The U.N. Security Council finally passed a resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza amid Israel's relentless attacks, which destroyed the blockaded enclave and killed over 32,000 Palestinians.
The United States abstained on the resolution, which also demanded the release of all hostages taken captive during Hamas' Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel. But the measure does not link that demand to the cease-fire during Ramadan, which ends April 9.
The vote comes after Russia and China vetoed a U.S.-sponsored resolution Friday that would have supported "an immediate and sustained cease-fire" in the Israeli-Hamas conflict.
The United States warned that the resolution to be voted on Monday morning could hurt negotiations to halt hostilities by the U.S., Egypt and Qatar, raising the possibility of another veto, this time by the Americans.
The resolution, put forward by the 10 elected council members, is backed by Russia and China and the 22-nation Arab Group at the United Nations.
A statement issued Friday night by the Arab Group appealed to all 15 council members "to act with unity and urgency" and vote for the resolution "to halt the bloodshed, preserve human lives and avert further human suffering and destruction."
"It is long past time for a cease-fire," the Arab Group said.
Ramadan began March 10 and ends April 9, which means that if the resolution is approved the cease-fire demand would last for just two weeks, though the draft says the pause in fighting should lead "to a permanent sustainable cease-fire."
The vote was originally scheduled for Saturday morning, but its sponsors asked late Friday for a delay until Monday morning.
Many Security Council members are hoping the U.N.'s most powerful body, which is charged with maintaining international peace and security, will demand an end to the war that began when Gaza's Hamas rulers launched a surprise attack into southern Israel on Oct. 7, killing about 1,200 people and taking some 250 others hostage.
Since then, the Security Council has adopted two resolutions on the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza, but none has called for a cease-fire.
More than 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed during the fighting, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. It does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in its count, but says women and children make up two-thirds of the dead.
Gaza also faces a dire humanitarian emergency, with a report from an international authority on hunger warning March 18 that "famine is imminent" in northern Gaza and that escalation of the war could push half of the territory's 2.3 million people to the brink of starvation.
The brief resolution scheduled for a vote Monday "demands an immediate humanitarian cease-fire for the month of Ramadan." It also demands "the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages " and emphasizes the urgent need to protect civilians and deliver humanitarian aid throughout the Gaza Strip.
U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the council Friday that the resolution's text "fails to support sensitive diplomacy in the region. Worse, it could actually give Hamas an excuse to walk away from the deal on the table."
"We should not move forward with any resolution that jeopardizes the ongoing negotiations," she said, warning that if the diplomacy isn't supported, "we may once again find this council deadlocked."
"I truly hope that that does not come about," Thomas-Greenfield said.
The United States has vetoed three resolutions demanding a cease-fire in Gaza, the most recent an Arab-backed measure on Feb. 20. That resolution was supported by 13 council members with one abstention, reflecting the overwhelming support for a cease-fire.
Russia and China vetoed a U.S.-sponsored resolution in late October calling for pauses in the fighting to deliver aid, the protection of civilians and a halt to arming Hamas. They said it did not reflect global calls for a cease-fire.
They again vetoed the U.S. resolution Friday, calling it ambiguous and saying it was not the direct demand to end the fighting that much of the world seeks.
The vote became another showdown involving world powers that are locked in tense disputes elsewhere, with the United States taking criticism for not being tough enough against its ally Israel, even as tensions between the two countries rise.
A key issue was the unusual language in the U.S. draft. It said the Security Council "determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire." The phrasing was not a straightforward "demand" or "call" to halt hostilities.
Before the vote, Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said Moscow supports an immediate cease-fire, but he criticized the diluted language, which he called philosophical wording that does not belong in a U.N. resolution.
He accused U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield of "deliberately misleading the international community" about calling for a cease-fire.
"This was some kind of an empty rhetorical exercise," Nebenzia said. "The American product is exceedingly politicized, the sole purpose of which is to help to play to the voters, to throw them a bone in the form of some kind of a mention of a cease-fire in Gaza ... and to ensure the impunity of Israel, whose crimes in the draft are not even assessed."
China's U.N. ambassador, Zhang Jun, said the U.S. proposal set preconditions and fell far short of expectations of council members and the broader international community.
"If the U.S. was serious about a cease-fire, it wouldn't have vetoed time and again multiple council resolutions," he said. "It wouldn't have taken such a detour and played a game of words while being ambiguous and evasive on critical issues."
Friday's vote in the 15-member council was 11 members in favor and three against, including Algeria, the Arab representative on the council. There was one abstention, from Guyana.
In previous resolutions, the U.S. has closely intertwined calls for a cease-fire with demands for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza. This resolution, using wording that's open to interpretation, continued to link the two issues, but not as firmly.
