What happened to the March 25th UNSC vote?
The resolution said a ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian Islamist groups should be "immediately enforced" and that "all parties should respect the month of Ramadan by implementing a permanent ceasefire". Now there is a debate among the governments of different countries whether to comply with this proposal is mandatory or not.
UN Security Council Resolution 2728 also called for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and to ensure access of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Who voted for the proposal?
Fourteen of the UN Security Council member states voted in favor of the resolution. No one voted against the resolution, with only the United States abstaining this time. The US did not veto the cease-fire proposal, but strongly condemned Israel. The United States has previously vetoed three draft resolutions of the Security Council and abstained a total of two times. They previously said the proposals would not guarantee the release of the hostages or that the proposals did not adequately condemn the October 7 attacks by Hamas in southern Israel.
The latest proposal was presented by Mozambique on behalf of the 10 non-permanent member states of the Security Council.
Israel's UN envoy Gilad Erdan, however, called the proposal "shameful".
What is Israel's reaction to the absence of the United States in the vote?
The US's move to invade Gaza has fueled tensions between the US and its ally Israel. Gilad Erdan, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, said: "Sadly, today this council refuses to condemn the massacre of October 7, which is a shame." He noted, however, that the resolution specifically addressed the kidnapping of Israelis by Hamas. Terming hostage-taking of innocent civilians as a 'war crime', he said, "The resolution condemns hostage-taking, recalling that it is a violation of international law." "The Security Council should not just talk about repatriating the hostages, but take action, real action," he said.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has canceled the scheduled visit of two senior Israeli officials to Washington.
Earlier, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said that the prearranged meeting between Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant and US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan will take place. Later, however, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant met with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in Washington on Tuesday.
"We want to make it clear to the Israeli defense minister that the United States will stand by Israel in the fight against Hamas," Mr Kirby said at a press conference on Monday. He said the US decision not to veto the resolution did not mean "a change in our (US) policy". Also, he added that his country did not vote for the resolution because it did not properly condemn Hamas. "There has been no change in our policy. Nothing," Mr Kirby told reporters.
However, a statement issued by Mr. Netanyahu's office said that the United States has abandoned the position of declaring a ceasefire in exchange for the release of hostages. "Unfortunately, the United States did not veto the new proposal," the statement said.
Why did some countries veto the Gaza proposal before?
Russia and China vetoed two proposals made by the United States last October and last Friday. Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzia, said on Friday that the US proposal was "extremely politicized". "The proposal contained an effective concession to Israel's military operation in the southern Gaza Strip city of Rafah, where more than half of its 2.3 million residents live in makeshift tents," he said. "It will give Israel the right to do whatever it likes and face the destruction and deportation of all of Gaza and its people," Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vasiliy Nebenzia, said at the meeting.
China's ambassador to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, reiterated that the United States had failed to oppose Israel's planned military operation in Rafah. He said China supports an alternative proposal.
But US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said the China-Russia draft failed to meet the demands of the situation. “As it stands now, it fails to support sensitive diplomacy in the region. Worse yet ... it could actually give Hamas an excuse to walk away from the deal on the negotiating table,” he said.
Is this offer mandatory?
Article 25 of the UN Charter states: "The members of the Security Council of the United Nations agree to adopt and implement the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
The United Nations website states: "Resolutions passed by the United Nations that are approved by the Security Council include legal obligations to abide by them."
However, the United States described Resolution 2728 as non-binding. They argued that instead of the words “decided on the need for a ceasefire” the resolution used the expression “requested a ceasefire”.
"This is not a binding proposal," State Department spokesman Matthew Miller also told reporters. But other UN officials say otherwise.
China's ambassador to China, Zhang Jun, said that it is mandatory to accept the Security Council's proposal.
Mark Lyall-Grant, who served as UK ambassador to the UN from 2009 to 2015, told BBC Radio's 'Four PM' programme, that "the passage of this resolution means that Israel will now essentially be under an obligation to cease military operations for the next 15 days." The resolution is legally binding on Israel, he added, but not on Hamas because the Palestinian group is not a state.
UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haque said Security Council resolutions are international law, "so, they are as binding as international law."
Can the Recommendation be made binding under Chapter VII of the UN Charter?
Chapter VII of the UN Charter is one of the most powerful tools for binding member states to accept resolutions.
In October 2023, it was used to send a multinational police force to restore law and order in Haiti.
Chapter Seven was also used to establish the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). It was used during the investigation and trial of those responsible for the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the deaths of more than 20 people.
In 2006, it was under Chapter VII that Iran was barred from supplying arms to other countries and imposed strict sanctions on the country.
According to Patrik Johansson's article published in the Nordic Journal of International Law: Security Council resolutions can be considered 'a Chapter VII resolution' if 'the situation under consideration constitutes a threat to human peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression'.
Riyad Mansour, the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, has tried to use this chapter. “We came to the Security Council. Now they say it is not mandatory. We do not accept that ... Security Council resolutions are binding." He said, "If Israel cannot implement them, then the Security Council's responsibility is to use Chapter Seven to compel them to comply with the Council resolutions and take punitive measures."
Maya Unger of the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank, said the US was trying to provide an explanation based on a legal framework that some might accept. He told CNN that the U.S. believed the resolution would not be binding unless it used the word "decision" or "call" in Chapter VII.
Will this proposal have any impact on the mediation talks in Doha?
Qatar said on Tuesday that the proposal would have no immediate impact on ongoing ceasefire talks in Doha. The Gulf nation continues to mediate talks between the two sides on a possible ceasefire. “We did not see any immediate impact in the talks. Negotiations are still going on as they were before this UN decision," Qatar's Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed Al-Ansari said.
Qatar made the statement after Israel decided to withdraw its negotiating team from Qatar in the wake of a UN resolution demanding a ceasefire.
Earlier, Israeli media reported that the Israeli delegation that had been holding talks in Qatar for eight days had left Doha after Hamas rejected the latest proposal for a possible ceasefire and hostage release.
0 Comments
Do not share any link.