Vote on a Draft Resolution on the War in Gaza*
Tomorrow morning (20 November), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution on the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, which was put forward by the Council’s ten elected members (E10). The draft text in blue demands an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire to be respected by all parties and reiterates the Council’s demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. It also rejects “any effort to starve Palestinians” and demands immediate access to basic services and humanitarian assistance for civilians in Gaza, and the facilitation of entry of humanitarian assistance at scale and its delivery, including to “civilians in besieged north Gaza”.
Background
This will be the twelfth time the Security Council votes on a draft resolution on the war in Gaza. Only four out of 11 draft resolutions previously voted on were adopted—resolution 2712 of 15 November 2023, resolution 2720 of 22 December 2023, resolution 2728 of 25 March, and resolution 2735 of 10 June. (For more information, see our chart summarising the draft resolutions voted on by the Security Council on the war in Gaza.)
Over a year into the war and with the UN providing compounding evidence of atrocities being perpetrated, the Security Council is yet to issue a direct call for a ceasefire. Resolution 2728 demanded an “immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire”, and resolution 2735 “welcomed” a US proposal for a ceasefire. Resolutions 2712, 2720, and 2728 all called for “the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages”. (For background on the situation in Gaza, see the brief on “The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question” in our November 2024 Monthly Forecast and our 11 November What’s in Blue story.)
Negotiations on the Draft Resolution
Negotiations on the draft resolution were difficult, with several Council members apparently disappointed with the low level of ambition of the draft text in blue following various compromises made in an attempt to secure an abstention from the US, Israel’s key ally at the Security Council. The frustrations of these members are apparently deepened by the possibility of the US still using its veto tomorrow.
It seems that during the 16 October closed consultations on “The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question”, Algeria asked Guyana, as the E10 coordinator for the month of October, to start consultations on a new Security Council product on the war in Gaza. It appears that Guyana initially requested input from all Council members on elements to feature in a new draft resolution. This effort apparently resulted in an extensive draft which was later revised internally among the E10 members into a more concise text. This became the basis of the draft resolution that members are expected to vote on tomorrow.
On 1 November, Guyana shared an initial version of the draft resolution with the Council’s five permanent members (P5). From 4 to 13 November, Guyana conducted multiple consultations, liaising between the E10 and the P5 and incorporating their feedback into two successive revisions of the draft text. On 14 November, Guyana circulated a third revised draft to the P5, inviting comments until 15 November. Following an E10 meeting on 15 November, Guyana circulated a fourth revised draft to Council members. It seems that, given the extensive negotiation process and the intention to avoid further delaying Council action on the draft resolution, the E10 opted not to put the draft text under silence procedure. Yesterday (18 November), Guyana, on behalf of the E10, put the fourth revised draft in blue. Following closed consultations today (19 November) requested by the US, and supported by France and Japan, to discuss the draft resolution, and further engagement on the text, a vote was scheduled for tomorrow morning.
One of the most contentious issues apparently was how to present the Council’s demands for a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. The first draft of the resolution demanded an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire to be respected by all parties and—in a separate but consecutive paragraph—it reiterated the Council’s demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and for the parties to comply with their international legal obligations regarding the persons they detain.
During the E10 internal negotiations on the first draft of the resolution, Japan apparently argued in favour of joining the demands for a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. This position is close to the long-held US stance that the two calls should be linked in line with the US position in the indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Several E10 members apparently maintained, however, that the Council should call for the two elements in their own right and avoid suggesting any conditionality, especially at this stage in the conflict. The latter position prevailed during the initial phases of the negotiations, leading to the draft being presented as an “E10-led initiative”, as opposed to an “E10 initiative”, until the third revised draft.
It seems, however, that after repeated requests from the US, in the third revised draft the elected members agreed to move the reference to the release of the hostages into the paragraph demanding the ceasefire, which then demanded “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire to be respected by all parties; and further reiterat[ed] its demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages”. This revision was apparently a key factor for Japan in joining the other elected members in sponsoring the draft resolution.
However, the US apparently still found that this formulation, which had been used to overcome similar differences during the negotiations on resolution 2728, fell short of its request for an explicit conditional link between the two demands, such as the one featured in resolution 2735. That resolution, in describing the first phase of a US ceasefire proposal, referred to “an immediate, full, and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages”. It appears, however, that the E10 did not support any such rephrasing, leading to the US request not being reflected in the draft text in blue. At the same time, since its first iteration, the draft resolution has contained language demanding that the conflict parties “fully, unconditionally, and without delay implement all the provisions” of resolution 2735.
