Front Burner - Why didn’t the U.S. block a Gaza ceasefire vote?

Episode Date: March 28, 2024

This week, for the first time since the start of the Gaza war, the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire. It passed after the U.S. abstained from voting, rather than using their veto power — as they did three times before. For many watching, it was a very big deal — and the strongest sign yet of a fracture in the long and special relationship the US has with Israel. But is it really?Today the Guardian’s world affairs editor, Julian Borger, joins us to talk about that pivotal UN vote, and whether it’s just symbolic — or if it means something more.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. The draft resolution has been adopted as Resolution 2728-2024. This week, for the first time since the start of the Gaza War, the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire. They did this after the U.S. abstained from voting, rather than vetoing,

as they had in three previous resolutions. For many watching, this was a really big deal, and the strongest sign yet of a fracture in a long and special relationship the U.S. has with Israel. But is it really a fracture? Today I'm speaking with The Guardian's World Affairs Editor, Julian Borger, about that pivotal U.N. vote and whether it's just symbolic or if it means something more. more. Julian, hi, thank you so much for coming on to the show. It's a pleasure. So let's just walk through what this vote actually was on Monday. What was this resolution calling for? It called for an immediate ceasefire during the remainder of Ramadan and a ceasefire that should, it said, lead on to something more lasting and sustainable. At the same time, it also demanded the release of hostages by Hamas and an increase, a substantial increase in the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

The way I understood part of it was that a difference between this resolution and one that the U.S. had tried and failed to pass earlier was that this didn't condition the call for the ceasefire on the release of the hostages, right? There were two separate demands. Can you explain that to me a little bit? That's right. Up to that point, the U.S. had always insisted on tight linkage between there being a ceasefire and there being the release of hostages. The U.S. has said the way to a ceasefire is through the hostage negotiations that have been underway on and off and are currently underway in Doha that link the two, a ceasefire for the release of hostages with the Palestinians

detained by the Israelis put into the mix as well. And as you rightly said, that the resolution passed on Monday demanded an immediate ceasefire, and also demanded the hostages. So putting them in parallel, but not linking them. Right, right. So unlike in three previous ceasefire resolutions since the start of this war, the U.S., as I mentioned, they didn't veto it. They abstained. And briefly, what has the U.S. said about why they didn't veto it, they abstained. And briefly, what has the US said about why they didn't veto this time around? They said that what the resolution expressed was in line with their basic requirements, that they agreed that it was necessary to have a ceasefire, they agreed it was

necessary to release the hostages. They insisted there wasn't a real change in policy, but they had held up a ceasefire resolution for several months because they objected to any resolution that didn't link ceasefires with hostage release tightly. And also they had objected to a succession of resolutions that did not condemn Hamas for the 7th of October attacks on Israeli civilians. But the resolution on Monday didn't do that either. The US at the very last moment tried to get that in. It was made clear that it would disrupt the passing of the resolution

and all the delegates would have to go back to their capitals and so on. And so they dropped the demand. So the two important things that the US had demanded, required until Monday that they dropped. To observers who follow this closely, how significant was it that there was a departure from these two things that they had been pursuing before and that they abstained on Monday? Well, it's symbolically very important because for so many months, a ceasefire resolution, something that many thought that the Security Council should have done immediately as it's supposed to safeguard international police and security. There was a feeling that this is the minimum the Security Council could do in the face of the bloodshed in Gaza. But the Security Council failed for five months to come to any kind of consensus and to express the need for a ceasefire.

So to be able to do just that was a breakthrough. It's another question of what it will mean in the real world. And that really is to be determined and not straightforward at all. And I want to get into that with you more in a few minutes, but it might be worth us noting here that this history of the United States vetoing Security Council resolutions, it didn't start with this war, right? Since 1972, the U.S. has vetoed a total of 48 Security Council resolutions related to Israel, the majority of them concerning the Israel-Palestinian situation. And just, I wonder if you could give me a little bit more historical context there. Well, for a long while, a long time at the UN, the United States has been a shield for Israel

against the rest of the international community. And that acting as a shield has been one of the important diplomatic dimensions of this very close relationship. And it is very rare for the U.S. to drop that shield. It happened under the Obama administration on one issue, but it is very rare. on one issue, but it is very rare. And just why the decision to abstain on the ceasefire vote now, you think? I think because the clock is ticking. Northern Gaza, penned in with no safe place to turn, people are already starving to death.

People will die, says Umrami al-Sawirki. They're killing people for five kilograms of flour. For God's sake, look at us. And it is a question of days, weeks, and people are already dying. So it is very clear that there isn't much time left to hope for some kind of ideal situation. I think that has been weighing on this administration. It has people like Samantha Power, the head of USAID, who wrote a book about genocide and about the US capacity and willingness to step in and stop it. The Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, is reportedly very concerned and uneasy about the looming humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. So is the US envoy to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, and the Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin. They've all expressed great concern about this impending calamity.

And so there are strains within the Biden administration keeping this policy of defense of Israel together. You know, I'm also thinking of some other indications of criticism from the U.S. government, in addition to the people that you mentioned. You know, when I was listening to you talk just now, I was thinking about the speech from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. I believe in his heart he has his highest priority is the security of Israel. However, I also believe Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost his way. As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me the Netanyahu has lost his way. As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me the Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7th.

But he was very critical of Netanyahu and he effectively called for a change of leadership in Israel and Biden later called it a good speech. And, you know, are these signs of a wider shift in how the Democrats are thinking about their relationship with the Israeli government? Yes, absolutely. I think it's been an earthquake in the Democratic Party because the political calculus is no longer the same. They're losing a lot of support among Arab Americans, among young progressive voters. It has really beginning to affect them. And you saw in the Democratic primary,

the number of uncommitted votes that were protest votes. So this is becoming an important and to some extent divisive issue within the party, to some extent divisive among generations, an elder generation of Democrats who are just more like Joe Biden himself, instinctively, viscerally attached to Israel and Israeli security that younger Americans, younger Democrats just don't feel. Yeah, I just saw a new Gallup poll that found just 36% of Americans approve of Israel's military action in Gaza.

