Tariq Mahmood Awan
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a long-standing issue that has been the subject of much debate and discussion in international circles. In an attempt to resolve the conflict, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has passed resolutions aimed at bringing about peace between the two parties. However, the effectiveness of these resolutions is often subject to the compliance of the involved parties. Furthermore, Israel has stated the resolution as an undoable act.
If Israel fails to comply with a resolution passed by the UNSC, the international community will need to consider its options carefully and in more detail. UNSC resolutions are generally binding on member states. Therefore, the UNSC should explore all options to implement the resolution if Israel does not comply with the objectives of the resolution. Imposing diplomatic isolation has been the most effective way to implement the UN resolutions. Another possible option would be imposing economic sanctions on Israel to exert pressure on them to comply with the resolution. These measures could include trade restrictions, asset freezes, and other economic sanctions, which could have a significant impact on Israel’s economy. Such actions could force Israel to comply with the resolution, but they would also hurt the country’s citizens and could lead to further tensions. Nevertheless, the kind of human rights violations being committed by Israel are unpresendent and call for strict compliance with the resolution, which has the support of all the world.
Another option would be to impose military sanctions, such as a no-fly zone or a naval blockade. This would restrict Israel’s ability to engage in military activities and could force them to comply with the resolution. However, this option carries significant risks and could escalate the conflict, potentially leading to a full-scale war. Therefore, the UNSC should remain careful and vigilant in implementing its resolution for the more significant cause of saving the Palestinians from Israel’s atrocious war games.
The UNSC could also consider deploying a peacekeeping force to the region to enforce the resolution. This would involve sending a multinational force to monitor compliance and prevent any violations. While this option may be effective, it could also be costly and require all parties’ agreement. Additionally, there is no guarantee that a peacekeeping force would successfully prevent further violence and conflict in the region.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of any action taken by the UNSC would depend on Israel’s willingness to comply with the resolution. It is important to note that the UNSC does not have the authority to enforce its resolutions but instead relies on the cooperation of member states to do so. This could make any action taken by the UNSC more challenging to implement.
If Israel fails to comply with a resolution passed by the UNSC, the international community should dissect its options carefully and in more details. Economic, military, and peacekeeping options are all possible courses of action, but their effectiveness is dependent on Israel’s willingness to comply with the resolution. Diplomatic efforts should be made to encourage cooperation and dialogue between the parties involved, but the UNSC must be prepared to take action in a detailed and strategic manner to enforce the resolution if necessary.
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, after more than five months of intense conflict and multiple vetoed drafts, marks a critical juncture. The resolution, which was supported by the ten elected members of the council, saw the United States abstaining from the vote—a departure from its typical stance—while the other 14 members voted in favour. The resolution’s mandate for an “immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan” aimed at establishing a durable peace is a significant diplomatic gesture. It also calls for the release of Israeli captives held by Hamas since October 7 and underscores the urgency for increased humanitarian aid and adherence to international law in Gaza.
Despite the resolution’s promise of a temporary halt to hostilities, it has faced scrutiny for its perceived lack of substantive impact on ending the war. Critics argue that the resolution’s timing and content fall short of what is necessary to resolve the conflict effectively. Nancy Okail, president of the Center for International Policy, expressed that the resolution, while noteworthy, is belated and insufficient.
The binding nature of UNSC resolutions, as stipulated by Article 25 of the UN Charter, has been a point of contention. The US, describing the resolution as non-binding, has selectively endorsed specific objectives within it. This stance has been challenged by other UN officials and Security Council members who affirm the binding quality of such resolutions under international law.
The potential consequences of non-compliance with UNSC resolutions include the possibility of follow-up resolutions that could impose sanctions or authorize international forces. However, the Biden administration’s reluctance to support punitive measures against Israel suggests a limited likelihood of such actions.
Israel’s history of disregarding UN resolutions raises questions about the efficacy of international mandates. Notably, a 2016 UNSC resolution during Barack Obama’s presidency, which condemned Israeli settlements in Palestine as illegal, was ignored by Israel despite the US’s abstention.
Furthermore, the UN General Assembly’s recent call for a “humanitarian ceasefire” in December 2023, though non-binding, was also disregarded by Israel. Additionally, Israel faces allegations of genocide in Gaza at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), brought forth by South Africa.
In light of these precedents, the effectiveness of the UNSC resolution in halting the war remains uncertain. The resolution’s impact may be more symbolic than practical, reflecting the complexities of enforcing international law and the limitations of diplomatic resolutions in resolving deep-rooted conflicts. It also raises a fundamental question: If resolutions of the United Nations remain unimplementable, what’s the purpose of the United Nations then? Importantly, the United Nations, along with member states, must focus more on implementing the objectives of the United Nations. UN was carved out of compelling circumstances, and the very core of the organization is to attain peace in the world. Anyone hindering the peace process should be dealt with according to the objectives of the UN.
Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
