Why has America taken the world hostage regarding the events in Gaza

Last week, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres invoked Article 99, a rarely used maneuver, in order to force the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on a vote for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

The Zionist aggression on Gaza, which at the time of the vote had left at least 17,000 Gazans dead, has spawned the worst humanitarian crisis and laid bare the hypocrisy of international organizations.

The indiscriminate bombings on the besieged coastal territory by the Israeli occupation warplanes, which have targeted everything from hospitals to schools, have sparked massive protests worldwide.

Each time the UNSC has convened to broker a ceasefire agreement in Gaza, the United States has pressed ahead with its veto, demonstrating its deep complicity in the Gaza genocide as well as the impotence of the world body to end the bloodletting.

The same happened on Friday, December 8, which will go down as another blot for the world body.

A total of 13 council members voted in favor of the ceasefire resolution while the US wielded the sole veto. The United Kingdom was also the only country to abstain.

In any functioning democratic institution, a 13-1 vote would be a no-brainer. It would be a decisive victory over an overwhelmingly unpopular opinion.

But, due to the creation of the UNSC post-World War II, the United States enjoys a permanent seat at the UNSC, which means if it uses its veto; the entire resolution will be rendered dead in the water.

The UNSC is the most powerful arm of the United Nations - and perhaps the most powerful decision-making body in the world. Composed of five member states (the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom), one member of the “P5” can sabotage a peace process, or prolong a war.

The fact of the matter is that the UNSC is not only an outdated structure, but it was never a balanced structure to begin with.

The US insistence to back Israeli warplanes as they bomb Palestinian children is driven entirely by profit motives. As revealed in multiple reports, US weapons manufacturers rake in billions of dollars selling weapons to occupation forces.

Through normalization, the US can position the regime to be a doorway for the movement of trade into West Asia, circumventing projects like China’s Belt and Road Initiative or the International North-South Transport Corridor, which were established without coercion and to the protest of US imperialists.

 

As the US government is a representative of its greed-driven capitalists whose hunger for money has no end, it would have no real motive for a ceasefire or an end to aggression in Gaza.  Not without carrying out its own imperialistic policy within the resolution.

In a shocking yet not surprising development, the US House of Representatives earlier this week declared in a resolution that anti-Zionism is the same as antisemitism.

Deputy US Ambassador to the UN Robert Wood, who raised his hand in a defiant-to-humanity veto, commented on the resolution, saying that the resolution “was divorced from reality that would not move the needle forward on the ground in any concrete way.”

Careful attention needs to be paid to this statement. Though vague, tracing this statement to its logical conclusion reveals what the US really wants: not peace, but rather a political victory for Israel.

Over two months into the Al Aqsa Storm (or Al Aqsa Flood) operation, Palestinian resistance factions are alive and well, continuously defeating Israeli troops in street battles. The Zionist occupation is struggling to gain any real victory, while settlers within Israel protest their government’s failures.

ding within the resolution does not support the US’ direct profit motive, and secure the Benjamin Netanyahu regime a political win, the US seems to be intent on vetoing any resolution.

As the Israeli regime drops bomb after bomb on innocent Palestinians, the US is profiting every second, while holding the entire world is held hostage.

It is completely clear that the UNSC is an undemocratic mechanism that cannot facilitate peace - not when it really matters. Is there any other institution that can do the same?

The United Nations General Assembly has 193 member states. Resolutions within the UNGA are subject to one member, one vote. This is by far the most symbolically democratic arm of the world body - and indeed, the world. But does it have any real power?

Just last month, the UNGA voted on “the necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba.”

A total of 187 countries were in favor. Two entities voted against: The United States and Israel.

So, the blockade and embargo continue. Even within the most “democratic” arm of the UN, democracy is non-existent, as it remains powerless due to the belligerent arrogance of the United States.

Though UNGA votes are mostly symbolic and represent the general will and opinion of the world, they also highlight the roadblocks to those opinions - in the form of any vote from the UNSC.

It stands primarily as a tool to condemn interstate conflicts, which again, the US can find ways to profit from on one hand while politically positioning itself as a peace broker on the other.

It is clear the world must rethink what institutions can actually ensure security guarantees - or if existing institutions need to be reorganized and reexamined in or for them to do their jobs.

 

As the American-Israeli engineered carnage in Gaza continues, world leaders must take a brave and bold stance against those who are fueling the flames of settler-colonial violence.

They will always act in bad faith and prolong the aggression as long as it is politically convenient.

For peace to prosper, new equations that represent the will of the global majority must be set in place, or the world must risk one humanitarian disaster after another for the sake of the profits of the few.