The Sixth Veto: How the US Stance on Gaza Is Reshaping Global Alliances and Deepening a Humanitarian Abyss 

On September 18, 2025, the United States isolated itself diplomatically by vetoing a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza for the sixth time, arguing the measure insufficiently condemned Hamas and failed to recognize Israel’s right to self-defense; the veto, which stood against the support of all 14 other council members, was met with profound disappointment from allies and came amid what the UN described as a “cataclysmic” humanitarian situation in Gaza City, where Israeli advances were collapsing the last lifelines for civilians and compounding a death toll that includes hundreds succumbing to starvation.

The Sixth Veto: How the US Stance on Gaza Is Reshaping Global Alliances and Deepening a Humanitarian Abyss 

The chamber of the United Nations Security Council is designed to project an aura of immutable global order. Yet, on September 18, 2025, it was the epicenter of a profound and painful rupture. For the sixth time since the war in Gaza began, the United States raised its hand in solitary opposition, wielding its veto power to block a resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire. The draft, supported unanimously by the other 14 council members, withered on the vine, leaving not just a diplomatic text in its wake, but a deepening sense of global fracture and a “cataclysmic” human reality on the ground that words struggle to capture. 

This repeated act, while framed by Washington as a matter of principle, is more than a procedural footnote. It is a powerful symbol of a shifting world order, a testament to the limits of international diplomacy, and a decision with immediate, dire consequences for millions. To understand this moment is to look beyond the vote itself and into the intricate web of strategy, morality, and raw human suffering it represents. 

The Unyielding American Position: A Stance of “Insufficient Condemnation” 

US Deputy Middle East Envoy Morgan Ortagus articulated the American position with crisp, unyielding clarity. The resolution, she argued, “fails to condemn Hamas or recognise Israel’s right to defend itself,” and “wrongly legitimises the false narratives benefitting Hamas.” 

From the US perspective, this is a non-negotiable red line. The trauma of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack—which killed approximately 1,200 Israelis and saw 251 taken hostage—remains the foundational justification for Israel’s military campaign. Any diplomatic initiative that does not explicitly and forcefully begin from this point is seen in Washington and Jerusalem as morally equivocal and strategically flawed. It treats the symptom (the war) without addressing the cause (the continued threat of Hamas). 

The US, therefore, frames its veto not as an endorsement of endless conflict, but as a demand for a more “balanced” approach. It insists any ceasefire must be part of a durable solution that ensures Hamas, an organization designated as a terrorist group by the US and others, cannot repeat its atrocities. An immediate, unconditional ceasefire, in this view, would simply allow Hamas to regroup, rearm, and perpetuate a cycle of violence, leaving Israel’s security existential threat unaddressed. 

A Chorus of Global Disappointment: The World Speaks Back 

The reaction from the international community was swift and laden with emotion, highlighting the growing chasm between the US and its traditional allies. 

Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour’s words were steeped in sorrow, calling the veto “deeply regrettable and painful.” His statement that it prevented the Security Council from “playing its rightful role in the face of these atrocities” speaks to a core frustration: the neutering of the world’s premier body for international peace and security by the unilateral power of a single member state. 

The responses from Pakistan and Algeria were even more visceral. Ambassador Asim Ahmad termed it “a dark moment in this chamber,” a stark descriptor that underscores the moral weight many nations attach to the ongoing bloodshed. But it was Algerian Ambassador Amar Bendjama’s apology that cut deepest: “Palestinian brothers, Palestinian sisters, forgive us… Forgive us because our efforts, our sincere efforts, shattered against this wall of rejection.” 

This raw apology is more than rhetoric. It is a damning indictment of a system perceived as fundamentally broken, where overwhelming multilateral consensus is rendered meaningless by a single vote. It signals a deep erosion of American soft power and moral authority on this issue, not among adversaries, but among fellow council members and allies. 

The “Cataclysmic” Reality on the Ground: Where Diplomacy Meets Desperation 

While diplomats debated in the climate-controlled comfort of New York, the reality they were deliberating over was unfolding in dust, blood, and despair. The UN’s humanitarian office described the situation in Gaza City as “cataclysmic,” a word chosen not for dramatic effect but for terrifying accuracy. 

Israeli tanks advancing into the city for a third day have triggered a new wave of frantic displacement. For the civilians trapped there, the lifelines are collapsing. The resolution itself highlighted the “catastrophic” humanitarian situation and called on Israel to lift all aid restrictions—a call that now goes unheeded. 

The numbers are staggering but often lose their humanity through repetition: over 65,000 killed in Gaza by Israeli strikes, according to the local health ministry. But perhaps the most harrowing statistic is the 435 deaths attributed not to bombs, but to malnutrition and starvation. Four of those deaths occurred in the 24 hours leading up to the vote. These are not casualties of war in the traditional sense; they are casualties of a crippled and besieged infrastructure, a testament to a humanitarian crisis so severe that people are dying from a lack of food, water, and medicine. 

This is the context the US veto operates within. It is a decision that, regardless of its strategic intent, is perceived by much of the world as enabling the continuation of this human suffering. 

The Historical Echo and the Gathering Storm 

This sixth veto is not an anomaly; it is part of a long-standing pattern of US diplomatic protection of Israel at the UN. However, the current context makes it particularly significant. The vote came just days before the UN General Assembly, where the US is expected to find itself even more isolated. Key allies like the UK are reportedly poised to formally recognize an independent Palestinian state, a move that would represent a seismic shift in international diplomacy and a direct challenge to the US-Israeli playbook. 

This gathering momentum toward recognition suggests that the US strategy of buying time for Israel to achieve its military objectives is simultaneously straining its own global relationships. The world is not waiting for Washington’s lead. Nations are moving unilaterally and multilaterally to shape the post-war reality, potentially leaving the US and Israel as outliers clinging to a stance the majority has rejected. 

The Unanswered Questions and the Path Forward 

The US veto forces several difficult questions. At what point does unwavering support for a partner’s right to self-defense become complicity in a humanitarian disaster? How does the international community effectively respond when the mechanisms designed to prevent such crises are systematically paralyzed? 

The American stance is predicated on the idea that a military solution is possible and that Israel can definitively eradicate Hamas. Many military analysts and historians question this assumption, pointing to the deeply entrenched nature of ideologically driven militant groups. Furthermore, each day of fighting radicalizes a new generation, sowing the seeds for future conflict even if current tactical goals are met. 

The alternative path—an immediate ceasefire followed by intense international pressure for a political solution—is fraught with its own perils. It risks empowering Hamas and feels like an unjust reward for terrorism to many Israelis and Americans. Yet, the current path guarantees continued death, regional instability, and the further erosion of the US’s standing. 

The sixth US veto at the UN Security Council is more than a vote. It is a symbol of a painful and intractable dilemma. It represents the collision of a principled, if controversial, strategic alliance with an unfolding human tragedy of historic proportions. As American diplomats speak of unfinished condemnations and the right to defend, the world hears the cries of children dying from hunger under the rubble of a conflict with no end in sight. The gap between the diplomatic chamber in New York and the streets of Gaza has never been wider, and with each veto, the bridge to cross it becomes harder to build.