On Monday, June 10, the UN’s highest body confirmed a draft of a US resolution supporting a proposed ceasefire in Gaza and called on Hamas to accept it. Russia abstained, citing Israel’s ambiguities and contradictions.
“Today we voted for peace” Hamas wanted to congratulate US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on June 10 after the United Nations Security Council’s near-unanimous approval of a resolution supporting the broadest terms of a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Israel. All fifteen countries, including France, Israel, Algeria, China and the United Kingdom, voted in favor, except for Russia, which voted not to use its right vet. From the White House, Joe Biden welcomed: “Hamas says it wants a ceasefire. This gives an opportunity to prove that the contract is bona fide.
The US initiative was aimed at mobilizing a form of international diplomatic consensus around the terms of the treaty, officially defended by Washington. The latter replied almost immediately in the singular “Congratulations” Resolution, he confirms his intention in a press release “Cooperate to engage in indirect negotiations concerning the implementation of these principles (…)”. But behind this sudden public harmony and goodwill, Islamist organizations such as Israeli officials are still actively cultivating many contradictions and ambiguities in their stated positions to dispel uncertainty about the real possibility of an agreement.
The passed resolution affirms that Israel adheres to the principles of the agreement, so these principles are now welcomed by Hamas, with both camps simultaneously reiterating their mutual affirmation of their desire for destruction. hostilities. An ambition that cannot be reconciled with the prospect of an immediate peace in a conflict that has claimed nearly 37,000 lives in Gaza since the Oct. 7 massacre, according to local officials’ figures.
“This text is not valid”
Strongly promoted by the US president since late May – suggesting it would be an Israeli initiative – the text contains a peace plan for Gaza in three phases. The first, scheduled to last six weeks, assumes “Immediate and Complete Ceasefire”, related to “Releasing hostages, women, elderly and wounded and recovering remains of hostages killed in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.” Israeli forces should and should be allowed to withdraw from populated areas of Gaza “Palestinians to their homes and neighborhoods, including the north, and Safe and effective delivery of humanitarian assistance On a large scale.” The second phase should indicate “Permanent End of Wars”, By agreement between the belligerents, “In exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.” Finally, the third and final phase will begin “Major Multi-Year Reconstruction Plan for Gaza” The last remains of the dead hostages will be returned.
Before the vote, the text of the resolution was subject to intense behind-the-scenes negotiations, necessary to muster near-unanimity in response to the aspirations of the Council’s members to override a Chinese or Russian veto. American “Speak with One Voice”, and finally to deal with Israel’s hostility to various rules. Many of the latter are at the end, in the votive text, in a watered-down form “Reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the vision of a two-state solution”, “stresses the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip and West Bank under the Palestinian Authority” And especially “Gaza rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial change, including targeted measures [en] Reduce territory.
“I think not everyone is happy that this resolution is going to be passed — that’s the magic formula.” The Maltese ambassador knocked softly on the door of the meeting. “This text is not valid”, In fact it recognized the Algerian ambassador, the main spokesman for the Muslim world in the current council. “But it gives hope to the Palestinians, whose alternative is continued carnage and suffering … We voted for this text to give diplomacy an opportunity to end the long-standing aggression against the Palestinian people.”, After chanting, he concluded with all seriousness: “Palestinian Lives Matter!”
“What exactly did Israel agree to?”
As the US defended its decision “Opportunity to Use” Finally to answer “Calls are open from October 7 [au] Cease fire and release of hostages. “Israel accepted this agreement because it guarantees its security. In the preface affirmed the messenger, As President Biden has made clear, Hamas is no longer in a position to execute another “October 7.” Finally, according to her, “If Hamas accepts the deal, the U.S. will ensure that Israel also honors its obligations.” of “Obligations” As appears to be the gist of this resolution, international law theoretically imposes sanctions. arrange.
The head of US diplomacy, Anthony Blinken, is devoting another tour to the Middle East this week to promoting the agreement (he spoke about it with Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday), and the proposed text to the US Council is likely. Mainly to invite the world to observe its new ceasefire pro-volunteer (following US vetoes in October) and to force its Israeli ally to commit in this direction.
But there was only one dissenting voice from the Russian ambassador, explaining his abstention (“The consent given by Israel is still unclear (…): What exactly has Israel consented to?”), The exact contours of this commitment remain unclear due to repeated announcements by key stakeholders. Thus, the coordinator of the Israeli embassy, who spoke last, reaffirmed that his country “Firm in its principles, they have not changed: we will continue until all hostages are returned and Hamas’ military and governmental capabilities are removed. (…) Israel will not allow Hamas to rearm or regroup in such a way that Gaza poses a threat to Israel. This is the unwavering determination we are determined to achieve. It also means that Israel will not engage in pointless and endless negotiations, which could be used as a means of buying time by Hamas.
A statement echoing this line was reaffirmed hours earlier from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office. UN While he refrained from commenting on the resolution, he reacted strongly to Channel 12’s exposure of a document presented as an agreement accepted by Israel, where the Jewish state would agree to a cease-fire. Without getting rid of the hostages and Hamas, the ruling authority in Gaza. A scenario that was immediately refuted by a communication from the head of government described it “A clean lie”.
“Web specialist. Infuriatingly humble coffee ninja. Wannabe zombie advocate. Subtly charming tv fanatic. Avid social media scholar.”