Patrick Wintour writes:

After months of vetoing other UN security council resolutions in an effort to defend Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, the US has in recent weeks gone on to the diplomatic front foot in New York, drafting and tabling its own resolution that was put to a vote on Friday before being vetoed by Russia and China.

The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said the resolution would send “a strong signal”. But what was that signal precisely?

What did the US resolution say?
The opening wording on an immediate ceasefire was complex, even convoluted. It urged the UN to “determine the imperative for an immediate and sustained ceasefire to protect civilians on all sides, allow for the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance, and alleviate humanitarian suffering”.

It thereby supported “diplomatic efforts to secure such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages”. The US’s critics, including Russia, noted the text did not explicitly use the word “call” in terms of a ceasefire. It also implied the ceasefire would be conditional on the release of all hostages. The text marked an important tonal shift for the US, since previously the US had called for a ceasefire as soon as practicable, but the change was not as substantive as some headlines suggest. [Continue reading…]