UNSC resolution for Gaza ceasefire: Too little, too late, too flimsy

On 25 March, 2024, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza during Ramadan as a first step to a "lasting sustainable ceasefire." This comes after a months-long delay and a total of five vetoes on the matter. 

Resolution 2728 (2024) was introduced by the ten non-permanent members (E10) under the leadership of Mozambique. It "[d]emands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan…leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire."

It also "demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs." Lastly, and more broadly, the same paragraph demands "that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain."

The resolution was passed 14-0, with only the US remaining absent from voting. The US had previously blocked resolutions calling for a ceasefire, saying such a move would be wrong while delicate negotiations for a truce and hostage releases were continuing between Israel and Hamas.

US' move of abstention is being seen as a divulgement from the usual symbiotic relations of US and Israel, as President Biden appears to be opting for a new route to deter Israel's genocidal fever dream. However, when looking at the larger picture, the abstention emerges as nothing but a temporary eye wash ahead of the US polls.

The Israeli reaction has been expectedly furious. Their prime target is the US not vetoing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said the US had "abandoned" its previous position, which had directly linked a ceasefire to a hostage release. "Regrettably, the United States did not veto the new resolution," he said.

Netanyahu also announced that he would no longer send a delegation to Washington requested by President Joe Biden to discuss Rafah.

Israel's defence minister Yoav Gallant, who is already in Washington, in his first statement after the vote said that Israel has "no moral right to stop the war in Gaza, until we return all the hostages to their homes."

What's the significance of the resolution?

For the Palestinians, this is a ray of hope. For six months, they have been subjected to the most brutal genocide and ethnic cleansing in the 21st century. A ceasefire resolution means they can hope the war is finally beginning to end.

For Israel, a continuation of the war despite the resolution would lead to a discussion in the international community about violating the Security Council's decision. Not that they care in particular, but this is the first time Israel has been laid bare on the UNSC without the protection of the US. Their frantic reaction is proof of the confusion and panic.

How binding is the resolution?

Immediately after the resolution had passed, US Spokesperson Matthew Miller stated that "the resolution today is a non-binding resolution." A similar view was expressed by Linda Thomas-Greenberg, the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who stated that the United States fully "support[s] some of the critical objectives in this non-binding resolution."

In a press meeting held by the 10 non-permanent members afterwards, the South Korean representative questioned the legal validity of the resolution on the basis that it does not contain the word "decide" and was not adopted under Chapter VII. So, is the resolution really binding?

The UN Security Council can adopt legally binding resolutions. Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, the "Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council." The crucial word of the provision is "decision": if the Security Council uses exhortatory language, such as recommending measures, no legal obligation arises.

In addition, the Security Council routinely uses the phrase "acting under Chapter VII" when it e.g. establishes peacekeeping missions or authorises the use of force. But is this phrase necessary for legal validity, as claimed by the South Korean representative? The answer is in the negative.

But the Security Council does not usually declare a ceasefire to be in place; it cannot decide so. Instead, it makes decisions about establishing a peacekeeping force or deploying observers using this language. The resolution passed today has a clear and powerful wording that calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages as well as an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan.

Thus, Security Council Resolution 2728 (2024) is legally enforceable and supersedes any other treaty obligation a UN member state may have, when combined with Article 103 UN Charter. The language of Article 25 ("all members") makes it clear that the resolution is binding on all UN members, including Israel.

Now, what about Hamas? Is the resolution binding on them as well? The demand for an immediate ceasefire, and specifically the demand of "the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages" can only be understood as referring directly to Hamas as well, especially in light of the further calls on "all parties" in the same paragraph.

The resolution is legally binding on Israel but not on Hamas, as the Palestinian group is not a state. However, Hamas has already welcomed the resolution and said in a statement it "affirms readiness to engage in immediate prisoner swaps on both sides".

The obvious elephant in the room is enforcement: who is to enforce the Security Council resolution in the current situation?

In the end, it is up to the conflicting parties to respond to the Security Council's appeals and the Council itself to carry them out. This is not reason for much excitement, considering the previous few months' experience. The US is not on board with the rest of the world, and unless the US steps down from being Israel's protector and saviour, Israel is not going to stop.

But, the US is in no mood for stopping Israel.

US is still behind Israel, firmly

For anyone hoping that the US has finally regained its senses, only disappointment awaits. The US Congress has passed a bill threatening to limit funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA) if it obtains statehood recognition at the United Nations and if it attempts to move against Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The one-thousand and twelve pages bill was passed on 21 March, 2024.

In the bill voted on by the US Senate on Saturday and signed by President Joe Biden, it stated that, "None of the funds appropriated under the heading 'Economic Support Fund' in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act … the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialised agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians."

The US Congress would also cut funding if "the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court (ICC) judicially authorised investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."

So, the US is basically shielding Israel from ever being prosecuted for killing thirty-two thousand Palestinians, including twenty-thousand women and children, by threatening to cut off funding. Also, the US is blocking Palestinian statehood by leveraging its economic and diplomatic power.

Perhaps the most shameful bias is the continued defunding of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) until March 2025, based on a flimsy accusation of the Israelis.

Benjamin Netaniyahu and his ultra-right wing cronies view UNRWA as a vestige of Palestinian identity, and they are doing everything they can to crush it. Gaza is on the verge of famine; Gazan children are showing signs of dying from hunger. Yet, UNRWA, the primary aid agency, is being defunded.

At the same time, the bill allocates a further $3.8 billion in military aid to Israel from the $886 billion budget for the US Department of Defence, as the genocide continues. Even after all the protest and death and destruction, Israel is getting a free pass at killing.

And Israel cares only for the support of the US Congress. Israel has never shown any affinity towards UNSC resolutions, nor has it ever honoured any international conventions. So, as long as the US Congress is backing them up, the Israelis are not going to stop.

The UNSC resolution was perhaps more important for the member states of the Security Council than for the Palestinians. Israeli destruction has been going on for months without impunity, and the international community has been unable to do anything.

So, the air of jubilation for passing the resolution is mostly hiding the international community's inaptitude to contain a genocidal maniac from exterminating an entire nation. The UNSC resolution was the least the UNSC ought to do; and judging by its delay, its enforcement seems unlikely.