-Analysis-
PARIS — A line has been crossed: For the first time since October 7, the United States has allowed a resolution demanding an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza to pass.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
In recent months, Washington had vetoed UN Security Council resolutions no fewer than three times, and last Friday, a U.S. resolution was vetoed by both China and Russia.
This time around, the Americans abstained, while the other 14 members — including Russia and China — voted in favor.
The resolution, submitted by a group of states from both the northern and southern hemispheres, calls for "an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan,” meaning another two weeks, “leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire." The text also demands the release of hostages still held by Hamas, but does not make it a precondition.
A delicate situation that does not bode well
This is a political turning point. First, because the United States expressed its displeasure by refusing to heed the call by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to veto the resolution. A furious Netanyahu immediately canceled a planned visit by its delegation to Washington later this week, set to focus on the next steps in Gaza.
The Israeli government insists that the ceasefire must hinge on the release of hostages, which is not what the resolution says.
Though weakened, the Security Council remains the supreme body of global governance. Its resolutions still hold moral and political weight, even though the UN has few means to enforce them, except through a complex process of sanctions.
Israel therefore finds itself in a delicate situation if it turns down the call for an "immediate ceasefire." Arguing over the interpretation of the draft has already begun: The Israeli government insists that the ceasefire must hinge on the release of hostages, which is not what the resolution says. And Netanyahu's initial reaction does not leave much hope for a potential halt to military operations.
Quite the contrary. The prime minister has been ignoring pleas by Washington, and the rest of the world, to halt the Israeli army’s imminent offensive in Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians are amassed.
New stance, next steps
But what this abstention reveals, above all, is the U.S.’s new stance, as the Biden administration has been trying for weeks to sway operational decisions of Israel, to whom the Americans provide weapons, ammunition, and political support. To no avail. Netanyahu has his own agenda and will not concede anything, even when it’s the American president asking.
The next step will therefore prove delicate, if Israel chooses to disregard the United Nations’ injunction. One way out of that likely impasse would be to expedite an agreement in Qatar, toward a truce that would allow for an exchange of hostages for prisoners and access to humanitarian aid in Gaza. Hostages returned to their families would eclipse the setback Netanyahu has just suffered.
How far is too far?
Israel would have much to lose in the growing isolation that would result from a challenge to the United Nations. Through their abstention, the Americans have sparked a debate within the Israeli state: How far is too far — especially for a prime minister who has jut lost the trust of his main protector? The dramatic chain of events that began on October 7 may have just entered a whole new phase.
