Fourteen countries on UN Security Council voted for Gaza ceasefire. One country held out
The other 14 countries on the council voted in favour of the draft on Thursday (AEST) as a humanitarian crisis grips the enclave of more than 2 million people, where famine looms and aid has only trickled in since Israel lifted an 11-week blockade last month.
'The United States has been clear: we would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza,' acting US ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the council before the vote, arguing that it would also undermine US-led efforts to broker a ceasefire.
Washington is Israel's biggest ally and arms supplier.
The Security Council vote came as Israel pushes ahead with an offensive in Gaza after ending a two-month truce in March. Hamas-run health authorities in Gaza said Israeli strikes killed 45 people on Wednesday, while Israel said a soldier died in fighting.
Britain's UN ambassador Barbara Woodward criticised the Israeli government's decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict humanitarian aid as 'unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive'.
Israel has rejected calls for an unconditional or permanent ceasefire, saying Hamas cannot stay in Gaza. Israel's UN ambassador Danny Danon told the council members who voted in favour of the draft: 'You chose appeasement and submission. You chose a road that does not lead to peace. Only to more terror.'
Hamas condemned the US veto, describing it as showing 'the US administration's blind bias' towards Israel. The draft Security Council resolution had also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and others.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
6 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Near 60 per cent jump in price of offshore wind in the UK a cautionary tale for Chris Bowen and his unprecedented new renewables remit
UN climate chief Simon Stiell has warned that megaâ€'droughts could one day make fresh fruit and vegetables a 'onceâ€'aâ€'year treat' in Australia, alongside a forecasted $6.8 trillion GDP loss by 2050 unless emissions targets are dramatically ramped up. It would be funny if it weren't being parroted so earnestly. An unelected Grenadian bureaucrat, clocking up air miles on long-haul jets, presuming to tell Australian taxpayers what their priorities should be, as though it's his divine right. Another climate hypocrite in the conga line of green evangelists, shrieking about catastrophe while living comfortably above the sacrifices they demand of everyone else. Next month, the Albanese government is expected to lock in its 2035 emissions target once the Climate Change Authority, chaired by former NSW Liberal premier Matt Kean, hands down its advice. The figure will likely fall between 65 and 75 per cent cuts compared to 2005 levels, dwarfing the already ambitious 43 per cent reduction due by 2030. This is less a public mandate than a frantic bid to impress international delegates ahead of Australia's COP31 hosting bid. Yet no one seems to have asked Australians whether bankrupting their country for climate kudos is a good idea. Or if they're prepared to see food and energy become luxuries in the name of 'ambition'. Meanwhile, households and businesses are already paying for this grand experiment. Between 2023 and midâ€'2025, energy bills have soared around 40 per cent nationwide. From July, default market offers climbed up to 10 per cent across NSW, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia; slugging families with an extra $280 a year. That's hardly pocket change for people who already turn the heating off to keep costs down. Small businesses are on life support. A family-run grocer in Wagga Wagga expects a $24,000 annual hike despite rooftop solar. Across the country, policy shifts have added roughly $4 billion to energy costs, squeezing margins, fuelling inflation and driving up food prices. Electricity costs rose 8.1 per cent in the past year alone, feeding directly into the 4.3 per cent spike in grocery bills and 4.5 per cent rent increases. The same policymakers who promise to save the planet are making it harder for ordinary people to afford dinner. And here's the kicker: Australia is one of the most resource-rich nations on earth. It has the largest coal deposits in the world, vast gas reserves, uranium for nuclear energy and critical minerals that the green transition itself depends on. Yet these assets are increasingly politically off-limits. Billions are poured into renewables while the grid can't cope with intermittent supply, new transmission lines face fierce local opposition, and large-scale storage remains a fantasy. The government wants 82 per cent renewables by 2030, yet warns of looming blackouts. The numbers don't add up, but the ideology marches on. Simon Stiell's sermon about fruit scarcity and GDP losses comes with theatrical hand-waving but little mention of the obvious: China, which builds coal-fired plants with impunity, emits more in a fortnight than Australia does all year and faces no comparable scolding. If Australia disappeared tomorrow, global emissions would barely flinch. Yet our leaders are desperate for pats on the back from unelected bureaucrats, ready to sacrifice competitiveness and affordability for a headline moment on the world stage. We've reached a point where even questioning the policy orthodoxy (what the UN frames as ambition) is treated