ISRAEL ‘s unjust denial of ceasefire — despite the passing of the UNSC resolution 2728 calling for an “immediate” ceasefire in Gaza—callously demonstrated by its current move to invade Rafah– foreshadows its own fall. The March 25 motion’s passage came after weeks of back and forth and posturing among the UNSC’s permanent and rotating members. Notwithstanding the US-Israel attempt to make the resolution controversial, there is an agreement among the UNSC member states regarding the urgency of terminating Israeli actions and policies designed to depopulate Gaza, which include random attacks, deprivation and collective penalties imposed on Palestinian civilians.
The Security Council’s demand comes after the US vetoed three previous resolutions and after Russia and China vetoed a proposed resolution on March 25. The UN Secretary-General Guterres reiterated his calls for a ceasefire, hostage release and increase in humanitarian aid after his latest visit (in March) to Egypt’s border with Gaza, pleading, ‘’we must silence the guns’’. Some hawkish elements in the US and Israeli Governments maliciously argue that the said resolution passed by 14 UNSC permanent and non-permanent members lacks a mechanism– for implementing sanctions on Israel without another vote–which could face a US veto, a reflection on the past US legacy which prompts this impression. Nevertheless, a majority of international law experts posit the view that individual countries have a veritable discretion to use the March Resolution as a means to enact their own sanctions on Israel.
In the words of the New Yorker, for months, the White House has criticized Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, with President Biden himself calling the offensive “over the top” and the bombing “indiscriminate.” This mixture of rebuke and support has led to increasing confusion about what exactly the Biden’s Administration is trying to accomplish. The US State Department‘s statement that it has not found any incidents of Israel violating international humanitarian law in the past six months– is a mockery with international justice.
Notably, Roy Schondorf, former Israeli Deputy Attorney General for International Law at the Ministry of Justice, said the entire issue on the international stage was “political” and does not indicate a significant change among Israel’s Western allies. Louis Charbonneau, UN Director of Human Rights Watch, said the US position “risks making countries less likely to comply with them, and that includes decisions the US wants implemented.” As for the UK permanent representative in the UN, Ambassador Barbara Woodward said, ‘’that is what this resolution calls for and why the UK voted in favour of the text’’. The US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said that the US “did not agree with everything in the resolution,” most notably its failure to include explicit condemnation of Hamas. “For that reason, we were unfortunately not able to vote yes.” Secretary General Antonio Guterres said the resolution “must be implemented” to secure a ceasefire and the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages”.
It is fairly argued that the UN Charter was clear on the binding nature of Security Council resolutions—thereby jettisoning the US stance of suspecting the binding nature of the resolution. Under the founding UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.” Many member states have cited this – Article 25 – in pushing back against the US remarks. “All the resolutions of the Security Council are international law. So to that extent, they are as binding as international law.
Still, the Security Council continues to discuss the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a threat to international peace and security. So far, Israel war has pushed 95 per cent of Gaza’s population into internal displacement amid acute shortage of food, clean water and medicine, while 70 per cent of the Strip’s infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed, according to the UN. Israel is accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice. An interim ruling in January ordered Tel Aviv to stop genocidal acts and take measures to guarantee that humanitarian assistance is provided to civilians in Gaza.
Steve Clemons, the former editor of Washington Note has rightly questioned the Guardian US investigative reporter Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Georgetown University human rights law expert Stephen Rickard about the brewing structures in place that ultimately allow Israel to evade its international accountability vis-à-vis its brazen violations of international law. By and large, implementation of the UNSC ceasefire resolution is a question of international will.
Though the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has defended the Biden Administration’s decision to pause a delivery of 3,500 bombs to Israel that Netanyahu could use against the Gazans in Rafah, it is not an enough dose for Israel. The UK and Germany must stop their arms supply to Israel. Moreover, Washington must use its leverage to halt Israel war in Gaza. Netanyahu’s Israel is alienating its allies everywhere. So far, Israel’s Gaza war has killed more than 34,000 people while transforming vast swathes of the Strip unliveable, with famine now looming over the Palestinian territory.
Nonetheless, sanctions are used to respond to violations of international law. Israel has violated it many times, so why is it not sanctioned yet? ‘’Failure to comply the decision will prompt other countries to consider imposing sanctions on Israel, for example, stopping arms transfers to Israel,” Eliav Lieblich , a professor of law at Tel Aviv University said. After Turkey, Egypt has also joined South Africa’s plea before the ICJ. In all three spheres, moral, political and legal, Israel has chosen a path to self-destruction. Whilst the US, Egypt and Qatar are currently mediating ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Israel must adopt a legal recourse binding on Tel Aviv to honour the ICJ interim order to prevent the Gazans from furthering indulgence and victimization of starvation, displacement and deaths.
—The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on IR, Critical Peace & Conflict Studies, also a member of Washington Foreign Law Society and European Society of International Law. He deals with the strategic and nuclear issues.
Email: [email protected]
