In the UN, where everyone is quiet, one raised hand is stronger than the cries of millions.
A UN Security Council resolution from June 4, 2025, called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and free entry for humanitarian aid. The United States was the only country to use its veto to block it. It was 14 to 1. A deal that everyone agreed to but one person broke because they said no.
The Lone Veto: Isolation or Strategy?
The U.S. justified its veto by claiming the resolution failed to condemn Hamas and did not condition the ceasefire on the release of Israeli hostages. “Any product that undermines our close ally Israel is a non-starter,” said U.S. Acting Ambassador Dorothy Shea. The resolution, she claimed, was “performative.”
But that framing didn’t sit well with the rest of the world. UK Ambassador Barbara Woodward pushed back, calling the humanitarian situation in Gaza “inhumane,” and stating the new U.S.- and Israeli-backed Gaza aid system had created chaos. China’s delegate labeled the U.S. position disappointing. Even traditionally aligned allies expressed discomfort.
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation: Aid or Agenda?
Central to the controversy is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a body supported by Washington and Tel Aviv to distribute aid in Gaza. It has been accused of mismanagement, militarization, and even endangering lives. Over 100 Palestinians have reportedly been killed near GHF aid distribution points, including in a chaotic scene in Rafah.
British Ambassador Woodward bluntly stated: “We are seeing starving children being shot at while trying to receive food. This is not humanitarian aid. This is inhumane.”
Further cracks emerged when Boston Consulting Group—the Foundation’s architect—abandoned the project. Its COO and director resigned just days before operations began, adding to suspicion and scandal.
Humanitarian Crisis Deepens
According to AP News, over 54,000 Palestinians have died since the October 2023 war began. Famine is widespread. The UN and most aid agencies have refused to work with the GHF, citing its lack of neutrality.
Instead of supporting existing UN-led distribution routes, the U.S. has doubled down on GHF. Critics say this amounts to politicizing food. Al Jazeera’s Marwan Bishara called the U.S. move “a shameless defense of the indefensible.”
What Power Does the UN Really Have?
The Security Council is often referred to as the world’s government. But as long as one permanent member uses veto power to block humanitarian action, its authority remains symbolic.
Some ask: if Washington weren’t shielding Israel, would Netanyahu’s war continue? Bishara argued that if President Trump told Netanyahu to stop, he likely would—within 24 hours. It’s not the UN that needs to act. It’s the United States.
Where Does This Leave Us?
The U.S. veto may protect an ally. But at what cost? Global trust erodes. Civilians starve. And Washington’s moral standing diminishes.
Do you believe humanitarian aid can ever be truly apolitical?
Should the UN veto power be limited during humanitarian crises?
What alternatives can the world pursue when consensus is blocked by one state?
If this post sparked a thought, share it—or better yet, start a conversation below. The silence around Gaza has been deafening. Maybe it’s time we all raised our hands.