The dueling Gaza ceasefire resolutions at the UN, explained

The US vetoed another Gaza ceasefire resolution at the UN Tuesday and proposed a different one.

Permanent Representative of the US to the UN, Linda Thomas Greenfield, center, votes against and vetoes the latest attempt at the UN Security Council to demand an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, in New York on February 20, 2024. Fatih Aktas/Anadolu via Getty Images Nicole Narea covers politics and society for Vox. She first joined Vox in 2019, and her work has also appeared in Politico, Washington Monthly, and the New Republic.

For the third time since war broke out in Gaza in October, the US vetoed a ceasefire resolution at the United Nations on Tuesday — even as it unveiled its own draft resolution that goes further in criticizing Israel than it had in the past. It’s a sign that, despite increasingly critical rhetoric from American officials and President Joe Biden, the US is still trying to influence strategy by working with Israel rather than openly opposing its war efforts, which comes in response to Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel and in which more than 29,000 Palestinians have been killed.

The failed Algerian-led resolution called for an immediate ceasefire, an end to the “forced displacement of the Palestinian civilian population in violation of international law,” the unconditional release of all Israeli hostages, and “unfettered humanitarian access into and throughout Gaza.”

That’s in contrast to an alternative draft resolution proposed by the US, which calls for a temporary ceasefire “as soon as practicable,” condemns Hamas, rejects a planned Israeli ground invasion in southern Gaza, demands the release of all hostages captured by Hamas, and reiterates the US vision for a two-state solution to end the conflict.

That’s further than the US has been willing to go in the past. But in keeping with US policy, the resolution does not go so far as to make any urgent demands of Israel that would potentially drive the country away from the negotiating table, which the Biden administration argues is the avenue most likely to produce a lasting end to hostilities.

“It seems to me that all of this has to be premised on the idea that everybody is involved in the negotiation,” said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “They didn’t want the word ‘immediate’ because they thought that would undermine discussions about hostages.”

There has been increasing pressure, in Israel and internationally, to secure a hostage deal. An estimated 132 of the original 250 hostages taken by Hamas and its allies during their October 7 attack on Israel remain captive or are presumed dead. Thousands recently protested in Tel Aviv to demand a hostage deal and new elections. Families of hostages and their supporters also interrupted a meeting of the Israeli Knesset last month to press for a deal.

Biden sent CIA director Bill Burns to Cairo to meet with Egyptian, Israeli, and Qatari officials in his latest attempt to shepherd a deal. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had embarked on a similar mission earlier this month before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the proposed terms as “delusional.” Echoing Alterman’s point, US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield argued Tuesday that the Algerian resolution would “hinder … sensitive ongoing negotiations” around a hostage deal.

The resolutions come as Israel considers a ground invasion of Rafah, the southernmost city in Gaza whose border crossing with Egypt has remained largely closed. Israel claims Rafah is the last remaining Hamas stronghold, but any operation there would lead to “carnage,” according to the United Nations. That’s in large part because the city’s population is roughly five times larger than it was before the war, swollen by refugees fleeing the fighting further north.

Amar Bendjama, the Algerian ambassador to the UN, said Tuesday that the UN had waited long enough for hostage talks to progress without any results to show for it, including for several weeks after the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel has to take stronger measures to protect Palestinian civilians and to provide humanitarian aid.

“Throughout this process, we have heard calls to give time to a parallel track, with concerns raised that any action from the Council would jeopardize these efforts. However, almost one month after the ICJ orders, signs of hope are still absent for improvement on the situation in Gaza,” he said. “Silence is not a viable option. Now is the time for action and the time for truth.”

What a US-sponsored temporary ceasefire resolution would mean

The fact that the US would support a ceasefire resolution at all marks a significant shift in rhetoric: The last time there was a ceasefire resolution under consideration at the UN, the US objected to using the word “ceasefire” at all.

That no longer appears to be the case, with Biden saying earlier this month that Israel had been “over the top” in its approach in Gaza and that civilian suffering and death “had to stop.”

“The tides are shifting,” Alterman said. “The US is still trying to maintain a compromise position between global opinion that is increasingly impatient for an end to the fighting and the Israeli view that the fighting stops when the work is done.”

Opinion isn’t just changing in the US. All the other UN Security Council member states supported the Algerian resolution, except the United Kingdom, which abstained. The resolution would have needed nine votes to be adopted and no vetoes from permanent members: the US, UK, France, Russia, and China.

The question is whether this will have any impact on Israel’s war strategy. Though Israel would be legally bound to abide by any resolution adopted by the UN Security Council, the US’s draft resolution doesn’t actually impose any meaningful obligation for Israel to cease hostilities; just that it do so “as soon as practicable,” which likely won’t be anytime soon by Netanyahu’s definition.

A vote is not yet scheduled on the US resolution, and it’s unclear when, and if, it will be.

Netanyahu has vowed to continue Israel’s fight until it has achieved a “total victory” that involves Hamas’s destruction. Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, reiterated that point on Tuesday, saying that a ceasefire would be a “death sentence” for Israelis and Gazans because it would allow Hamas to regroup and rearm. But Hamas has so far withstood Israel’s attacks; it’s unclear that a ground invasion in Rafah would change that.

It’s also unclear how much of the US’s resolution — and Israel’s threats of a Rafah invasion — are just posturing to increase pressure on hostage negotiators to work out a deal. It’s clear that American goodwill is running out, and Israel does not want to lose its staunchest defender. But at the same time, Israel may be hoping to secure more favorable terms in any deal by proving to the world that it’s not bluffing about invading Rafah and potentially displacing Palestinians into Egypt.

Meanwhile, the US is continuing to offer military support to Israel. The US is making major arms sales to Israel, and Israel is already receiving $3.8 billion annually from the US through 2028 under a decade-long memorandum of understanding signed under the Obama administration. The US Senate approved an additional $14 billion in military aid for Israel earlier this month. House Republicans are so far refusing to vote on the bill, which they want tied to border security provisions, and House progressives could also undermine the Democratic effort to push it through.

If that aid goes through, Biden has attached requirements to it that would require foreign recipients of US aid, including Israel, to provide assurances that they’re abiding by international humanitarian law or else risk having that aid suspended. But the question is whether those requirements will be enforced. Israel is already subject to similar requirements in existing US law, but historically, they have not been used to withhold military aid.

“I think the hope is they can shift Israeli decision-making without materially restricting support — to leave it in a more cooperative context,” Alterman said.

Sourse: vox.com