SAEDNEWS: At the UN General Assembly, Trump called for an immediate end to the Gaza warâbut behind the scenes, US vetoes continue to stall every effort toward a ceasefire, revealing a striking diplomatic contradiction.
At the 80th United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2025, US President Donald Trump called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, labeling the ongoing conflict a âhumanitarian catastrophe.â Yet this high-profile plea sharply contrasts with Washingtonâs actions in the UN Security Council, where the US repeatedly used its veto power to block resolutions demanding a halt to hostilities.
Despite Trumpâs call for peace, on September 18, 2025, the US vetoed a crucial resolution demanding an âimmediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefireâ in Gaza, approved by 14 of 15 council members. The resolution also sought to lift restrictions on humanitarian aid amid Israelâs intensified offensive. Analysts note that this stark discrepancy reveals a dual-track approach: public moral advocacy versus strategic political alignment with Israel.
The Palestinian Ambassador to the UN, Riyad Mansour, called the veto âdeeply regrettable,â arguing it prevented the Security Council from fulfilling its role in protecting civilians against ongoing atrocities.
Trumpâs speech emphasized the release of captives and criticized Western recognition of Palestinian statehood as a ârewardâ for Hamas, portraying the US as a neutral mediator. Yet, he refrained from criticizing Israel or suggesting tangible steps to end its military operations. This selective framing positions the US as a humanitarian actor while shielding Israel from international accountability.
Observers argue that Trumpâs UNGA address is largely symbolicâhighlighting moral concerns without challenging Israelâmirroring a long-standing US strategy of projecting diplomacy while preserving strategic alliances.
This contrast highlights a persistent American foreign policy paradox: statements designed to appease global opinion coexist with actions that protect national and strategic interests. The result is a striking contradiction between rhetoric and reality, raising critical questions about the credibility of US diplomacy in the Gaza conflict.
Trumpâs speech demonstrates the limits of symbolic diplomacy. While publicly advocating peace, the US continues to enable military escalation through vetoes and strategic inaction. The divergence between words and deeds underscores a calculated balance: appearing engaged in humanitarian efforts while maintaining unwavering support for Israel, leaving international efforts for a genuine ceasefire stalled.
