The United States may once again block a draft UN Security Council resolution that calls for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. Russian officials on the Russian Permanent Mission to the United Nations reported this development through an online messaging channel, with First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyansky weighing in on the situation. The claim underscores the high stakes surrounding Security Council deliberations and the global attention focused on the Gaza crisis as diplomats prepare for another test of the council’s unity.
According to the report, a vote is scheduled for February 20 at 10:00 in New York, which corresponds to 18:00 Moscow time. The draft resolution, put forward by Algeria, urges an immediate end to hostilities and demands steps to protect civilians in Gaza. The timing places the council at a critical juncture as member states weigh the prospect of a concrete humanitarian pause versus political maneuvering within the council chamber.
Polyansky recalled that the United States has previously expressed dissatisfaction with the Algerian text and signaled that it plans to exercise its veto power if necessary. He noted that this would mark the fourth veto by the United States in relation to Gaza discussions since October of the previous year, highlighting the ongoing friction between Washington and other council members over how to respond to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Such vetoes reflect not only divergent strategic priorities but also broader questions about the council’s ability to influence events in a volatile region.
The deputy head of the Russian mission argued that every veto in this context creates a reputational injury for the United States, particularly in the Middle East, where credibility on matters of security and humanitarian protection is closely watched by regional actors and observers alike. The repeated use of the veto during a period of escalating violence has drawn scrutiny from allies, rivals, and international observers who seek a clear path toward de-escalation and accountability.
In late January, the International Court of Justice issued a ruling directing Israel to take all necessary measures to prevent genocide in the Gaza Strip. The court’s decision was widely analyzed as a strong call for proportional measures and the protection of civilian life under international law. In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended Israel’s actions as necessary to safeguard its population from Hamas while arguing that Israel remains committed to operating within the bounds of international law. The exchange illustrates the tension between legal rulings and on-the-ground security concerns that commonly shape debates within international bodies and among national governments.
Previously, internal discussions within Israel reflected a cautious stance toward US policy recommendations concerning Gaza. The evolving dynamic shows how allied capitals balance international legal judgments, humanitarian considerations, and security imperatives when formulating responses to the Gaza crisis. As diplomats prepare for the next round of council discussions, questions persist about the extent to which the Security Council can deliver a unified response that aligns with the conflicting priorities of its most influential members without compromising the safety of civilians or the strategic positions of major regional players.