US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate Gaza ceasefire
Headline Legal News
The United States on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza because it was not linked to the release of hostages, saying it would embolden Hamas militants.
All 14 other members of the council voted in favor of the resolution, which described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as “catastrophic” and called on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid to the 2.1 million Palestinians in the territory.
The resolution before the U.N.'s most powerful body also did not fulfill two other U.S. demands: It did not condemn Hamas’ deadly attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza.
Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea, speaking to the council immediately before the vote, said the resolution would undermine the security of Israel. a close U.S. ally, and diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire “that reflects the realities on the ground.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the resolution would only have empowered Hamas. “Hamas could end this brutal conflict immediately by laying down its arms and releasing all remaining hostages,” he said in a statement.
Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon thanked the United States for refusing to abandon the hostages. He said the resolution’s failure to make the release of hostages a condition for a ceasefire would have put all the pressure on Israel and handed Hamas “time, leverage and political cover.”
But the U.S. veto of the resolution ? its fifth since the start of the war ? was roundly criticized by other members of the council, who accused the United States of providing Israel with impunity. The Chinese ambassador to the U.N. said Israel’s actions have “crossed every red line” of international humanitarian law and seriously violated U.N. resolutions. “Yet, due to the shielding by one country, these violations have not been stopped or held accountable,” Ambassador Fu Cong said.
Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward, a usual U.S. ally, lashed out at Israel. “This Israeli government’s decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid are unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive, and the U.K. completely opposes them,” she said.
Pakistan’s Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad said the U.S. veto “will be remembered as a complicity, a green light for continued annihilation. A moment where the entire world was expecting action. But yet again, this council was blocked and prevented by one member from carrying out its responsibility.”
Slovenia’s U.N. Ambassador Samuel ?bogar, the coordinator for the council’s 10 elected members, stressed that it was never the intention to provoke a veto and therefore the resolution focused on the humanitarian crisis and the urgent need for unimpeded access to deliver aid.
Related listings
-
Romania’s top court annuls first round of presidential vote
Headline Legal News 12/06/2024A top Romanian court on Friday annulled the first round of the country’s presidential election, days after allegations that Russia ran a coordinated online campaign to promote the far-right outsider who won the first round.The Constitutional Co...
-
Court rules nearly 98000 Arizonans can vote the full ballot
Headline Legal News 09/21/2024The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously ruled Friday that nearly 98,000 people whose citizenship documents hadn’t been confirmed can vote in state and local races, a significant decision that could influence ballot measures and tight legislative ...
-
Google faces new antitrust trial after ruling declaring search engine a monopoly
Headline Legal News 09/07/2024One month after a judge declared Google’s search engine an illegal monopoly, the tech giant faces another antitrust lawsuit that threatens to break up the company, this time over its advertising technology.The Justice Department, joined by a co...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.