as blasphemy. If you ask why the West should commit economic self-harm while other nations refuse to play ball, you're a denier. Nigel Farage found his bank account closed in part for being climate-sceptical. A climate priesthood is emerging, intolerant of dissent, allergic to scrutiny, and intoxicated by its own rhetoric. Britain's experience should be a cautionary tale. Successive governments have thrown billions at offshore wind, locking consumers into spiralling costs. The latest strike prices in Contracts for Difference auctions are around £60 per megawatt hour, nearly 60 per cent higher than two years ago. With wholesale electricity averaging £70–75/MWh, taxpayers are effectively underwriting inflated returns for developers while grid bottlenecks and storage delays mean intermittency remains unsolved. The supposed 'cheap wind revolution' has never materialised on consumer bills. Instead, households face higher costs and dwindling energy security- all for climate milestones that look impressive on a spreadsheet but feel punishing in reality. This hyperbolic messaging is deliberate. Andrew Neil exposed it live on the BBC when an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson admitted that exaggerated claims about climate-related deaths were used because 'alarmism works'. UN Secretary-General António Guterres took it further in 2023, declaring that 'the era of global boiling has arrived', that 'the air is unbreathable, the is heat unbearable'. Apocalyptic wordplay wins headlines, but it breeds despair, not action. A 2021 University of Bath survey found 56 per cent of young people worldwide believe humanity is doomed. If you think the end is guaranteed, why invest, innovate or adapt? Why train as an engineer or put capital into clean tech when the message from leaders is that it's already too late? In Canberra, politics has devolved into theatre. Labor governs with a majority but faces a Senate pulled between Greens and Teal independents demanding even harsher cuts, and a Coalition that only half-heartedly argues for gas and a slower transition. The tug-of-war has left no space for serious debate about cost, reliability or trade-offs. Real people pay real bills, industries consider offshoring, and taxpayers fund green gambles that threaten jobs and prosperity. Yet politicians fall over themselves to show 'ambition' to the UN, treating pain at home as proof of virtue abroad. There is a saner path. We can slash emissions without strangling growth or making families choose between heating and eating. With Australia's vast natural resources, it should be using cleaner coal, advanced gas technology, nuclear power where viable, and investing properly in energy storage and transmission to make renewables work. Innovation, not ideology, will get us to lower emissions faster than bureaucratic diktats and theatrical targets. But for now, the West seems intent on policy masochism, applauded by the same unelected officials who never pay the price. If climate leadership now means empty wallets, unreliable grids and strawberries rationed like wartime luxuries, we've gone badly wrong. We're not decarbonising the planet. We're decarbonising prosperity. It's time to bring common sense back to the table before the only thing we power reliably is fear. Esther Krakue is a British commentator who has regularly appeared on Sky News Australia programs, as well as on TalkTV and GB News in the UK. She launched her career with Turning Point UK, with whom she hosted a show featuring guests including Douglas Murray and Peter Hitchens
The Age
6 minutes ago
- The Age
Divisive debate has no place in Australia, Tony Burke says
A day after tens of thousands of people marched in support of Gaza across the Sydney Harbour Bridge and in the Melbourne CBD, Burke countered claims from pro-Palestine activists that Labor had been weak on the Netanyahu government. 'We've taken sanctions against two members of their cabinet, so it's no light touch,' Burke said of the June decision to sanction far-right Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. 'That's a big deal. When I knocked back [a visa application from former Israeli minister Ayelet Shaked ], the huge thing was that this is a former minister. We've since then taken sanctions against current ministers.' Burke spoke to this masthead on Friday in his office at Parliament House, the same office occupied by Peter Dutton when he was home affairs minister. Unlike previous governments, Burke said that Labor wanted people to feel safe but without compromising security. 'The Coalition approach on this portfolio is they want people to be safe and feel afraid. The Labor approach is you want people to be safe and feel safe,' Burke said. 'Language that's been used right back to Tony Abbott and before, had a direct impact on Muslims being abused in the street. Scott Morrison's language had a direct impact on the Chinese community.' In 2017, Dutton become the first minister in charge of the Home Affairs mega-department that takes in police, immigration and spy agencies. It was split up by Labor last term due to concerns about handing power to one minister and worries about maintaining proper checks on intelligence agencies. Mark Dreyfus, the former attorney-general and barrister, was a key voice inside Labor arguing against Dutton's super-sized portfolio. In Labor's first term, Dreyfus was handed ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. But after the election, Dreyfus was unceremoniously pushed out of the cabinet and Burke's department was turned back into the all-encompassing portfolio. Dreyfus was contacted for comment. Burke, the member for Watson in western Sydney, is one of the prime minister's most trusted strategists on the right of the party and is considered a rival to Treasurer Jim Chalmers to one day lead Labor. Loading Speaking about his expanded portfolio, Burke said the security environment described by ASIO chief Mike Burgess, characterised by online-fuelled grievances mixing rapidly to create lone-wolf actors, had strengthened the case for a central point of accountability for security inside the government. