A UN Endorsed Ceasefire Resolution : Tracking Israel- Hamas War

Explainer

By Bhavana Sethuraman

On Monday, 10th June, the United Nations Security Council unanimously voted to approve a US resolution that backed a ceasefire proposal for the conflict in Gaza. Fourteen of 15 Security Council members voted in favour, while Russia abstained.

The proposed ceasefire plan comprises three phases. The initial phase involves a six-week ceasefire, accompanied by the exchange of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails for Israeli hostages held in Gaza. Additionally, this phase includes the distribution of humanitarian aid throughout the Gaza Strip. The temporary ceasefire will persist if both parties reach a mutual agreement post-negotiation, leading to phase two. The second phase necessitates a permanent ceasefire, complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, and the release of all remaining captives. The third and final phase entails initiating efforts for the reconstruction of the bombarded and damaged Gaza Strip, potentially progressing towards a multi-year plan.

The plan was approved only shortly after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with foreign leaders, to whom he announced his message was, “If you want a ceasefire, press Hamas to say yes.”

According to BBC, Hamas welcomed the resolution, and in a statement, declared its inclination to participate in indirect negotiations and cooperate with mediators to work towards an agreement based on the facets of the proposal. The group also reiterated its demand for a permanent ceasefire, withdrawal of Israeli forces, reconstruction of the enclave and the release of all Palestinian prisoners. Abu Zuhri, a senior Hamas official told Reuters, that it is now in the US’s hands to ensure that Israel abides by the principles of the proposal.

First announced by President Biden on 31st May, Israel’s war cabinet has allegedly agreed to the proposal but its details have not yet been divulged to the wider Israeli government. Some far-right ministers have already declared their staunch objection to the same. Additionally, it is unclear whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports the ceasefire plan. While Antony Blinken reiterated PM Netanyahu’s approval, the Israeli Prime Minister stated that he was presented only parts of the proposal, and insisted that all talks of ceasefire will only begin after the dismantlement of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities. The Israeli government has also not agreed to the unification of the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority, as the ceasefire proposal iterates. Israel’s representative to the UN, Reut Shapir Ben-Naftaly once again emphasised that the war would not conclude until all Israeli hostages are rescued and Hamas is dismantled, something that Israel is yet to achieve after eight months of rigorous conflict.

There is also significant confusion over whether Hamas has accepted the ceasefire plan. While Israel declared Hamas’s response to be that of a rejection, others interpreted the same as an acceptance of Biden’s proposal. On Tuesday, 11th June, Hamas delivered another response to the ceasefire proposal through its mediators from Qatar and Egypt, seemingly pressing against Israel’s notion of a rejection. In the response, Hamas claims it is prioritising the interests of the Palestinian people and emphasizes the need for a complete halt to the ongoing Israeli assault. In a joint statement, Hamas and Islamic Jihad reiterated their loyalty towards engaging positively to reach an agreement that ends the war. According to Reuters, Hamas’s response also includes a counter-proposal with a new, earlier timeline for the permanent ceasefire and a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from the region, something that the Israeli cabinet has repeatedly repudiated. White House Spokesperson John Kirby stated that the US had received the response and was “evaluating it right now”.

Blinken’s visit in Doha with Sheikh Al Thani, the Qatari Prime Minister, on 12th June, ended with Blinken declaring that some of Hamas’ requested amendments are workable, while some are not. He added that the only “just solution” to the conflict would be to ensure that the ceasefire results in the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

While Egypt and Qatar have received a response from Hamas, they have not yet received one from their Israeli counterparts. Currently, both sides appear hesitant to endorse the ceasefire proposal, choosing instead to engage in negotiations over conflicting aspects and engaging in a blame game rather than prioritizing the increasing number of civilian casualties. An immediate ceasefire could significantly benefit the numerous civilians caught in the crossfire and the captive hostages by providing them with the urgent humanitarian aid they desperately need.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution, while not vested with the authority to enforce the agreement, contributes to the increasing external pressure on Hamas and Israel. This pressure urges both parties to cease hostilities. The escalating fear of a conflict escalation in the region has strained the enduring relations between Israel and the United States. This has led to scrutiny of the stability of the current Israeli government by several observers.

Regardless, an immediate ceasefire remains unlikely, as Blinken stated that there is “no guarantee” that the gaps between the two sides are “bridgeable” at this point.

Disclaimer: This paper is the author's individual scholastic contribution and does not necessarily reflect the organization's viewpoint.