-: R Muthu Kumar :-
The United States abstaining during the UN Security Council vote on a Gaza ceasefire resolution does not indicate any changes in Washington’s policy, White House National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby said early today.
“Our vote does not, I repeat that, does not, represent a shift in our policy,” Kirby said during a briefing.
Earlier in the day, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an immediate Ramadan ceasefire in Gaza that would lead to a lasting and sustainable ceasefire.
The motion was sponsored by the 10 non-permanent members of the council. Fourteen countries voted in favour, while the United States abstained.
In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled the visit of an Israeli delegation to Washington that was to discuss Rafah operation planning.
The truth is that US officials have avoided clearly stating that any particular Israeli action in Gaza is unacceptable.
The military campaign that Israel launched in response to Hamas’s brutal October 7 attacks has killed more than 27,000 people in the Gaza Strip and injured more than 60,000 others, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. About 75 per cent of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million has been displaced. Some 400,000 people are enduring famine because of the blockade that Israel has imposed on Gaza and the severe restrictions on humanitarian aid that have deprived civilians of what they need to survive. This number could grow if international funding for aid falters.
These figures are staggering,and it is impossible to contemplate them without considering whether Israel has violated international humanitarian law during its campaign. Israel’s repeated use of heavy weapons in populated areas has heightened concerns that it might be carrying out unlawfully indiscriminate attacks.
This has put US officials in a bind. The United States is Israel’s most important ally and greatest source of military aid and hardware. Since its founding, in 1948, it has cumulatively received more US foreign aid than any other single country during that period: $300 billion, adjusted for inflation, with another $10 billion potentially on the way. ButUS Law requires the State Department to ensure that US security assistance does not go to security forces that consistently commit gross violations of human rights. And current the US policy also requires the Eepartment to assess whether a recipient of US military aid is “more likely than not” to use American weapons to violate international law – and to prohibit transfers to any country that meets that criteria.
So far, however, it is unclear whether the State Department has made these assessments. Senior US officials have publicly and privately pushed the Israeli government to minimise civilian harm and allow for the delivery of more humanitarian aid to Gaza. As early as last November, Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that “far too many Palestinians have been killed” by Israeli forces and said it was “imperative” that Israel have a “clear plan in place that puts a premium on protecting civilians.
The Biden administration had never took back seat on criticizing other warring parties in other conflicts!
But now they are dilly dallying for sure! The reason is that drawing more attention to what is happening in Gaza would almost surely force a policy change that Biden does not want to make. It would confront his administration with a series of difficult choices that it would rather avoid. And it would further complicate the already complex dynamics of the US-Israeli relationship – and possibly create a political vulnerability for Biden in an election year.
The reality of Israeli abuses in Gaza and applies the rules of military assistance selectively, the moral authority claimed by the United States will slip further away.
US law requires officials to assess what a recipient of American military aid does with the weapons provided. Such assessments would seem especially important when it comes to the war in Gaza, given the sheer scale of Israel’s bombardment and the reported levels of civilian loss of life.
