United Nations Security Council Gaza Proposal (UN Security Council Gaza Proposal)
On October 7th, following the attack by Hamas in southern Israel, which marked the beginning of the war in Gaza, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has successfully passed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire between both sides for the first time.
The proposal states that a ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group should be “immediately implemented” and that “all parties should show respect for the month of Ramadan by establishing a lasting ceasefire.” There is currently debate among various governments regarding whether this proposal is mandatory. The UNSC Resolution 2728 also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and ensures that humanitarian aid is allowed to enter Gaza.
Which countries voted in favor of the proposal?
Among the member states of the United Nations Security Council, 14 countries voted in favor of the UN Security Council Gaza Proposal. None voted against it, though the United States abstained from voting. The U.S. did not veto the ceasefire proposal but has strongly condemned it against Israel. Previously, the U.S. had vetoed three draft resolutions by the Security Council and had abstained from voting twice. They had argued that those proposals did not ensure the release of hostages or properly condemn Hamas’s attack in southern Israel on October 7th.
The latest proposal was presented by Mozambique on behalf of the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council. Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, described the proposal as “shameful.”
What was Israel’s reaction to the U.S. absence during the vote?
The U.S. abstention on the issue of aggression in Gaza has created significant tension between the U.S. and its ally, Israel. Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, stated, “Unfortunately, today this council has once again refused to condemn the October 7th massacre; it is shameful.” However, he noted that the proposal specifically addressed the issue of Israeli hostages taken by Hamas. Describing the holding of innocent civilians as “war crimes,” he said, “The proposal condemns hostage-taking and acknowledges that it is a violation of international law.” He added, “The Security Council must not just talk about bringing the hostages home but must take real, concrete action.”
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has canceled a pre-scheduled visit by two senior Israeli officials to Washington. Earlier, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby had mentioned that the meeting between Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was planned. However, later on Tuesday, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant did meet with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Washington.
At a press conference on Monday, Mr. Kirby said, “We want to make it clear to Israel’s Defense Minister that the U.S. stands with Israel in its fight against Hamas.” He also stated that the decision not to veto the proposal does not mean that “our (U.S.) policy has changed. ”He added that the U.S. did not vote in favor of the proposal because it did not adequately condemn Hamas. “Our policy has not changed. Not at all,” Mr. Kirby told reporters. However, a statement from Netanyahu’s office indicated that the U.S. had abandoned its previous position of declaring a ceasefire in exchange for the release of hostages. The statement read, “Unfortunately, the U.S. did not veto the new proposal.”
Why did some countries previously veto the Gaza proposals?
In October and most recently on Friday, Russia and China vetoed two proposals put forward by the United States.
On Friday, Russia’s Ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, criticized the U.S. proposal as being “highly politicized.” He stated, “The proposal seemed to grant effective consent to Israel for military operations in the city of Rafah in southern Gaza. Meanwhile, more than half of the 2.3 million residents there have taken refuge in temporary shelters.”
He warned, “This would give Israel the right to do whatever it wants, leading to the destruction and displacement of all of Gaza and its people.”
China’s Ambassador to the UN, Zhang Jun, noted that the U.S. had failed to oppose Israel’s planned military operation in Rafah. He stated that China supported an alternative proposal.
However, U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield argued that the draft proposals from China and Russia failed to address the situation adequately. She said, “As it stands, it fails to support sensitive diplomacy in the region. Worse, it could actually provide Hamas with an excuse to pull away from negotiations.”
Is compliance with the proposal mandatory?
Article 25 of the UN Charter states: “Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
According to the UN website: “Resolutions passed by the Security Council are legally binding.”
However, the United States has described Resolution 2728 as non-mandatory. Their argument is that the proposal uses the term “calls for a ceasefire” rather than “decides on the necessity of a ceasefire.”
U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller also told reporters, “This is not a mandatory resolution.”
Contrarily, other UN officials have expressed a different view. China’s Ambassador to the UN, Zhang Jun, has stated that Security Council resolutions are mandatory.
Mark Lyall Grant, who served as the UK Ambassador to the UN from 2009 to 2015, told BBC Radio’s “Four PM” program that “the passing of this resolution means Israel will be under an obligation to halt military operations for the next 15 days.”
He added that while the UN Security Council Gaza Proposal is legally binding for Israel, it is not for Hamas, as the Palestinian group is not a state. UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq stated that Security Council resolutions are international law, “thus, they are as binding as international law itself.”
Is it possible to make the proposal mandatory under Chapter VII of the UN Charter?
One of the strongest tools for making proposals binding on member states is Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This chapter was used in October 2023 to send a multinational police force to Haiti to restore law and order. Chapter VII was also utilized to establish the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). This was used in 2005 to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the deaths of more than 20 people. In 2006, under Chapter VII, Iran was banned from supplying arms to other countries, and stringent sanctions were imposed on it.
According to a piece published by Patrick Johansson in the Nordic Journal of International Law: a Security Council resolution can be considered a “Chapter VII resolution” if the “situation in question constitutes a threat to international peace, breaches peace, or is an act of aggression.”
Palestine’s permanent observer at the UN, Riyad Mansour, has attempted to use this chapter. He said, “We have come to the Security Council. Now they say UN Security Council Gaza Proposal is not mandatory. We do not accept that… Security Council resolutions are binding.” He added, “If Israel fails to implement it, then it is the Security Council’s responsibility to use Chapter VII to enforce compliance and take punitive measures.”
Maya Ungar of the Brussels-based think tank International Crisis Group commented that the United States is trying to interpret the resolution based on a legal framework that some might accept. She told CNN that the U.S. believes that without the use of the term “decision” or a Chapter VII “call,” the proposal would not be binding.
Will this proposal impact the mediation talks in Doha?
On Tuesday, Qatar stated that the proposal would not have an immediate impact on the ongoing ceasefire talks in Doha. The Gulf country continues to mediate between both sides for a potential ceasefire.
“We have not seen any immediate impact on the talks. The discussions are continuing in the same manner as before the UN decision,” said Majed Al-Ansari, spokesperson for the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Qatar made this statement after Israel decided to withdraw its negotiating team from Qatar in response to the UN proposal calling for a ceasefire. Earlier, Israeli media reported that Israel’s delegation, which had been in Doha for eight days discussing a potential ceasefire and hostage release, left after Hamas rejected the latest proposal.
