[ad_1]
The UN Security Council this week demanded an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, after the United States, which has repeatedly used its veto to shield its ally Israel, abstained from the vote. Why is this important, and does it matter?
Historically, there has been broad bipartisan support in the US for Israel. But the situation in Gaza has divided opinion — a significant section of Americans is now critical of both Israel’s action, and the full US backing for it.
This is important also in the context of the presidential election in November. For President Joe Biden, the Arab and Muslim vote, as well as the vote from the Democratic party’s left wing, will be crucial — and these voters have been critical of Israel. Swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin (both of which Biden carried in 2020) have significant Muslim populations, and will be crucial for the President in his likely re-match with Donald Trump.
Also, many Arab countries, some which are important partners to the US, are growing increasingly concerned at Israel’s actions.
It is due to these reasons that the US felt it was politically prudent to not use its veto to block the call for an immediate ceasefire. In fact, only a couple of days earlier, the US itself had sought to move a resolution calling for a ceasefire and release of hostages, which was vetoed by Russia, which found some of the language unacceptable.
Has the US allowed a UNSC resolution critical of Israel to pass earlier? Does this mark a shift in US policy?
It is definitely an important signal from the US, which has been supportive of the Israeli government in the UNSC since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.
However, this is not the first time that the US has distanced itself from the Israeli position. In the final days of the Obama administration in 2016, the UNSC passed a resolution deeming Israel’s settlements in Palestine illegal and a violation of international law, after the US abstained. Then, like now, relations between Israel’s Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] and the US President were frayed over multiple issues.
Nonetheless, it is rare for the US to not provide cover to Israel in the UNSC. According to an analysis by the think tank Chicago Council on Global Affairs, until December 18, 2023, the US had vetoed 45 resolutions critical of Israel, accounting for more than half of its 89 vetoes in the UNSC.
Is the UNSC resolution binding? How can it be enforced?
In general, UN General Assembly resolutions are in the nature of recommendations, which explicate the UN membership’s position on a certain matter. UNSC resolutions are normally seen as somewhat more prescriptive. However, there is a difference between UNSC votes under Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, with the latter considered as binding.
In any case, options for enforcing a UNSC resolution are limited if the country in question refuses to accept it, as Israel has already done. If the UNSC wants to enforce its decision, it can decide to authorise travel bans, sanctions, or the sending of troops — none of which is going to happen in this case. So the vote is more of a political message, including in terms of the US administration’s current stance on the issue.
How will the decision to abstain play out domestically in the US?
It is yet to be seen how Biden’s target demographic reacts — or whether the abstention will have any impact on disaffected traditionally Democrat voters.
However, the Republicans are already trying to exploit the situation. Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said last week that he will invite Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress. This is unusual — normally, it is the President who invites a foreign leader to visit, and the leader may on occasion be invited to address a joint sitting. In 2015 though, Netanyahu was invited to address a joint meeting before any invitation from the President.
Democrats have traditionally enjoyed nearly 70-80 per cent of the Jewish vote.
Does the abstention signal any fundamental change in the US position on Israel?
No. The US has taken this position in a very specific situation. Its leaders remain invested in the broader US-Israel relationship. They do not identify all of Israel with Netanyahu, whose relations with the current US administration have deteriorated significantly. Earlier this month, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer described Netanyahu as an obstacle to peace, and called for early elections in Israel — this is the line that the Democrats are taking, distancing themselves from the ruling dispensation and their political choices, but not necessarily from Israel.
In practical terms, I don’t visualise any reduction in the US assistance to Israel. In 2016, the US made a long-term commitment of a 10-year, $38 billion aid program to Israel. There’s also a deep connection between the industries on both sides — for example, the technology for the Iron Dome project, which Israel uses to protect itself from missile attacks, was developed in Israel, but the US had invested a lot of money in it. I do not see the US-Israel aid, trade, or defence partnership deteriorating.
So, what will be this resolution’s impact?
It is undoubtedly an important political message in the current context. But it is not going to end the conflict.
The October 7 attacks, viewed as the largest single-day loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, has left a deep impact on the Israeli psyche. From their perspective, their effort has been to restore deterrence, so something like that never happens again.
To that end, they have set themselves certain fairly maximalist goals, such as eliminating Hamas in its entirety. Such goals can be difficult to achieve, as the US found out in Afghanistan with respect to the Taliban, and Israel itself experienced when it had a military presence in Southern Lebanon from 1982- 2000, which led to a strengthened Hezbollah.
Israel has so far not articulated any sustainable short-, medium-, or long-term goal that could command broader international support.
Arun K Singh is a former Indian Ambassador in both Washington DC and Tel Aviv. He spoke to Arjun Sengupta
[ad_2]
Source link
