighbour, unfortunately the residents suffer - especially when said governing body embeds terrorists in civilian areas as a strategy. So the fact that the Palestinian people are suffering has no bearing on the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization that needs to be destroyed.

Sources (they are all copied to highlight, so it will take you to the correct paragraph):

• https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/11/04/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-on-israel-and-gaza/
• https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/11/04/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-on-israel-and-gaza/
• https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-december-6-2023/
• https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-with-jake-tapper-of-cnn-state-of-the-union-3/
• https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-a-press-availability-41/
• https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/11/09/remarks-by-president-biden-before-marine-one-departure-39/
• https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-on-a-united-arab-emirates-drafted-un-security-council-resolution-on-the-situation-in-the-middle-east/
• https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-on-a-united-arab-emirates-drafted-un-security-council-resolution-on-the-situation-in-the-middle-east/
• https://academic.oup.com/book/9859/chapter-abstract/157134577
• https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan
• [https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Iraq-War] [11]
• [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10171164/] [12]
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293492/ukraine-war-casualties [13]

[11]: https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Iraq-War#:~:text=The%20number%20of,see%20Kurd). [12]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10171164/#:~:text=We%20estimate%20that,related%20to%20combat.

Answer 5

While @Tom is correct, in that the veto is part of the US' ongoing support for Israel, it is not true that UNSC votes are made with the matter at hand being an aftertought. More often than not the matters are quite grave, and occupy the "thought" of many UN and UNSC members, especially the larger empires, all the time when they come up in the UNSC.

The same is true for the Israeli onslaught in Gaza. This matter occupies quite a hefty chunk of public discourse and the news cycle in the US these days - perhaps even more than the war in Ukraine. The administration is under pressure from multiple sides and even internally - to support Israel more staunchly or to use the US' leverage to stop the killing, let humanitarian aid through, withdraw ground troops etc.

Biden has opted for full support of Israel for the past two months, while signaling that the US would like the operation concluded within a few weeks. He has also backed this up with a statement of intent to bankroll the affair to the tune of 14 Billion USD.

All of this happened with a humanitarian situation which was already untenable in Gaza before the current Israeli campaign: The siege blocking most trade and transport of goods, the water beginning to salinate, lack of electricity during much of the day etc. And - what OP describes in their first two bullets is the obvious consequence of a massive bombing campaign. So, the US vetoed the cease-fire resolution because it wants the Israeli campaign in Gaza to continue, or at the very least - prefers its continuation to an argument with Israel and the 'Israel lobby' over the matter.

That being said - OP is overly emphasizing the ties of US-hostile or Israel-hostile armed groups, and IMHO is getting carried away talking about a regional war widening into a third world war. Despite some Yemenis firing some rockets, so far this does not seem to be in the cards. Or at least - many don't see it talkingso, and possibly so does the USA.