Who is really holding up the ceasefire in Gaza?
JVL Introduction
Mainstream reports about the possibility of a Gaza ceasefire tend to blame Hamas for holding out against what is being called a “bridging proposal” from the US. However, the article in The New Arab reproduced below describes a different story, of Israeli intransigence and Washington trying to provide cover for its belligerent ally.
A Reuters report tagged “exclusive” covers similar ground, citing ten sources familiar with the round of U.S.-mediated talks that concluded last week, including two Hamas officials and three Western diplomats. They told Reuters the disagreements stemmed from demands Israel has introduced since Hamas accepted a version of a ceasefire proposal unveiled by U.S. President Joe Biden in May.
NWI
This article was originally published by The New Arab on Tue 20 Aug 2024. Read the original here.
Hamas or Israel: Who's blocking the Gaza ceasefire deal?
Following talks in Doha last week, the US is pushing a new proposal for a ceasefire – but Hamas is insisting on the terms laid out in July’s ‘Biden framework’.
Loading article text…
Question: Can the UN Security Council and/or the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court insist that the USA stop using their power to act as a highly biased, pro-Israel “mediator” while at the same time supporting Israel as a war monger with bombs and weapons and now two war ships as well? Their public statements pretending there is a peace process are also very biased. Blinken has visited Israel nine times already. With absolutely no outcome worth considering. This is all surely highly irregular.
I share your disgust over the USA’s policy but sadly I don’t think the UN bodies you’ve mentioned can do anything about it, Marge…
1. The members of the UN Security Council each have a veto on matters discussed by them; both the USA and UK are members. The USA has often used its veto to block the UN from taking resolutions America opposes with regards to Gaza and Israel. Often the UK has followed the USA policy lead.
Change may be afoot. On the last vote on Gaza the UK chose to abstain rather than add its veto to America’s. The USA is increasingly worrying about its global isolation as the principal Security Council member repeatedly blocking very well-supported resolutions on Gaza. The US ambassador to the UN wants America to change its approach.
2. The ICJ can’t help directly as it’s a court of law. Its decisions are binding on all member states (individually and collectively) and entities within those states (eg arms suppliers). It doesn’t have direct power to sanction member states which fail to implement the ICJ’s binding decisions – but indirectly the ICJ carries quite a punch. Individual member states have already acted on ICJ rulings against Israel and the EU may suspend its special trade deal, for example.
3. It’d be really difficult to argue legally that the pressures America and Blinken have exerted to get pro-Israel outcomes actually amount to war crimes (which is what the ICC deals with).
Other ways of stopping the horror are more likely, I think. For example, the UK Attorney-General might be about to tell Starmer to stop supplying Israel with ANY weapons (a policy change that’d influence what the USA and the EU do).