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese previously cited the Dural caravan incident, about which he was not briefed for days after the discovery of what turned out to be a planted bomb in a caravan, as justification for returning security agencies to the Home Affairs department. 'Pace is much more of an issue' in the modern era of radicalisation, Burke said, and by streamlining the department, 'you get much quicker access to a full range of risks, well before they start to be confirmed'. Burke said the attempted hijacking at Avalon airport in Victoria in March was an example. 'The simplest example that really struck me was Avalon,' he said. 'The pace between someone coming into our orbit and action is truncated from what used to be months or years to, you know, potentially days.' In the Avalon case, a teenager was detained by flight attendants after he allegedly boarded a Jetstar flight armed with a shotgun. The identities of foreigners the 17-year-old may have spoken to before the incident have been suppressed by the Children's Court of Victoria.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Divisive debate has no place in Australia, Tony Burke says
A day after tens of thousands of people marched in support of Gaza across the Sydney Harbour Bridge and in the Melbourne CBD, Burke countered claims from pro-Palestine activists that Labor had been weak on the Netanyahu government. 'We've taken sanctions against two members of their cabinet, so it's no light touch,' Burke said of the June decision to sanction far-right Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. 'That's a big deal. When I knocked back [a visa application from former Israeli minister Ayelet Shaked ], the huge thing was that this is a former minister. We've since then taken sanctions against current ministers.' Burke spoke to this masthead on Friday in his office at Parliament House, the same office occupied by Peter Dutton when he was home affairs minister. Unlike previous governments, Burke said that Labor wanted people to feel safe but without compromising security. 'The Coalition approach on this portfolio is they want people to be safe and feel afraid. The Labor approach is you want people to be safe and feel safe,' Burke said. 'Language that's been used right back to Tony Abbott and before, had a direct impact on Muslims being abused in the street. Scott Morrison's language had a direct impact on the Chinese community.' In 2017, Dutton become the first minister in charge of the Home Affairs mega-department that takes in police, immigration and spy agencies. It was split up by Labor last term due to concerns about handing power to one minister and worries about maintaining proper checks on intelligence agencies. Mark Dreyfus, the former attorney-general and barrister, was a key voice inside Labor arguing against Dutton's super-sized portfolio. In Labor's first term, Dreyfus was handed ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. But after the election, Dreyfus was unceremoniously pushed out of the cabinet and Burke's department was turned back into the all-encompassing portfolio. Dreyfus was contacted for comment. Burke, the member for Watson in western Sydney, is one of the prime minister's most trusted strategists on the right of the party and is considered a rival to Treasurer Jim Chalmers to one day lead Labor. Loading Speaking about his expanded portfolio, Burke said the security environment described by ASIO chief Mike Burgess, characterised by online-fuelled grievances mixing rapidly to create lone-wolf actors, had strengthened the case for a central point of accountability for security inside the government. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese previously cited the Dural caravan incident, about which he was not briefed for days after the discovery of what turned out to be a planted bomb in a caravan, as justification for returning security agencies to the Home Affairs department. 'Pace is much more of an issue' in the modern era of radicalisation, Burke said, and by streamlining the department, 'you get much quicker access to a full range of risks, well before they start to be confirmed'. Burke said the attempted hijacking at Avalon airport in Victoria in March was an example. 'The simplest example that really struck me was Avalon,' he said. 'The pace between someone coming into our orbit and action is truncated from what used to be months or years to, you know, potentially days.' In the Avalon case, a teenager was detained by flight attendants after he allegedly boarded a Jetstar flight armed with a shotgun. The identities of foreigners the 17-year-old may have spoken to before the incident have been suppressed by the Children's Court of Victoria.
