Since the beginning of Israel’s unrelenting attack on the Gaza Strip, the United States of America — for the first time — allowed the adoption of a United Nations Security Council resolution on March 25, “demanding” a ceasefire during the month of Ramazan which would be “respected by all parties.” Till now, it had disallowed all international endeavours to halt Israeli military action in Gaza, even by exercising its veto power against formal UNSC resolutions. Does this step by the US indicate a major shift in its approach towards the Jewish State? Or is it merely a rap on Israeli knuckles?
In order to answer these questions, it would be useful to briefly examine the fundamentals of US-Israeli ties as well as the psychological impact of the horror of Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack on Israel. At the same time, it would also be necessary to look at the growing internal and external embarrassments of the US president, Joe Biden, because of the humanitarian consequences of Israel’s military action in Gaza. But first, let’s take a look at some of the aspects of the UNSC resolution itself.
The preambular part of UNSC resolution 2728, which was adopted by 14 of the 15 Council members with the US abstaining, demands all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law. This is a routine formulation found in almost all resolutions on conflict situations. If this formulation does not need to be probed, the same cannot be said of “deploring all attacks against civilians and civilian objects, as well as all violence and hostilities against civilians, and all acts of terrorism, and recalling that the taking of hostages is prohibited under international law.” It is striking that the “deploring” covers, in the same sentence, terrorism, hostage-taking and attacks against civilians. In doing so, it does not distinguish between the Hamas terrorist attack and the Israeli military action which has resulted, as of now, in more than 32,000 deaths and an almost complete destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure and civilian buildings.
Clearly, the US should have demanded that the barbaric terrorist attack be condemned in very strong language but not be ‘lumped’ with the Israeli military action. The US could have vetoed the resolution because of the said sentence but it did not do so. This was because of a number of factors. These extend from a strong signal from Biden to the Benjamin Netanyahu-led Israeli National Unity government that it cannot go on taking US support for granted and that it has to ultimately pay a price for defying his desire for a ceasefire because the destruction of Gaza and the Palestinian deaths were proving to be too much of a global embarrassment for him. Besides, Biden is also acutely aware of the intense negative reaction Israel’s continuing attacks are attracting from substantial sections of US opinion-makers in a presidential election year when every vote will be important for him in the swing states during his electoral re-match with Donald Trump.
The operational part of resolution 2728 is blunt and forthright. It demands all parties adhere immediately to a ceasefire in this month of Ramazan and that this should lead to a “lasting sustainable ceasefire.” It also demands the release of all hostages and that there should be no restrictions on the inflow of humanitarian assistance. The question now is whether Israel would pay heed to this and halt its operations.
Netanyahu was quick to denounce the resolution. He decided not to send an Israeli delegation to the US to discuss the Israeli army’s planned attack on Rafah in southern Gaza where more than a million people are currently living, the majority being internally-displaced Palestinians. Israel claims that a large number of Hamas’s fighting units are based in Rafah. Hence, it has to attack it to complete its objective of finishing off the group. The problem is that the humanitarian cost of such an operation will be horrendous. Global opinion, which is already very upset with Israel, will get further antagonistic. Besides, domestic pressures on the Biden administration to take tangible action to stop Israel from continuing with its military operations will also increase. However, as I write these lines, there is no indication that Israel will not proceed with attacking Rafah.
Media reports have mentioned that a Hamas ‘official’ has said that the group is committed to the resolution and that the international community must ensure that Israel does so too. Hamas would naturally like a pause in Israel’s military action in view of the widespread destruction caused in Gaza by the Israeli response to the terrorist attack of October 7. While Hamas would have known that Israel would respond strongly to the killing of around 1,200 of its people on that fateful day, the question is whether it had anticipated the Israeli resolve to finish it off despite the adverse responses of many countries that were outraged by the October 7 attack. These countries and many civil society groups now feel that Israel’s actions have far exceeded the limits of a proportionate response.
At a philosophical level, it is very difficult to define ‘proportionate response’ in international relations, especially in cases of terrorist attacks. Terrorism brings forth atavistic passions in the survivors and the families of those who die even as its undertakers seek to justify it on grounds of historical injustice. This is particularly relevant in the case of the Israelis and the Palestinians. The latter claim that the entire Zionist project is colonial and racist and that it has blighted the lives of generations of Palestinians while the former focus on present Palestinian terrorist attacks. The former state that nothing can justify the targeting of innocent civilians and hence the use of overwhelming force is legitimate. The US has largely agreed with the Israeli view and, notwithstanding current differences, it will not dilute its ties with the Jewish State.
For the Jewish people, October 7, 2023 was the worst day in their history after the holocaust. Many Jews clearly feel that the atrocities Israel inflicts are insignificant compared to historical Jewish suffering. However, the Palestinians did not historically persecute the Jews. It is necessary for them to understand this and agree to a true two-State solution for this unending cycle of violence to end.
Vivek Katju is a retired Indian Foreign Service officer
