The US abstention for the first time on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza has further strained Biden-Netanyahu relations, which have been tense for some time. Netanyahu cancelled the programme of the Israeli delegation that was due to travel to the US to discuss the Rafah operation plan. The US, which does not want to stop Israel’s attack on Gaza but wants to save its own damaged image and bring Netanyahu to his knees, claimed that the UNSC resolution was not binding, which drew the reaction of the UN.
The US abstained from yesterday’s call for a ceasefire after rejecting 6 of the UNSC resolutions calling for a ceasefire since Israel’s attacks on Gaza began, making it the first time since 7 October that the UNSC has called for an emergency ceasefire in Gaza.
In the draft resolution prepared by non-permanent UNSC members Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Switzerland, the phrase “permanent ceasefire” was agreed. At the last moment, the US delegation requested an amendment to the text of the draft resolution, replacing the word “permanent” with “durable”. This is believed to have given the US more flexibility in the ceasefire process.
The resolution, which calls for “an immediate ceasefire during Ramadan that is respected by all parties, leading to a permanent and sustainable ceasefire, and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages,” also calls for access for humanitarian and medical assistance to the hostages.
Reaction from Israel
Following the decision, Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz said: “Israel will not stop firing. We will destroy Hamas”. Netanayhu announced that he had cancelled the delegation’s visit to Washington for the Rafah operation in light of the US abstention. The Israeli opposition blamed Netanyahu for the US abstention.
Why did the US take this step now?
US President Joe Biden, the leader of the Democrats, is facing criticism from his own base as well as on the international stage over the ongoing Israeli attacks in Gaza, which do not spare civilians. Biden is the target of criticism both for his support of Israel and for his inability to rein in Netanyahu. Biden is trying to take careful steps to mitigate the criticism, but not to confront the Israel lobby, which is known to be quite strong. For some time, Biden has been urging Netanyahu to present a credible and coherent vision for post-war Gaza and to prepare a realistic plan for a ground operation in Rafah that would not harm civilians. But the Netanyahu government, which rejected the US plans for the next day, has failed to explain its own vision, nor has it been able to present a convincing plan for Rafah. To sum up, the US does not want Israel to stop the Gaza operation altogether, but to limit it to the extent that civilian casualties are reduced, or at least to present a vision along these lines.
Netanyahu, who rejects all US demands, hopes to stall Washington until the presidential elections in November. The Biden administration has taken several steps to “teach” the Israeli prime minister a lesson for his intransigence. First, he hosted Benny Gantz, a member of the war cabinet and possible next Israeli prime minister, in Washington, despite Netanyahu’s opposition. Then Biden’s close friend, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, said that Israel should go to elections, which was applauded by Biden. Since these moves by the Biden administration were aimed at Netanyahu, they did not elicit a reaction from the Israel lobby.
The reason for the “non-binding” statement
The abstention on the UNSC resolution, however, may not be greeted with the same optimism. Even if it puts Netanyahu in a difficult situation, it has consequences for Israel.
Indeed, in the wake of this resolution, which provoked Israel’s reaction, the Washington administration surprisingly claimed that the UNSC resolution was not binding and reiterated its support for Israel. White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby said that they did not veto the Gaza resolution because of the combination of the demand for a ceasefire and the release of all hostages and the reference to the ongoing hostage negotiations. On the other hand, Kirby explained that they abstained from voting “yes” because Hamas was not condemned in the text of the bill, saying, “Our vote does not represent a change in our policy.Noting that they had seen the release of hostages as the most important part of the ceasefire agreement from the beginning, Kirby said, “We continue to stand behind Israel.We continue to provide them with the resources and military capabilities they need to defend themselves against Hamas. Nothing in this non-binding resolution has changed in terms of what Israel can and cannot do in terms of self-defence.
The US had put a similar resolution, which it claimed was non-binding, to a vote in the UN Security Council, but it was not adopted due to the vetoes of Russia and China.
The US claim that the resolution is non-binding is linked to the fact that the resolution uses the phrase “a ceasefire is requested” instead of “decides on the need for a ceasefire” according to Article 7 of the UN Charter.However, under Article 25 of the UN Charter, resolutions do not have to refer to Article 7 to be binding.
The US “non-binding” statement drew the reaction of the UN and other countries.UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq said: “All UN Security Council resolutions are international law. Just as international law is binding, so are UNSC resolutions”. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also stressed that “this resolution must be implemented, its failure is inexcusable”.
