The UN Security Council is trying for a fifth time to adopt a resolution on the Israel-Hamas war

13

Following multiple unsuccessful attempts, the United Nations Security Council is undertaking a fifth effort to formulate a resolution concerning the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The ongoing divisions within the council raise questions about reaching a consensus on the language of the resolution.

The proposed draft, initiated by Malta and leaked by The Big Big News, advocates for “immediate, extended humanitarian pauses” across the Gaza Strip, facilitating vital aid for civilians. It calls for adherence to international humanitarian law, emphasizing civilian protection, safeguarding children, and prohibiting hostage-taking. However, the draft omits reference to a ceasefire and fails to address the unexpected assault by Hamas on Israel on October 7, which resulted in approximately 1,200 fatalities and the capture of around 240 individuals. It also excludes mention of Israel’s subsequent air and ground offensives in Gaza, which, according to the Gaza health ministry, have resulted in over 11,000 Palestinian casualties, including a significant number of women and children.

The Security Council, composed of 15 members and tasked with upholding global peace and security, has been hindered by internal disagreements, notably between China and Russia, who advocate for an immediate ceasefire, and the United States, which, while supporting humanitarian pauses, opposes any reference to a ceasefire.

Previous attempts to pass resolutions have been stymied by vetoes and insufficient support. Despite these challenges, council diplomats hint at progress in negotiations, with a potential vote on the current draft imminent.

The proposed resolution stipulates “sufficient” humanitarian pauses for unobstructed aid delivery and essential infrastructure repair. Following the deadlock in the Security Council, the General Assembly, reflecting broader international sentiment, passed a resolution advocating for a “humanitarian truce” in Gaza. This resolution, although not legally binding, garnered substantial support, indicating global opinion on the conflict.

Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group observed that the U.S. stance against a ceasefire inadvertently benefits Russia’s diplomatic position. He noted that while Russia’s ceasefire demands might be perceived as cynical, they align more with the prevailing council perspective, isolating the U.S. stance. Gowan also remarked on the limited impact of previous U.N. ceasefire calls in various conflicts, suggesting that a U.N. call for a ceasefire in this case might embarrass Israel but not significantly alter their actions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about UN Security Council Israel-Hamas Resolution

More about UN Security Council Israel-Hamas Resolution

• UN Security Council’s Attempts on Israel-Hamas Resolution
• Internal Divisions in UN Security Council
• Proposed Resolution for Israel-Hamas Conflict
• History of Resolution Attempts on Israel-Hamas War
• General Assembly’s Role in Israel-Hamas Conflict
• US Diplomatic Stance on Israel-Hamas Ceasefire