2024-03-26 16:38:00
(CNN) — After several failed attempts throughout Israel’s devastating five-month war in Gaza, the United Nations Security Council finally approved a resolution on Monday calling for an immediate ceasefire. The United States, which had been the only remaining obstacle to such a call, decided not to reject the resolution.
The vote came as a shock to Israel, which saw its decades-long American ally abstain rather than veto the measure, as it has consistently done over the years in its diplomatic support for the Jewish state. Israeli authorities attacked the resolution, stating that they have no intention of ceasing fire.
More than 32,000 people have been killed in Gaza in operations Israel launched after Hamas-led fighters attacked the country on October 7, killing 1,200 people and taking 250 hostages.
Israel criticized the resolution’s language, saying it does not firmly link a ceasefire to the release of hostages held in Gaza. The resolution demands “an immediate ceasefire…and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.” A resolution proposed by the United States last week, which failed, called for a ceasefire directly linked to the release of the hostages.
Although the United States claims that the latest resolution is non-binding, experts differ on whether this is the case. The key is in the language of the document, they say.
This is what we know:
Will the resolution have repercussions on the ground in Gaza?
Israel reacted angrily to the resolution, stating that it has no intention of abiding by it. Israeli attacks on Gaza continued on Tuesday.
Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan criticized the Security Council for approving a measure calling for a ceasefire “without making it conditional on the release of the hostages.”
“It undermines efforts to secure his release,” he said at the United Nations.
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Israel Katz stated in X that his country will not abide by the resolution.
“The State of Israel will not cease fire,” Katz said. “We will destroy Hamas and continue fighting until the last of the hostages returns home.”
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu retaliated for the American abstention by canceling a scheduled trip to the United States by two of his top advisers. Israeli National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi and Ron Dermer, a member of the war cabinet, were scheduled to travel to Washington on Monday night to discuss alternatives to a planned Israeli offensive on the southern Gaza city of Rafah. The meeting had been requested by US President Joe Biden.
“On the ground right now… I think there is no immediate effect,” said Gabriela Shalev, Israel’s former ambassador to the UN and professor emeritus at the Hebrew University School of Law. “But it certainly has a moral and general effect.”
Is the resolution binding on Israel?
Following the resolution’s passage, U.S. officials were at pains to say that the resolution is non-binding. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller repeatedly stated during a press conference that the resolution is not binding, before admitting that its technical details must be determined by international jurists.
Similarly, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby and US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield separately insisted that the resolution is not binding.
After the approval of the resolution, China’s ambassador to the UN, Zhang Jun, replied that these types of resolutions are binding. UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq said Security Council resolutions are international law, “so to that extent they are as binding as international law is.”
Experts say that the binding nature of a resolution depends on the language used, since ambiguous language leaves room for interpretation. In this case, there have been divergent opinions on whether the resolution falls under Chapter VI of the UN Charter (which considers it non-binding) or Chapter VII (binding). This resolution “demands” a ceasefire.
According to Maya Ungar, an analyst who follows the evolution of the UN Security Council at the International Crisis Group (ICG), a Brussels-based think tank, “the United States, which adheres to a legal tradition that adopts a more restrictive, maintains that without the use of the word ‘decides’ or the evocation of Chapter VII in the text, the resolution is not binding. “Other member states and international law scholars argue that there is legal precedent for the idea that ‘demand’ is implicitly a decision of the council.”
“The crux of the issue is the language of the resolution and the way member states are interpreting the Charter differently,” he added.
“The United States is trying to walk a fine line between criticizing and supporting Israel,” Ungar said. “By arguing that the resolution is non-binding, it appears that the United States has calculated that it could make a public statement by not vetoing without facing too violent a reaction from Israel.”
Even if legal experts decide the resolution is binding, the question remains of how and by whom it can be enforced, said Yossi Mekelberg, an associate fellow in the Middle East and North Africa program at the Chatham House think tank in London.
“The answer is no one,” Mekelberg told CNN, especially since the only country that can enforce the resolution, the United States, was quick to announce that it is non-binding.
Does the resolution leave Israel isolated on the world stage?
Israel’s Western allies, particularly the United States, have long protected it from UN censure. Their support was evident shortly after the October 7 Hamas-led massacre, when many countries supported Israel in the UN Security Council and General Assembly. But support has begun to wane as the war in Gaza drags on and the death toll rises, even from some of Israel’s most committed allies, leaving the United States as its only supporter at the UN for the past few years. months. Until Monday’s vote.
“They are not totally isolating Israel, their arguments about the non-binding nature make that clear,” said ICG’s Ungar. “But this is the furthest from Israeli policy that the US has been willing to go so far at the United Nations.”
Shalev, a former Israeli ambassador, said that by abstaining, the US took a “middle path” but that it shows the extent to which the White House is “very concerned and concerned about what is happening.”
Biden administration officials have concluded that Israel risks becoming an international pariah if the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsens or persists for a long period of time.
Smoke rises during an Israeli raid on and around Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on March 21. Credit: Dawoud Abu Alkas/Reuters
Israel has faced intense international criticism, with calls from US politicians and European officials to reconsider arms sales to the country in the face of massive civilian casualties in Gaza.
Relations with the Biden administration have gone downhill as Israel vows to press ahead with a possible invasion of Rafah, where 1.4 million Palestinians are sheltered. The United States has warned against such a move, although its officials insist on Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security.
Vice President Kamala Harris said last weekend that the invasion would be a “mistake” and refused to rule out consequences for Israel if it took place.
Netanyahu’s decision to cancel official meetings in Washington in protest of the US abstention has left US officials perplexed. Kirby said the US was “very disappointed that they’re not coming” but insisted that the abstention did not mark a change in US policy towards Israel.
“He is picking a fight with Washington, at the worst time for an Israeli prime minister to pick a fight with Washington,” Mekelberg said.
Despite the snub, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant traveled to Washington on Tuesday to present US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin with a list of American weapons and equipment that Israel wants to buy and that will be sent to it. deliver expeditiously.
Shalev said Israel faces “a very low point in our relations with the United States,” noting that although there is tension at the government level, the majority of the Israeli people want ties to improve.
In the past, the United States did not even allow these types of resolutions to be put to a vote, he said. “(This time) the US wanted to confirm its view on the humanitarian aspects of Israel’s actions on the ground in Gaza, as well as on the unconditional release of all hostages.”
— With reporting by Richard Roth, Ivana Kottasová, Lauren Izso, Jeremy Diamond, Kylie Atwood, Jennifer Hansler, Abeer Salman and Alex Marquardt.
1711480355
#allowed #ceasefire #resolution #pass #Gaza #war