The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. This decision comes after the UN Security Council failed to vote on the call for a ceasefire due to the United States exercising its veto power. The resolution also calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.
The resolution, which invokes the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution 377, was passed with an overwhelming majority. Out of the 186 nations that voted, 153 voted in favor of the resolution, 10 voted against, and 23 abstained. Resolution 377, also known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, was adopted in 1950 to circumvent any potential vetoes by permanent members of the Security Council. It allows the General Assembly to step in when the Security Council fails to act in the face of a threat to international peace and security.
However, the adoption of the resolution is just the first step. The real test will be in its implementation. It is crucial for the international community to ensure that the resolution is enforced and that all parties adhere to the ceasefire.
Members of the General Assembly emphasized that the situation in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis. The ceasefire is not just a political necessity, but a humanitarian imperative. It is hoped that this resolution will pave the way for lasting peace in the region.
The following countries abstained or were against the resolution:
- US opposition: The US opposed the resolution because it did not condemn the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October, which killed Israelis and wounded hundreds more. The US also argued that the resolution would undermine the ongoing diplomatic efforts to end the hostilities and restore calm.
- UK abstention: The UK abstained from the resolution because it also failed to condemn the Hamas attacks, and because it did not reflect the complexity of the situation and the root causes of the conflict. The UK said it supported a ceasefire, but also recognized Israel’s right to self-defense.
- Israel opposition: Israel opposed the resolution because it accused the UN of bias and double standards, and because it claimed that the resolution would embolden Hamas and reward its aggression. Israel also said that the resolution ignored its legitimate security concerns and the threat of Iranian-backed militias in the region.
- Other countries’ opposition: The other nine countries that voted against the resolution were Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Honduras, Hungary, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Nauru. These countries have opposed the resolution for various reasons, such as their close ties with the US and Israel, their opposition to Hamas and other militant groups, their support for Israel’s right to self-defense, or their skepticism about the UN’s role and credibility in resolving the conflict.
The South African government has consistently supported the rights of the Palestinian people and has called for an end to the Israeli occupation. The adoption of this resolution aligns with South Africa’s stance on the issue and represents a victory for diplomacy and dialogue over violence and war.
However, the adoption of the resolution is just the first step. The real test will be in its implementation.
Challenges in implementing the UN resolution for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza include:
- Enforcement Limitations: The resolution lacks legal binding, and there are no mechanisms to ensure compliance by the involved parties. The UN has limited leverage to monitor and verify the ceasefire without a peacekeeping mission or political process. Parties may disregard or violate the resolution without consequences, as seen in the past.
- Root Causes Unaddressed: The resolution doesn’t tackle the fundamental issues contributing to the conflict, such as the Israeli occupation, Gaza blockade, Palestinian division, and the involvement of regional actors. It also doesn’t condemn or disarm groups like Hamas, considered a precondition by Israel for lasting peace. Without addressing these root causes, parties may resume or escalate violence if their demands are not met.
- Humanitarian Challenges: While the resolution calls for urgent humanitarian aid delivery to Gaza’s people facing a dire situation, ongoing hostilities, damaged infrastructure, restrictions by Israel and Egypt, and insufficient coordination among humanitarian actors may hinder access and delivery.
Many on the internet have welcomed the decision and criticised the US for voting against.
While some users have criticised the nation that voted in support of the resolution saying they have no morality.
