“Today we voted for peace” wanted to greet the American Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Monday June 10, in the wake of the validation, by almost unanimity of the United Nations Security Council, of a resolution supporting the broad outlines of a cease-fire agreement. fire between Israel and Hamas. All fifteen nations represented – including France, Israel, Algeria, China and the United Kingdom – voted in favor, with the sole exception of Russia, which abstained without exercising its right vet. From the White House, Joe Biden welcomed this: “Hamas says it wants a ceasefire. This agreement presents an opportunity to prove that it is sincere.”
The American initiative officially aimed to rally a form of international diplomatic consensus around the terms of the agreement defended by Washington, and thus to place a little more pressure to accept it on Hamas alone. The latter singularly replied almost as soon as he “greeted” the resolution, in a press release in which he assures of his desire to “cooperate (…) to enter into indirect negotiations concerning the implementation of these principles”. But behind this sudden general display of harmony and good will, the Islamist organization like the Israeli authorities are still actively cultivating too many contradictions and ambiguities in their stated positions for the uncertainty to dissipate as to the real possibility of a deal.
The resolution passed may well affirm that Israel adheres to the principles of the agreement, and these principles are therefore now welcomed by Hamas, both camps reiterate at the same time the affirmation of their wishes for destruction reciprocal, as a prerequisite to any lasting cessation of hostilities. An ambition impossible to reconcile with the prospect of imminent peace in a conflict which, since the massacre of October 7, has cost the lives of nearly 37,000 people in Gaza, according to the count of local authorities.
“This text is not perfect”
Strongly promoted by the American president since the end of May – while suggesting that it would be an Israeli initiative – the text consists of a peace plan for Gaza in three phases. The first, planned to last six weeks, assumes a “immediate and total ceasefire”, associated to “the release of hostages, women, elderly and injured people, and the restitution of the remains of killed hostages, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.” Israeli forces would be required to withdraw from densely populated areas of Gaza, allowing “the return of Palestinians to their homes and neighborhoods throughout the enclave, including in the north, as well as safe and effective distribution of humanitarian aid in large scale.” The second phase must mark “the permanent end of hostilities”, on the basis of an agreement between the belligerents, “in exchange for the release of all other hostages still present in Gaza and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.” Finally, the third and final phase would launch “a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza” while the last remains of deceased hostages would be returned.
Before being put to the vote, the text of the resolution had been the subject of intense negotiations behind the scenes, necessary to thwart a Chinese or Russian veto, to rally the almost unanimity of the members of the Council in order to respond to the aspiration American “speak with one voice”, and to finally overcome Israel’s hostility to various provisions. Several of the latter ultimately remain, in a watered-down form, in the voted text, which “reiterates its unwavering commitment to the vision of a two-state solution”, “insists on the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority” and especially “rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including through actions aimed at [en] reduce the territory.
“I think everyone is unhappy enough with this resolution that it will pass – that’s the magic formula.” the Maltese ambassador had gently squeaked on the threshold of the meeting. “This text is not perfect”, in fact recognized the Algerian ambassador, the main spokesperson for the Muslim world within the current Council. “But it offers a glimmer of hope to the Palestinians, for whom the alternative is continued massacres and suffering… We voted for this text to give diplomacy a chance to put an end to an aggression against the Palestinian people who have lasted too long”, he concluded, after chanting, full of seriousness: “Palestinian lives matter!”
“What exactly did Israel agree to?”
The United States defended its resolution as “the opportunity to seize” to finally respond to “calls heard since October 7 [au] ceasefire and the release of the hostages. “Israel accepted this agreement because it ensures its security, affirmed the ambassador in the preamble, and as President Biden has made clear, Hamas is no longer in a position to carry out another “October 7.” Finally, according to her, “The United States will ensure that Israel also respects its obligations, in the event that Hamas accepts the agreement.” Of the “obligations” which appear to be the main object of this resolution, of which international law theoretically dictates the binding application, under penalty of sanctions – but recent precedents have demonstrated that Washington does not necessarily understand it that way, or at least only when it does. ‘arrange.
While the head of American diplomacy, Antony Blinken, is dedicating yet another tour to the Middle East this week to promoting the agreement (he spoke to this effect on Monday with Benjamin Netanyahu), the text proposed to the Council by the United States was probably mainly intended to call the world to witness its new pro-ceasefire voluntarism (after a succession of American vetoes in October) and to force its Israeli ally to commit in this direction.
But, as the only dissenting voice from the Russian ambassador raised as an explanation for his abstention (“The assent given by Israel is still unclear (…): what exactly did Israel agree to?”), the exact contours of this commitment remain unclear by the repeated declarations of the main stakeholders. Thus, speaking last, the coordinator of the Israeli diplomatic mission reaffirmed that her country “remains firm on its principles, and they have not changed: we will continue until all hostages are returned and until Hamas’s military and government capabilities are dismantled. (…) Israel will not allow Hamas to rearm or regroup so that Gaza can pose a threat to Israel. This is the unwavering goal we are determined to achieve. And it also means that Israel will not engage in meaningless and endless negotiations, which could be exploited by Hamas as a means to buy time.”
A statement echoing the line reaffirmed a few hours earlier from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office. If he had refrained from commenting on the UN resolution, he had reacted fiercely to the disclosure by Channel 12 of a document presented as the agreement accepted by Israel, where the Jewish state would agree to a cessation of the war before the release of all the hostages and without having obtained the elimination of Hamas as the governing power of Gaza. A scenario immediately denied by the communication from the head of government, who described it as “a pure lie”.
