March 26, 2024
To no ones surprise the very same New York Times which relied on lying witnessesto falsely claim that Hamas had raped Israeli women is also lying about a ceasefire resolution for Gaza that yesterday passed the United Nations Security Council.
U.N. Security Council Calls for Immediate Cease-Fire in Gaza as U.S. Abstains
The United Nations Security Council on Monday passed a resolution calling foran immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip during the remaining weeks of Ramadan, breaking a five-month impasse during which the United States vetoed three calls for a halt to the fighting.The resolution passed with 14 votes in favor and the United States abstaining, which U.S. officials said they did in part because the resolution did not condemn Hamas. In addition to a cease-fire, the resolution also called for the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages” and the lifting of “all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance.”
UNSC resolutions are legally binding documents under international law. They therefore use a very specific language. If the UNSC 'calls upon' someone to do something it is the legal equivalent of asking 'pretty please'. It has no real consequences.
However, UNSC Resolution 2728 which passed yesterday on a 14 to 0 vote with the U.S. abstaining, does not 'call upon' Israel or Hamas to do this or that.
It demands them to do something:
The Security Council, ...
...
1. Demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain;2. Emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip and reiterates its demand for the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale, in line with international humanitarian law as well as resolutions 2712 (2023) and 2720 (2023); ...
Soon after the resolution passed the U.S. falsely claimed that it is not legally binding:
Heidi Matthews @Heidi__Matthews - 22:45 UTC · Mar 25, 2024
The U.S. is unilaterally claiming that Security Council resolution 2728 is non-binding and therefore has no impact on its policy or the legality of Israel’s continued war. This is not so obvious… 🧵
...
How do we figure out the will of the UNSC (the 14 members that voted in favour)? We turn to the principles of treaty interpretation contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. We try to figure out the 'ordinary meaning of the text in light of its object & purpose'.This could be a looong discussion. But for now, note that para 1 of the resolution uses exhortatory language: "*Demands* an immediate ceasefire". "Demands" looks a lot more like it creates an obligation than, for example, language of "emphasizing", "calling upon", "urging", etc.
Finally, many of the states who spoke at the session today noted their understanding of the resolution as binding. (I'd have to go back to the transcript for a fuller picture, but several so noted). ...
Verfassungsblog - On Matters Constitutional agrees:
In conclusion, the resolution is – despite statements to the contrary – legally binding and creates a legally binding request for an immediate ceasefire during Ramadan and a legally binding request to immediately release all hostages.
The obvious elephant in the room is enforcement: who is to enforce the Security Council resolution in the current situation? It ultimately falls to the parties of the conflict to heed the Security Council’s call, and to the Council itself to enforce its requests. Given the experience of the past months, this is no cause for enthusiasm. Yet, the fact that the Council could agree on the text, after five vetoes on the matter, is, perhaps, a shred of hope.
By using the 'calls for' wording instead of the 'demand' used in the real resolution the New York Times is deceiving its readers about the obligations the resolution created.
The Washington Post is, in comparison, using the correct language:
The latest resolution, demanding an end to fighting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan and the release of all hostages, was backed by 14 nations including China and Russia. The United States abstained, allowing it to pass.
While the language is correct even the Washington Post report is still a bit deceiving. The U.S. and Israel have tried to combine the two issues of a ceasefire and of a hostage release into one issues. The ceasefire would depend on the hostage release and vice versa.
But the UNSC resolution has explicitly separated those issues into two different demands and has added the immediate provision of food as another one.
It demands that both sides cease fire. It demands that both sides release hostages. It does not connect the two items.
Posted by b on March 26, 2024 at 14:39 UTC | Permalink