Opinion: The Day the Guardian of Peace Choose War
By Tu’ifua Vailena
In a vote that could have signalled hope to millions of suffering civilians in Gaza, the United States chose instead to wield its veto — the only dissenting voice on the United Nations Security Council — blocking a resolution that demanded an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire. Fourteen nations stood united for peace. One did not. And with that decision, the country that so often claims to lead the free world delivered a devastating blow to its moral standing.
This was not merely a diplomatic disagreement. It was a humanitarian failure of historic proportions.
Over 54,000 Palestinians are dead, entire families wiped out, and famine looms large over more than two million people trapped in Gaza. Aid, after being throttled for weeks, now trickles through a handful of insecure and politicised channels. Children are starving. Hospitals are overwhelmed. Civilians are caught between bombs and bureaucracy. And yet, the United States – self-declared guardian of global human rights – decided that a full ceasefire was too much to ask.
The justification from the US, voiced by acting ambassador Dorothy Shea, was chilling in its cold calculus. The resolution did not “condemn Hamas” or demand that it disarm, she said. But must condemnation precede compassion? Are innocent lives in Gaza now a negotiating tool? Does peace only deserve a chance if the political language suits Washington’s terms?
This is a dangerous precedent — that the right to life and protection from war crimes can be vetoed.
Make no mistake: Hamas bears responsibility for heinous acts committed on October 7, and any future for Gaza cannot include rule by those who commit atrocities. But the answer to terrorism cannot be collective punishment. A just world cannot look away while a population is bombed, starved, and displaced in the name of security. This is not self-defence; it is state-sanctioned siege warfare.
The United States often speaks of rules-based order, of defending democratic values, and of leading by example. Yet, in moments like these, it leads in the wrong direction — against peace, against international consensus, and against the very people it claims to protect.
This veto is not just a blow to Palestinians. It is a stain on the conscience of the world. It signals that the machinery of diplomacy can be hijacked by a single power, even when the global chorus calls out for mercy.
History will remember this vote. It will remember who stood for peace, and who stood in its way.
