UN calls for ceasefire in Gaza: what does that mean?

After the United States abstained from voting, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution, the first of its kind, calling for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip “in respect for the month of Ramadan,” following about six months of the Israeli genocide war against the Strip, which resulted in the martyrdom of more than 32,000 Palestinians. Away from anger, emotions, and populist mobilization, it is difficult to make an optimistic or pessimistic judgment about the effectiveness of the resolution project related to Gaza, which was passed yesterday, Monday.

Initially, the only positive point that can be seen is that it is the first resolution to be adopted regarding Gaza in the Security Council since the beginning of the Israeli genocide against Gaza, which calls for an “immediate ceasefire in Gaza during Ramadan, which may lead to a permanent cessation and the introduction of further aid.”

However, there are also negative points present. It is a modified resolution from an amended resolution rejected by Russia and vetoed by the United States hours before the current adoption because the Russian one called for a “permanent ceasefire” in Gaza. Therefore, there is no direct and explicit call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza in the current resolution, which is a weakness. It also prioritizes Israeli prisoners over the tragedy of Palestinians and above the issue of lifting the siege, allowing aid to enter, and stopping the Israeli starvation massacre in northern Gaza. The adopted resolution explicitly calls for “the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.” These two points, the first of which privileges and prioritizes Israeli prisoners at the expense of Palestinian blood.

What does the adoption of a Security Council resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza mean?

In this regard, it is unrealistic for the Palestinian resistance to call for the unconditional release of all prisoners it holds, including military personnel, as long as the resistance does not reject a comprehensive exchange deal and a comprehensive agreement. It is the Israeli occupation that persists and evades, and as long as a permanent cessation of aggression, massacres, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the entire Strip are not included in the text of the resolution project. The demand implies surrender to the occupation without conditions. Meanwhile, the second point regarding the entry of aid does not entail any implementation mechanism or deterrent force to compel Israel to comply, especially since the occupation army uses the blockade and starvation as tools to pressure the resistance on one hand and as a pressure weapon that may lead to the displacement of Palestinians and the reoccupation of Gaza, and perhaps subsequent settlement, meaning that the project’s formulation still serves Israel and does not comparatively match its relatively timid demand with the scale of the ongoing Israeli massacre committed on the ground in Gaza.

What does it mean for the United States to abstain from voting on a Security Council resolution?

Regarding the American abstention from voting, which allowed the project to pass, it can be understood that Washington is trying to express its displeasure with Netanyahu’s policy in managing the war on Gaza. It aims to recalibrate the war strategy to prove that Washington is present and strong, waging a war against Gaza and the Palestinians. It suggests that the fighting should continue, but in an American way, taking advice and recommendations from Netanyahu and his war council, as Washington is the main supporter of Israel militarily, diplomatically, politically, and economically.

Additionally, it seems like an attempt by the U.S. administration to alleviate the anger of American Muslim citizens, especially those who support Palestine, to gain their electoral support in the upcoming presidential elections. This is also to mitigate the significant damage to Israel’s image, and consequently to Washington’s globally, in terms of public opinion and the perception of many countries about their future relationship, following the genocide in Gaza and the scenes of mass killings of innocent Palestinians.

The American abstention might be a mere superficial trick used by the U.S. administration with implicit understanding with the occupying government to buy more time and give the world the illusion of a dispute over the war on Gaza. This staged scene allows Israel to continue its massacre to subdue Palestinians and break their resilience by killing more of them while reducing pressure on Washington. The latter achieves further coverage of the occupation’s crimes before the international community. All of this falls within the realm of analysis, although it is closer to reality, especially since John Kirby, the strategic communications coordinator for the U.S. National Security Council, confirmed that abstention from voting in the Security Council and not using the veto against the project does not represent a shift in U.S. policy towards Israel.

On the other hand, regarding Russia and China, if both Russia and China, as permanent members of the Security Council, had rejected a previous resolution project amended by the United States days ago, it’s because, according to their statements, it grants privilege and opportunity to release hostages, making it the central issue in the project rather than ending the suffering, war, and killing of innocents in Gaza.

As it does not explicitly call for an immediate ceasefire, they saw that the project allows Israel a free hand in Gaza for further impunity in the future. If Russia and China’s veto was based on this premise days ago, what is the difference that occurred in the current resolution project that was adopted, except for a few words? Especially since the adopted project mentions the issue of Israeli hostages held by Hamas and gives it special importance. There is no fundamental difference between the text of the amended American project and the current one if the cessation (permanent) of war and fighting, which is not mentioned in both texts, is considered the essential thing. If the issue of Russia and China not condemning Israel’s operation “Operation October 7” is deemed non-essential by the permanent members who support Israeli occupation, then this question also falls within the critical vision and cannot be considered a judgment on the invalidity and futility of the resolution project, because it oscillates within the same framework of failed projects.

As for public opinion and the general impression regarding the entire international system, UN organizations, and the Security Council, most observers and supporters of Palestine and just causes, as well as ordinary people, view the Security Council primarily as ethically bankrupt, incompetent, and unjustified. Its existence and justifications as a place to maintain balance in the world have been questioned for a long time. Its members, whether passing or failing a resolution or vetoing one with the so-called veto power, are all just ink on paper. It does not rise to implementation or enforcement to uphold international justice for victims. It is just a place to record positions for the interests of each permanent member state, more than being something binding to be accomplished. Especially when there is a massacre being committed against an isolated people still living in Palestine and its surroundings, and evidence is abundant concerning Palestine. Previously, a resolution project calling for an end to settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem was adopted in December 2016, before the end of the term of U.S. President Barack Obama, but the project has not been enforced in Israel to this day. Settlements have instead doubled since then, and their pace increased due to the lack of deterrent force or genuine international intention to compel Israel to stop settlement and end the occupation of the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.

From the popular Arab perspective and among post-colonial peoples and the peoples of the Global South, the Security Council is merely a meeting place and a demonstration of who the planet’s police (the major powers) are, showing they are present and dominant. This means that the idea in this council is not necessarily about passing or failing projects, or implementing decisions, but only about demonstrating presence and that dominance belongs to the major permanent members, with some non-permanent members surrounding them, who change with each session and have no role other than registering attendance, distributing papers, and making proposals, just like the non-binding resolution project adopted regarding Gaza. However, their agreement or disagreement does not mean anything.

Therefore, all of the above indicates that the door is still open for further ebb and flow between the permanent members of the Security Council regarding Gaza and the resolution project. This could either lead to a temporary or permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, or it might not lead to anything. In any case, and before a complete vision regarding the results of this project becomes clear, the massacre in Gaza continues, and several Israeli massacres were committed simultaneously with the voting in the Security Council and afterward, resulting in the deaths of dozens of Palestinians.