DW 
A UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza failed after the United States, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Council, voted against the measure.
“The US engaged in good faith on this text,” US Deputy Envoy to the UN Robert Wood said, adding that the resolution was “divorced from reality” and would not change the situation on the ground in Gaza. Wood said the text did not include language condemning Hamas’ terror attacks on Israel on October 7.
He said an immediate cease-fire now would keep Hamas in place and allow it to carry out more terror attacks.
Israel, Hamas react to resolution’s failure
Israel‘s foreign minister Eli Cohen thanked the US for its vote against a resolution calling for a humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza.
“With gratitude to our ally, the US, for its support to continue the fight to bring the hostages home and to eliminate the Hamas terrorist organisation, which will bring a better future to the region,” Cohen wrote on Twitter.
“A cease-fire at this time would prevent the collapse of the Hamas terrorist organisation, which is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and would enable it to continue ruling the Gaza Strip.”
Meanwhile, senior Hamas official Izzat al-Rishq said in a statement the group, designated a terrorist organisation by the US and others, strongly condemned the US veto.
“The US obstruction of the issuance of a cease-fire resolution is a direct participation with [Israel] in killing our people and committing more massacres and ethnic cleansing,” he said.
Cohen again criticised UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his decision to invoke Article 99 of the UN Charter and formally warn the Security Council of a global threat from the war. That decision led to Friday’s session and vote.
“Guterres’ appeal to stand on the side of Hamas and request a cease-fire disgraces his position,” Cohen said. “The invocation of Article 99, after it was not used for the war in Ukraine or for the civil war in Syria, is another example of Guterres’ biased and one-sided stance.”
This article was originally published on DW.