America’s Silence and Israel’s Discontent
America’s Abstention from the Resolution
America’s Silence and Israel’s Discontent: America abstained, and the UN passed the ceasefire resolution. Netanyahu is angry, but in reality, this is Washington’s final and decisive message to him. With 14 votes in favor and one abstention from the United States, the ceasefire resolution between Israel and Hamas, presented by the Mozambican delegation to the Security Council, was approved. This event is historical in some respects because it ends over five months and more than 32,000 deaths, breaking the deadlock and cross-vetos between Washington, Moscow, and China.
Rumors about this event had been circulating for days, and after weeks of discussions, disputes, and diplomatic rudeness from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu towards his American ally, comments from U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, who said ‘I do not rule anything out,’ effectively sounded the alarm. This shift occurred on the afternoon of March 25.
Precisely when Washington decided to abstain and therefore did not veto the resolution titled ‘Immediate Ceasefire for Ramadan,’ hoping that this resolution might lead to a lasting and sustainable ceasefire and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, knowing that this resolution does not mandate a suspension of hostilities at this stage.
American diplomats explained that the decision to abstain was because the text differs from Washington’s stance, as it does not explicitly condemn Hamas’s attack on October 7. However, it does not, in itself, indicate a change in U.S. policy and position regarding the conflict, but it is indeed the most serious action taken so far against its historical ally and clearly reveals Israel’s complete isolation on the international stage for the first time.
Rafah: The Breaking Point
America’s abstention is not a vote in favor but signifies a significant political choice under current conditions. For months, there have been reports of dissatisfaction, disappointment, and an increasing rift between the White House and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding the conduct of the war in Gaza, including the killing of civilians, the blockade of food and essential supplies, and the bombing of hospitals and infrastructure.
But the reason that pushed Washington towards a change of course, besides increasing international pressure, is mainly one issue: the stubborn determination of the Israeli leader to carry out a military attack in Rafah. As I previously wrote in a note, this means the attack of the most powerful and advanced army in the region and among the world’s top armies on a tent city with a population of 1.3 million refugees suffering from severe food shortages.
An operation within the framework of the ongoing humanitarian crisis and in the absence of a plan for civilian evacuation or a ‘day after’ project, as UN agencies have warned, would be nothing less than ethnic cleansing. The Israeli Prime Minister’s reaction to America’s abstention was swift. Netanyahu spoke of a mistake that favored Hamas and prevented an Israeli delegation from traveling to Washington.
After sending a clear signal, the United States hopes to influence other members of the Israeli war cabinet to return to more moderate recommendations. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant is visiting Washington and was scheduled to meet with U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
Is the Resolution Binding?
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the resolution must be implemented, and failure is unforgivable. His words moments later led to confusion and debate, when shortly after the Security Council vote, U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield announced that the adopted resolution is not binding, subsequently explaining that it does not fall under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter.
A stance that caused confusion among diplomats and journalists present, and was repeated by the South Korean representative at a press conference. However, the Mozambican ambassador, along with his colleague from Sierra Leone, Michael Kanu, and Maltese ambassador Vanessa Fraz, quickly rejected the American representative’s statements, reminding that all Security Council resolutions under the UN Charter are always enforceable.
The American officials’ interpretation was challenged by other council members and several international law experts because, in their view, these statements do not diminish the binding nature of the resolution but weaken its effectiveness. However, the confusion surrounding the effectiveness of this action reveals an unsettling truth, even if the resolution is binding and Israel is forced to comply.
This is only a general and theoretical principle and is entirely different in practice, as Israel has previously violated several UN resolutions without any consequences. Netanyahu has already announced through his Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz that the war does not end here.
A Message to Netanyahu
The consequences of this ceasefire request, even if not realized and ignored, could extend far beyond the UN headquarters. Currently, the rift between Netanyahu and Joe Biden is a headline in many Israeli newspapers, and many commentators point out that if the Israeli Prime Minister refuses to implement this resolution, the United States could suspend military aid to the Jewish state, a decision that prominent Democrats have long demanded.
Ben Caspit in the Hebrew newspaper Maariv described the Israeli Prime Minister’s approach as delusional, insane, and terrifying, adding that this man puts us all at risk—our future, our children’s future, and the strategic alliance that is the cornerstone of Israel’s security. The editorial of the left-wing newspaper Haaretz, in a report with a very harsh tone, describes Netanyahu as the destroyer of Israel, who has become a burden on the country.
It seems that calls for the Prime Minister’s resignation and early elections, even if raised outside the media, would not only not displease his American ally but might even be welcomed indirectly.
This is not the first time Netanyahu has angered the White House. He has been doing so regularly since his premiership in 1996. However, until today, the challenge between the two old allies has never lasted this long, nor has any crisis between the two countries been as serious as the current one caused by the war in Gaza.
The Security Council resolution, passed with America’s decisive abstention, calls for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire that facilitates the exchange of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. The goal is to turn it into a permanent ceasefire to achieve a political solution to end the conflict, though it is unlikely to happen soon. Israelis and Hamas, with mediation from the U.S., Qatar, and Egypt, have been engaged in negotiations for months to reach a ceasefire.
Even if a ceasefire agreement is signed one day, it certainly will not be due to the Security Council’s imposition. The history of diplomacy is full of ignored UN resolutions, especially in the Middle East, but rather due to the will and determination of key and important international players.