It seems that, following the consultations on 19 November, where the US indicated again that it could not support the draft text in blue, the E10 made a final attempt to rework language on the demands for a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. The E10 apparently proposed to insert “and in parallel” between the two demands in exchange for a US abstention. It seems that, if the US agrees to this formulation, the E10 will make this change to the draft text in blue ahead of the vote. At the time of writing, it was unclear whether the US will accept this compromise and the draft in blue remains unchanged.
Language on persons detained by the parties still features virtually unchanged in the draft in blue, but as a stand-alone paragraph, which apparently reflects a US request not to suggest “an equivalence” between the hostages taken in Israel held captive by Palestinian armed groups and Palestinians prisoners detained by Israel by addressing them in the same paragraph.
Another major issue of contention was language in the early drafts of the resolution determining—in line with Article 39 of the UN Charter—that the situation in the Gaza Strip and the regional escalation constitute a threat to international peace and security. (Pursuant to Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Council must determine that a situation constitutes a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression in order to take coercive action under Chapter VII.) It seems that several Council members attached particular importance to including this determination in the draft text, arguing that, in light of the gravity of the situation and its regional and international implications, this would have been an important new element of this resolution. Some members also apparently observed that this could provide a stepping stone for future coercive action by the Security Council. However, the US was strongly against including this reference in the text. In an apparent compromise, the E10 eventually substituted this language with a bridging proposal put forward by the UK recalling the Council’s primary responsibility to uphold international peace and security. It seems, however, that the US still sought the deletion of this language, a request that was not reflected in the draft in blue.
It appears that the US also objected to language recalling the provisional orders of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in South Africa’s case against Israel on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip. This language was progressively scaled down to omit any direct reference to the ICJ’s provisional measures orders but retaining text underscoring that respect for the ICJ and its functions, “including but not limited to the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction, is essential to international law and justice and to an international order based on the rule of law”.
A further point of contention was language rejecting actions that undermine the implementation of the mandate of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), an apparent reference to the two laws recently passed by the Israeli Knesset (parliament) on UNRWA. (For background, see the brief on “The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question” in our November 2024 Monthly Forecast.) It seems that, in response to objections raised by the US, the E10 reworked this paragraph to more closely reflect language from a press statement on UNRWA issued by Council members on 30 October. Similarly to the press statement, the draft text in blue does not include language “rejecting” actions undermining UNRWA’s mandate, but underscores that UNRWA “remains the backbone” of the humanitarian response in Gaza, calls on all parties to enable UNRWA to carry out its mandate, and welcomes the Secretary-General’s and UNRWA’s commitment to implement the recommendations of an independent review which evaluated UNRWA’s adherence to neutrality principles.
At the same time, a request from the US for language establishing a standing mechanism to review allegations raised by Israel regarding UNRWA employees being affiliated with Hamas was not included in the draft resolution. Several members apparently argued that any such decision would come under the purview of the General Assembly, as the body that established UNRWA’s mandate, rather than to the Security Council. Some also had reservations about establishing a quasi-judicial body, the composition and the functioning of which remained unclear, focused specifically on UNRWA.
The US apparently requested, but did not obtain, the inclusion of language directly condemning Hamas. The draft resolution in blue emphasises the protection of civilians, “especially women and children, and persons hors de combat”, and deplores attacks against civilians and civilian objects, as well as all violence and hostilities against civilians, and all acts of terrorism.
The draft in blue introduces two reporting requirements. The first requests the Secretary-General to provide a written assessment on the implementation of this resolution within three weeks. The second asks the Secretary-General to submit, within 90 days, a written report which should include a short, medium, and long-term needs assessment for Gaza; an elaboration on the humanitarian, social, and economic consequences of the war; and an overview of the work of “different parts of the UN system relevant to Gaza along with recommendations on how to strengthen coordination across these parts”. The E10 apparently introduced the second requirement as a way for the Council to start thinking concretely about the future of Gaza through a unified assessment from the UN system. It seems that a request from the US to ask Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator for Gaza Sigrid Kaag to carry out this report instead of the Secretary-General did not find support among the E10. These members apparently felt that the goal of this requirement is to have an overall UN assessment on Gaza, which the Secretary-General would be better placed to lead.
_____________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 20 November, the Security Council voted on the draft resolution submitted by the Council’s ten elected members (E10). The draft text failed to be adopted owing to a veto by the US. The remaining 14 members voted in favour.
