Experts attribute Washington's abstention from voting to increased tension between Biden (left) and Netanyahu (Reuters)
Washington -
The United States abstained from voting on a resolution adopted by the UN Security Council, yesterday, Monday, calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all detainees, and the acceleration of the entry of more aid into the Strip.
The resolution was adopted by the 10 non-permanent members of the Council, and 14 out of 15 members voted in favor of it. It came three days after Russia and China used their veto power against a resolution drafted by Washington calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of the remaining detainees, and an end to Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.
It also came after 3 times in which Washington used its veto to obstruct the issuance of resolutions calling for a ceasefire since the start of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip on the seventh of last October.
Slim road
All of this left Washington in a state of confusion amidst a torrent of interpretations and interpretations to refute the implications, meanings and messages of the new American position. The progressive movement in the Democratic Party praised the decision, and considered it a step in the right direction, even if it came late.
As for the extremist and Republican movements supporting Israel, they considered it a major retreat from President Joe Biden and a blow to Tel Aviv, as the decision does not address the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) committing what they see as a “massacre” on October 7, and does not link the ceasefire to the release of detainees.
Richard Goldberg, a former official in President Donald Trump's administration and an expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, known for its closeness to the Israeli side, attacked the Biden administration's position.
“A reading of this resolution indicates that it claims that the October 7 attacks never happened, and that Hamas is not a brutal terrorist organization,” he said. Washington has essentially shifted its policy from “no ceasefire without the release of detainees” to “we would like to see A ceasefire and the release of detainees, without being linked."
Goldberg added, "Hamas will never release detainees unless it faces great pressure. This decision puts pressure on Israel and reduces pressure on the movement."
Compromise
As for the research director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, David May, he considered that “the ceasefire is a beautiful slogan that obscures the true meaning of the decision. Leaving Hamas in power will preserve the terrorist movement’s ability to carry out massacres in the future, which is something its leadership has promised to do. Anything less Whoever dismantles it will leave Israeli citizens unsafe,” he said.
In an interview with Al Jazeera Net, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs, Ambassador David Mack, indicated that Washington’s decision to abstain from voting is a compromise position between voting in favor of the resolution if there is a condemnation of Hamas and the October 7 attacks, which means rejecting The decision should Russia and China use their veto again.
He explained that therefore Washington chose a safer path, "They satisfied the families of detainees in Israel and the United States."
For his part, Gregory Avtandilian, an expert on the Middle East peace file and professor at the American University in Washington, told Al Jazeera Net that Washington’s decision was for two main reasons:
First, Biden is increasingly dissatisfied with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who he believes is not listening to Washington's advice about not going into Rafah with a large-scale military attack and is more concerned about maintaining his position than anything else.
Second, Biden hopes that by allowing the Security Council resolution to pass, he can rally support with progressive Democrats who have sharply criticized his Gaza policy.
For his part, Vice President of the Quincy Institute, Tarita Barsi, told Al Jazeera Net that the Biden administration’s decision to refrain from using the veto was driven by three main factors:
Increasing tension between Biden and Netanyahu.
Growing opposition within the administration to Biden's stubborn opposition to the ceasefire.
Growing anger among Biden's electoral base over his support for Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza residents.
Slight shift
Ambassador Mack stressed that his country's abstention from voting in the Security Council does not represent a real change in US policy towards the Gaza war, and he considered it only an indication of the growing American development on how to deal with the Security Council in a wiser way, whether in terms of taking into account American public opinion or in terms of relations. America with the rest of the world.
He saw that, increasingly, Biden began to understand that what is happening in Gaza indicates that this Israeli government is at war with all the Palestinians west of the Jordan River in terms of the way Netanyahu and his partners in the right-wing coalition are behaving.
Expert Gregory Avtandilian agreed with the previous proposal, and told Al Jazeera Net that this is only a slight shift in the Gaza war because Biden did not place any condition on providing American weapons to Israel as many Democrats want, and he is not inclined to reduce aid to it.
He added, "Yes, we can expect more of a war of words between Biden and Netanyahu, but it is doubtful that Biden will impose any punitive measures on Israel. Netanyahu knows this, and with his strong support among Republicans and from some Democrats, he knows that Congress is unlikely to punish Israel, Even if thousands of Palestinian civilians are killed in Gaza.”
Parsi pointed out that everything that happened before that resolution was passed was nothing but a rhetorical shift, even with Biden talking about the necessity of a ceasefire, while yesterday’s vote indicates a shift in position.
He continued, "However, the decision will be meaningless unless Biden presses to ensure that the decision is not only passed, but also implemented. So far, Biden's signals are not encouraging, especially with the administration claiming yesterday that the decision is not binding."
Parsi warned Biden that he would put himself in a worse position with the international community and with his own people if he did not take a tougher stance because with this decision and vote, he had raised expectations. He stressed that passing the resolution without implementing it would have adverse consequences for Biden politically.
Source: Al Jazeera