Russia and the United States abstained from voting on Gaza: but for different reasons

The UN Security Council has voted in favor of a resolution calling for a large-scale aid delivery to Gaza in an attempt to contain the looming threat of famine and deadly epidemics.

However, The Guardian emphasizes, this resolution does not require a suspension of hostilities, which was opposed by the United States, which also insisted on the exclusion of the clause giving the UN exclusive control over humanitarian supplies.

Instead, the resolution called only for the creation of “conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities.” The resolution calls for the immediate appointment of a UN Humanitarian Coordinator to take on the task of increasing the current meager flow of humanitarian supplies into Gaza and demands that the parties involved – primarily an implicit reference to Israel – give the coordinator their full cooperation.

But U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was skeptical that the resolution alone, without a ceasefire, would create the conditions for an effective relief operation.

“I hope that today’s Security Council resolution can help improve the delivery of much-needed aid, but a humanitarian ceasefire is the only way to begin to address the desperate needs of the people of Gaza and end their ongoing nightmare,” Guterres wrote on social media.

“Many people judge the effectiveness of the humanitarian operation in Gaza based on the number of trucks from the Egyptian Red Crescent, the UN and our partners that are allowed to unload aid across the border. “This is a mistake,” the secretary general told reporters. “The real problem is that the way Israel is carrying out this offensive creates enormous obstacles to the distribution of humanitarian aid inside Gaza.”

The vote was delayed four times before a version was unveiled Thursday night that the Biden administration said it could support. Washington opposed calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a clause that would have given the UN exclusive oversight of the delivery of humanitarian aid.

On Friday, all Council members voted in favor of the resolution proposed by the United Arab Emirates, except for the United States and Russia, which abstained.

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Washington overwhelmingly supported the resolution but abstained because it lacked any condemnation of the Hamas attack that sparked the current war. She said: “We are deeply disappointed, indeed shocked, that the Council has once again failed to condemn the horrific Hamas terrorist attack on October 7th. And I cannot understand why some members of the Council stand in the way and why they refuse to unequivocally condemn this evil.”

Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya said that the United States made the resolution toothless. “Ultimately, the language that is being voted on today was extremely neutral,” Nebenzia said, adding that the resolution gives Israeli forces a free hand. “Anyone who votes for the text in its current version will bear responsibility for this, essentially becoming an accomplice in the destruction of Gaza.”

Explaining Russia’s abstention, the diplomat said: “If this document had not been supported by a number of Arab states, we would, of course, have vetoed it.”

Israeli Permanent Representative Gilad Erdan called the resolution’s emphasis on aid mechanisms “unnecessary and out of touch with reality.”

“Israel is already allowing aid supplies on the required scale,” Erdan said. Currently, about 200 aid trucks enter Gaza daily, which the UN and other aid agencies say is a small percentage of what is needed for a population of more than 2.2 million people, 90% of whom are displaced.

The vote came as Israel expanded its ground offensive in Gaza, ordering new evacuations in Bureij, an urban refugee camp in the western Strip, and announcing plans to send more ground troops to fight in southern Khan Yunis.

Both areas had previously been declared safe for civilians fleeing the north. Those Palestinians who have endured weeks of intense aerial bombardment are being pushed into ever smaller areas of Gaza.

During eleven weeks of conflict, almost 85% of Gaza’s population was displaced. They are cold, hungry and sick, huddled in overcrowded shelters and sprawling tent settlements with no clean water and little or no sanitation. About a quarter of the population – half a million people – already face catastrophic famine, and with Gaza under siege, that number is expected to rise quickly. The entire population faces an “imminent risk of famine,” the UN warned on Thursday.

James Denselow, head of conflict and humanitarian advocacy at Save the Children, said the resolution should help bring desperately needed supplies to Gaza by creating new border crossings and aid corridors, but did not go far enough.

He said Gaza needs a political process so that it is no longer the most dangerous place in the world to be a child, aid worker, medic or journalist.

The International Rescue Committee stated: “From a humanitarian point of view, the failure [Совета безопасности ООН] demanding an immediate and lasting ceasefire is unjustified.”

More than 20,000 people were killed by Israeli bombs and ground forces, most of them women and children. This number represents almost 1% of Gaza’s population before the war. Thousands more dead are buried under rubble in destroyed cities, writes The Guardian.

Overall, about a third of structures in the sector were destroyed or damaged, the Associated Press reported. “The Gaza Strip is now a different color from space. It’s a different texture,” said Corey Sher of the CUNY Graduate Center, who used satellite imagery to map the destruction.

Israel blames Hamas for civilian casualties, saying it uses facilities such as schools and hospitals as cover for military activities. Although negotiations are underway in Cairo for another cessation of hostilities, and Egypt and Qatar are mediating between the warring parties, there is little hope for an immediate breakthrough.

Meanwhile, The Guardian, answering the question “Will the new UN resolution on Gaza change any conditions on the ground?”, states that UN Security Council Resolution 2720 will not stop the Israeli offensive and does not seek to do so. It only calls for “urgent steps” to create “conditions” for a sustainable ceasefire that are open to interpretation. Israel believes these steps involve the complete destruction of Hamas. Regarding humanitarian supplies, it depends on the circumstances. A special UN coordinator must be appointed to organize the increased flow of aid, and the resolution “demands” that the parties concerned, i.e. Israel, provide full cooperation. However, Israel generally views the UN as a hostile and biased entity and recently revoked the visa of the UN Resident Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

In addition, this UN resolution does not have the force of international law. Only a small number of UN resolutions are considered legally binding. International lawyers do not always agree on what is required to make a resolution binding, but there is general consensus that it should refer to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which gives the Security Council the power to take military and non-military action to confront “ threat to international peace and security.” The resolution should also state that the board is “deciding” on a course of action, rather than simply calling for it.

Resolution 2720 meets neither of these conditions, but some legal experts argue that by using the word “require,” the Council creates a legal obligation that goes beyond Title VII. But Israel has violated more than two dozen previous Security Council resolutions, including many “requiring” it to stop building settlements in the occupied West Bank.

UN Security Council resolutions are often a form of political communication about world opinion. It’s rare for the five chronically divided permanent members to agree on anything, so if they agree your country is doing something wrong, it should be noted diplomatically. The resolution process can also be a means of resolving differences between major powers. Friday’s resolution on Gaza created a small political space that both the United States and Russia could come to terms with. In the past, the US has used UN resolutions as a way to send signals to Israel. When Washington, on rare occasions, refrains from passing a resolution criticizing Israeli policies or advocating for Palestinian rights, it is usually a signal to Tel Aviv that the administration is running out of patience with what Israel is doing.