US approves Gaza cease-fire resolution What does this mean for war?

(CNN) — After several failed attempts during Israel’s devastating five-month war in Gaza, the United Nations Security Council finally approved a resolution on Monday calling for an immediate ceasefire. The United States, the only remaining obstacle to such a call, decided to reject the resolution.

The vote came as a shock to Israel, which has seen its decades-long American ally walk away rather than veto measures, as it has consistently done over the years in its diplomatic support for the Jewish state. Israeli authorities attacked the resolution, saying they had no intention of a ceasefire.

More than 32,000 people have been killed in Gaza in an operation launched by Israel after Hamas-led fighters attacked the country on October 7, killing 1,200 and taking 250 hostages.

Israel criticized the resolution’s language, saying it did not definitively link the ceasefire to the release of hostages in Gaza. The resolution “demands an immediate cease-fire…and also the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.” A resolution proposed by the United States last week, which failed, called for a ceasefire directly tied to the release of hostages.

Although the United States claims that the latest resolution is non-binding, experts disagree on whether this is the case. The key is in the language of the document, they say.

This is what we know:

Will the resolution affect the ground in Gaza?

Israel reacted angrily to the resolution, saying it had no intention of complying with it. Israeli attacks on Gaza continued on Tuesday.

Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, criticized the Security Council for approving the measure calling for a ceasefire “without making it conditional on the release of the hostages”.

“It undermines efforts to secure his release,” he said at the United Nations.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Israel Katz said in X that his country would not comply with the resolution.
“The State of Israel will not cease fire,” Katz said. “We will destroy Hamas and continue fighting until the last of the hostages returns home.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu retaliated for the American absence by canceling a scheduled visit to the United States by two of his top advisers. Israel’s National Security Adviser Zachi Hanegbi and War Cabinet member Ron Dermer were due to travel to Washington on Monday night to discuss options for a planned Israeli attack on the southern Gaza city of Rafah. US President Joe Biden requested for this meeting.

“Right now on the ground… I think it has no immediate impact,” said Gabriela Shalev, Israel’s former ambassador to the UN and professor emeritus at the Hebrew University School of Law. “But it certainly has moral and general implications.”

Is the resolution binding on Israel?

After the resolution was passed, US officials were at pains to say that the resolution was non-binding. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller repeatedly said during a press conference that the resolution was not binding, before acknowledging that its technical details must be determined by international jurists.

Likewise, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby and US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield separately asserted that the resolution was not binding.

After the resolution’s approval, Zhang Jun, China’s ambassador to the UN, responded that such resolutions are binding. UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq said Security Council resolutions are international law, “so to that extent they are binding like international law.”

Experts say the binding nature of the resolution depends on the language used, as vague language leaves room for interpretation. In this case, there are differing views as to whether the resolution falls under Chapter VI (which considers it non-binding) or Chapter VII (binding) of the UN Charter. The resolution “demands” a cease-fire.

According to Maya Ungar, an analyst who follows UN Security Council developments at the International Crisis Group (ICG), a Brussels-based think tank, “the United States, which follows a legal tradition that adopts a more restrictive approach, maintains that the word ‘decision’ in the text Without the use or invocation of Chapter VII, the resolution is not binding. “Other member states and scholars of international law argue that there is legal precedent for the idea that a ‘demand’ is clearly a decision of the Council.”

“The root of the problem is the language of the resolution and member states interpreting the charter differently,” he added.

“The United States is trying to walk a fine line between criticism and support of Israel,” Unger said. “By arguing that the resolution is non-binding, it appears that the United States has calculated that it can make a public statement without vetoing it without facing a very violent reaction from Israel.”

Even if legal experts decide the resolution is binding, the question remains how and by whom it can be enforced, said Yossi Meckleburgh, associate fellow in the Middle East and North Africa program at the Chatham House think tank in London.

“The answer is no,” Meckelberg told CNN, especially since the only country that could enforce the resolution, the United States, was quick to declare it non-binding.

Does this resolution isolate Israel on the world stage?

Israel’s Western allies, particularly the United States, have long protected it from UN condemnation. Their support was made clear immediately after the Hamas-led massacre of October 7, when many countries supported Israel in the UN Security Council and General Assembly. But even among some of Israel’s staunchest allies, support has begun to wane as the war in Gaza continues and the death toll mounts, leaving the United States as its sole backer at the UN for the past few years. Until Monday’s vote.

“They are not completely isolating Israel, their arguments about the non-binding nature make that clear,” said ICG’s Unger. “But this is the furthest from Israel’s policy that the U.S. is willing to go so far at the United Nations.”

Shalev, a former ambassador to Israel, said that by staying away, the US took a “middle path” but showed the extent to which the White House is “very concerned and worried about what’s going on.”

Biden administration officials have concluded that Israel risks becoming an international pariah if the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsens or persists for long.

Israel has faced intense international criticism, with calls from US politicians and European officials to reconsider arms sales to the country following mass civilian casualties in Gaza.

Relations with the Biden administration have gone downhill since Israel vowed to press ahead with a possible invasion of Rafah, where 1.4 million Palestinians are sheltered. The United States has warned against such a move, although its officials stress Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security.

Vice President Kamala Harris said late last week that the invasion would be a “mistake” and refused to rule out consequences for Israel if it happened.

Netanyahu’s decision to cancel official meetings in Washington to protest the US absence has confused US officials. Kirby said the US was “very disappointed that they are not coming” but stressed that the withdrawal did not change US policy towards Israel.

“He’s picking a fight with Washington, at the worst time for an Israeli prime minister to pick a fight with Washington,” Meckleburg said.

Despite the elimination, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant went to Washington on Tuesday and presented US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin with a list of American weapons and equipment that Israel wants to buy and that will be sent to it.

Shalev said Israel “faces a very low point in our relationship with the United States,” noting that despite tensions at the government level, most Israelis want to improve relations.

In the past, the United States did not even allow such resolutions to be voted on, he said. “(This time) the US wants to confirm its views on the humanitarian aspects of Israel’s actions on the ground in Gaza, as well as the unconditional release of all hostages.”

— With reporting by Richard Roth, Ivana Kottasova, Lauren Izzo, Jeremy Diamond, Kylie Atwood, Jennifer Hensler, Abir Salman and Alex Marquardt.