28 March 2024 – The Hindu

Resolution of the UNSC on Gaza Ceasefire

• A request for a “immediate ceasefire” was made by the UN Security Council (UNSC) on March 25, 2024, five and a half months after Israel started its attack on Gaza. The UNSC also demanded the release of every hostage that Hamas was holding.
• A change in the Biden administration’s stance towards the crisis was evident when the US abstained this time, after having previously vetoed every UN resolution urging a quick ceasefire in Gaza.

What resolution did the UNSC pass?

• Not only does it demand that all parties observe the month of Ramadan with a “immediate ceasefire that leads to a lasting, sustainable ceasefire,” but it also says:
• The liberation of the Israelis kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, 2023, highlights the necessity of increasing humanitarian aid to Gaza and upholding international law.

Character of the Settlement:

• According to Article 25 of the UN Charter, which the US adopted, all UNSC resolutions are regarded as binding. The US has clarified that the most recent resolution is not legally binding.
• The UNSC may vote on a subsequent resolution addressing the violation and may impose penalties or even authorise the use of international force as punitive measures if a resolution is not followed.

Prior Resolutions:

• A resolution declaring Israel’s settlements in Palestine to be unlawful and a breach of international law was adopted by the UNSC in 2016. With 14 votes in favour of the measure, the US abstained. This resolution was disregarded by Israel.
• More recently, in December 2023, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a “humanitarian ceasefire” by a resounding majority. That resolution was non-binding, and Israel declined to implement it.
• South Africa has accused Israel of committing acts of genocide in Gaza, putting it under scrutiny at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

What Part Does the US Play in Resolutions Endorsing Ceasefire?

US role in relation to Russia:

• The United States has maintained its unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and has not stopped providing military assistance to the country. The US did not exercise its veto authority against the resolution; instead, it refrained from voting on it, firmly stating that “Our vote does not – and We repeat that, does not – represent a shift in our policy.”
• In an attempt to reach an agreement on the wording, the term “permanent” was removed from the resolution just before the vote.
• Russia made an attempt to advocate for the word “permanent,” claiming that if it weren’t used, Israel would be able to “resume its military operation in the Gaza Strip at any moment” following Ramadan.

Resolution Proposed by the US:

• The US presented a draft resolution to the UNSC, and its members cast votes on it. China and Russia vetoed it, Algeria voted against it, and Guyana did not vote. This draft resolution, which came before the current resolution, received the support of eleven members.
• The resolution backed “international diplomatic efforts to establish an immediate and sustained ceasefire as part of a deal that releases the hostages,” rather than calling for a ceasefire.
• United States denounces Hamas in Resolution:
• Members of the UNSC were encouraged in the USA’s resolution to “suppress the financing of terrorism, including by restricting financing of Hamas.” In addition to denouncing Hamas, the resolution said that “many member states have designated Hamas as a terrorist organisation.”
• The US statement went on to say that the resolution did not explicitly denounce Hamas, which is a crucial phrase that the US considers to be crucial.

Effect on the US-Israeli Relationship:

• After vetoing three prior draft resolutions requesting a ceasefire, the US chose to abstain. The Israeli prime minister then postponed a delegation’s travel to Washington, claiming that the US had changed its mind about its UN position.

How did Israel react to the resolution calling for a ceasefire?

Ceasefire Does Not Precondition Hostage Release:

• All UNSC members—aside from the US—voted in favour of the resolution, even Britain, which has up until now rejected calls to support a ceasefire. Disappointed that the agreement did not condition a ceasefire on the release of Israeli detainees under Hamas’s control, Israel reacted angrily.
• Arranging the Rafah Attack:
• In recent years, Israel has insisted over and again that an assault of Rafah, the southernmost town where 1.4 million Palestinians are crammed into a small area, is imminent. It would be completely out of place for Israel to strike Rafah, which would result in yet further carnage, following the demands of fourteen UNSC members for an immediate ceasefire.
• Israel’s isolation has worsened as a result of the war, with tensions growing even with its closest allies, the US and Britain. In addition to killing more Palestinians in the helpless, beaten, trapped, bombed-out Gaza, Israel will only exacerbate the internal and international problems it is already facing if the war is carried out with no apparent end in sight.
• With this agreement, Israel received no comfort and might end up getting further involved in the conflict, with no positive results expected in the medium or short term.
• Instead of adhering to the United States’ declared “red line,” which prohibits Israel from launching a ground invasion, Israel has intensified its rhetoric. It has even rejected the idea of a two-state solution.
• Such maximalist viewpoints are unworkable with regard to the ongoing conflict as well as the larger Israel-Palestine issue. They undermine Israel’s long-term objectives as well.
• The UN further stated that as Hamas is not a state, the agreement only applies to Israel and not to the Palestinian organisation. The state of Israel has responded strongly to this, calling it a partial resolution that ignores Israeli concerns and discriminatory. Israel contends that Hamas, not Israel, initiated and carried out the initial stages of the conflict.

What are the many options that Israel now has?

Maintaining a Long-Term View:

• Israel should take the UNSC’s message seriously, end the conflict, permit immediate humanitarian aid to reach Gaza, and carry on with negotiations with Hamas via outside mediators to secure the release of all hostages and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the enclave, rather than continuing to maintain the nation in a perpetual state of war.

Respecting the Abrahamic Accords’ Values:

• Israel was in a reasonable position in relation to its neighbours and the larger international community prior to the start of the conflict, particularly in light of the Abraham Accords, which aimed to normalise relations between Israel and a number of Arab states.
• Israel’s administration needs to heed its supporters and put a halt to hostilities as it becomes more and more alone. If not, it will serve to confirm the perception that the country’s prime leader is prioritising his own political ambitions over the interests of the people.

Working along with Hamas:

• Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian organisation in charge of Gaza and the one that started the conflict on October 7 by striking Israel in a way never seen before, praised the agreement as well.
• It stated that it was prepared “to engage in an immediate prisoner exchange process that leads to the release of prisoners on both sides” . Any release of the hostages has been conditioned by the group on Israel releasing Palestinian prisoners housed in Israeli jails.

Aligning with the US Position:

• It had previously been claimed that the US was shielding Israel at the UN using its veto power. But in light of the rising death toll in Gaza, where over 32,000 people have perished, the most of them women and children, it has grown more critical of Israel.
• Additionally, the US has put more pressure on Israel to expedite the delivery of aid to Gaza, where it claims that the entire population is experiencing acute and severe food insecurity.

India’s Part in Encouraging a Well-Composed Strategy:

• The Israeli government’s resistance and that of other concerned parties has made the situation worse, but the international community as a whole needs to unite for a peaceful resolution.
• Thus, a reasonable strategy would support Israel’s positive relations with the Arab world. India can effectively benefit on its longstanding positive relations with Israel and the Middle East.
• India was chosen again to serve on the Human Rights Council from 2022 to 2024. India ought to mediate a settlement between Israel and Palestine through these multilateral venues.
• The US’s recent abstention from the UNSC resolution represents a dramatic change in policy regarding the Israel-Palestine issue. Notwithstanding detractors who claim that the resolution’s non-binding character lessens its significance and see the action as a political manoeuvre before of elections, it highlights the mounting strain between the US administration and the Israeli government. The US’ warnings to Israel against launching a ground offensive in Rafah serve as a stark reminder of the growing conflict. For the sake of regional stability and its own national interest, Israel must reevaluate its approach to the war because its maximalist stances put it at risk of increased isolation and jeopardise its long-term interests.