Lebanon’s borders with Israel are witnessing the most violent escalation in confrontations

After four failed attempts to issue a resolution on Gaza in the UN Security Council, the fifth attempt came to adopt a resolution calling for “the establishment of urgent truces and humanitarian corridors throughout the Gaza Strip and the immediate release of all hostages,” amid American abstention, whether from voting, or from using its veto. “Veto.”

The decision that Palestinian and Arab circles had been waiting for for 6 weeks since the start of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, following the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation carried out by the Hamas movement and elements of the Palestinian resistance factions against Israel on October 7, was accepted by Arabs. “Lukewarm” and “categorical” Israeli rejection, while former diplomats, experts in law and international organizations doubted its feasibility of implementation, and considered it “toothless,” according to testimonies to Asharq Al-Awsat.

The Security Council resolution was issued on Wednesday evening, with the support of 12 members, with the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom abstaining from voting, according to the United Nations website, while the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected the idea of ​​allowing “extended humanitarian pauses” in the Gaza Strip, which the Security Council resolution called for. As long as Hamas is holding 239 hostages.”

The Council explained that the temporary pauses must last “for a sufficient number of days to enable full, rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access for United Nations humanitarian agencies and their direct partners.” The resolution, which was presented by Malta, did not mention Israel by name in the entire text, and the Hamas movement was only mentioned in a demand for the release of the Israeli hostages kidnapped in the Gaza Strip.

A “worthless” decision

Dr. Saeed Al-Seddiqi, professor of international relations and international law at Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdullah University in Fez, described the Security Council resolution as “without much value,” expecting that Israel would not implement it, which he describes as “accustomed to violating international law and having a long history of evading… International resolutions, especially related to the Palestinian issue.”

Al-Siddiqi told Asharq Al-Awsat that, at best, Israel may “partially implement it,” or seek to evade implementation by accusing the Palestinian resistance factions of violating the limited truces, indicating that the decision “does not provide protection for the residents of Gaza, and is nothing more than a rest stop.” Temporary Israeli bombing and destruction.

Dr. Mohamed Mahmoud Mahran, a specialist in public international law and an expert on international conflicts, sees the Security Council’s resolution as “a positive step towards protecting civilians and stopping their suffering, despite its clear deficiency in not calling for a ceasefire,” stressing that “pressure must now be made for Implement it firmly, ensure the arrival of aid, and end the siege.”

Mahran told Asharq Al-Awsat that the addition proposed by the Russian representative to the original text of the resolution, in which it calls for a permanent humanitarian truce leading to a ceasefire, would have enhanced the effectiveness of the resolution, but this amendment did not receive sufficient support within the Security Council, and the United States rejected it. This reveals the continuation of deep divisions between the permanent member states and their adherence to their positions on the crisis.

American protection for Israel

On the other hand, Ambassador Barakat Al-Farra, a former Palestinian diplomat and international organizations expert, expresses clear pessimism about the possibility of forcing Israel to implement the resolution, which he describes as “toothless and does not include any reference to a ceasefire.” Although he did not even name Israel, it was quick to reject it. .

Al-Farra, whose family lost 43 martyrs in the city of Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip, expected in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat that the United States would take the initiative to protect the occupation government from any accountability in the Security Council, while Israel will continue to bomb civilians relentlessly and besiege them without mercy.

Over the past weeks, the Security Council has not succeeded in adopting a common position until Wednesday. Previous drafts of resolutions related to the war in Gaza failed due to the use of the United States’ veto power on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other hand. At the end of last month, the United Nations General Assembly, with its 193 members, passed by a large majority a resolution submitted by the Arab group in the General Assembly that was more critical of Israel, but the resolution is not binding under international law.

Doubts about implementation

The question of “implementing the resolution” was not only troubling to the residents of Gaza and their sympathizers, but was also of interest to the President of the Security Council himself, as Zhang Jun, China’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, whose country holds the current presidency of the Council, stated that the effectiveness of Security Council resolutions “lies in In implementing it, the key lies in the concerned parties implementing the provisions of the decision to the letter.”

Explaining the vote following the adoption of the resolution, the Chinese delegate said it was necessary for the Security Council to establish a mechanism to take follow-up measures to monitor and report on implementation.

Here, Dr. Saeed Al-Siddiqi sees the necessity of organizing a “coordinated international campaign” targeting Israel’s allies, especially the United States, to pressure the occupation authorities to stop their attacks and ground invasion of Gaza. Ambassador Barakat Al-Farra agrees with him, who believes that exerting official and popular pressure on American interests in the region is… “right track”; To push Washington to respond, considering that proceeding with the legal path in international organizations that have become an embodiment of double standards is a “waste of time.”

On the other hand, Dr. Mahran says that Security Council resolutions are “binding on Israel even if it rejects them,” citing Article 25 of the United Nations Charter, which stipulates that Security Council resolutions are binding, and stresses the need for the Council to take serious measures to ensure Israel’s commitment to implementing the resolution, including Imposing sanctions on it, in accordance with Chapter Seven of the United Nations Charter.

The international expert points out several legal and political measures that international law guarantees to be taken against Israel, if it refuses to implement the Security Council resolution, including issuing a resolution condemning Israel, and economic sanctions can be imposed on it in accordance with Chapter Seven of the United Nations Charter, which may include the use of force.

According to Mahran, diplomatic sanctions can also be imposed, such as expelling Israel or suspending its membership in international organizations and bodies, in addition to calling on countries to withdraw ambassadors and sever diplomatic relations with them, and referring the situation to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court regarding the crimes committed in Gaza and violations of international humanitarian law. Intervention by the United Nations General Assembly may also be requested in accordance with Article 12 of the United Nations Charter; to take further action.

However, all of these measures, despite their legal validity, clash with the reality of “American protection” for Israel, according to Al-Farra and Al-Siddiqi, which has guaranteed Tel Aviv to escape any international accountability for seven decades.