But I think, importantly, a majority, 55%, actually said that they disapproved, which feels quite significant. But at the same time, Julian, this government, the Biden administration, is not saying that they're going to stop sending military aid to Israel or financial aid to Israel. So how much of this is just talk? That's a really good question. I mean, the symbolism and what is said on the world stage is important. It's important both globally and within Israeli politics itself. Gaza, which is the critical question now. And no, there is no direct transmission mechanism between

that vote and food getting across. That remains a question of how much leverage does the US in particular have on the Israeli government, because they've been asking for the gates to be opened and for the various obstacles to the delivery of aid to be lifted. And that leverage has not worked until now. And many people think, many Alans think, that the only thing that would make a difference is the threat to restrict the weapon supplies on which Israel depends. But that in turn would be politically a big step in the US political scene. And it would leave President Biden and Democrats open to inevitable claims that they were somehow letting Israel down, leaving it defenseless in a hostile neighborhood. leaving it defenseless in a hostile neighborhood. And that is the allegation that the Biden and the Democratic leadership are cautious about. And that is the political calculus that lies behind this.

And I suppose it might be worth saying here that, you know, the administration probably also shares some of the same goals as Israel in that they have stated that they would like to see Hamas dismantled here as well. Yes, absolutely. And of course, there is a looming enemy to the north in the shape of Hezbollah, which is far better armed than Hamas, has over 100,000 rockets and missiles repeatedly, who could overwhelm Israel's missile defenses. And it is, to some extent, the concern that that could happen, that Hezbollah could enter the fray if Israel was weakened by the interruption in U.S. weapons supplies. It's that worry that lies behind some of the cautiousness on the part of this administration in trying to use that lever of restricting the flow of arms. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem.

Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples,

I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. You know, we've been talking about how, you know, U.S. officials are increasingly more critical of Israel. But, like, I think it's also important for us to talk about how they also seem to be kind of tying themselves in knots right now to do both things at the same time. Department spokesperson Matt Miller trying to explain why the U.S. is saying the resolution that we're talking about is non-binding when all U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding. And it was just, it just kind of ended up being incoherent. We, when we say the resolution is non-binding, what we mean is that it does not impose any new

obligations on the parties the way, for example, some UN resolutions that impose obligatory sanctions, impose actual requirements on people to implement them. of UN member states and the UN institution itself is that strong words like they were in this resolution demanding action. It does represent a decision by the Security Council and is therefore binding. This idea that they're tying themselves in knots, are there any examples that you think are notable that you've seen lately? Any other examples? Yes, in particular, the beginning of the week where you had the Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin greeting his Israeli counterpart at the Pentagon and telling him in public that Gaza was facing a

humanitarian catastrophe. And it was their first priority to get humanitarian aid in. And at almost the same time, over at the State Department, you had the State Department spokesman, Matthew Miller, saying that there was no reason for the U.S. currently to dispute reason for the U.S. currently to dispute Israeli formal assurances that its conduct of the war and its provision of humanitarian aid were according to international humanitarian law. These are all like when you come to the use of weapons, it's a determination you have to make with respect to individual strikes or individual campaigns or individual acts. And so we have had ongoing assessments to look at some of those. And none of none of those have we is in line with international law and international norms.

So there is a good deal of dissonance in U.S. Middle East policy right now. And it is a question of whether and how long it can withstand the strain without a significant change in direction. Let's talk about the Israeli side of this now. So how has Netanyahu responded to the U.S. abstention? With great anger. He said it was a retreat of the U.S. position at the U.N. and that the U.S. was abandoning its position, and he cancelled a delegation that was due to go out to Washington earlier this week and discuss Israel's planned offensive on Rafah. These were potentially

very important discussions because the U.S. doesn't want Israel to go ahead with that offensive. And so he called off that visit as a sign of disapproval. And it's sort of bringing the rift in that bilateral relationship very much to the surface. How isolated is Israel finding itself on the world stage right now? world stage right now? Very isolated. Obviously, the US shield was critical to it in terms of avoiding this kind of Security Council resolution, but it was already very isolated in the broader arena in the General Assembly. It has very few friends left as this war goes on another friend who is distancing itself quite noticeably is also Germany which is the second biggest supplier of arms second by a long way but still second and has been because of the past because of the history very averse to criticism of Israel but Germany too is getting more and more uneasy as this war unfolds.

I thought it was significant that even Donald Trump, who, you know, when he was in power, was extremely vocal in his support for the Israeli government, said earlier this week. Now we've got to get to peace. You can't have this going on. And I will say Israel has to be very careful because you're losing a lot of the world. You're losing a lot of support. But you have to finish up. You have to get the job done. And you have to get on to peace. You have to get on to... Though he did tell them to finish up your war, whatever that means. And what does that say to you?

Well, clearly, whatever other thoughts he has, Trump knows how to read the room. And the room in the international community is very hostile at the moment to Israel because of this war. You have Russia, China and most of the great powers who are outwardly condemning Israel's acts. And now with the U.S. becoming more tepid, he knows that it's not a sustainable position for the Israelis to be in. This is something that you mentioned earlier, but I wonder just to end this conversation, if we could get into a little bit more. know we're talking about the shift in the relationship and the rhetoric uh between the u.s and israel but you know fundamentally is there any indication right now that any of this the u.s is tough talk the u.n security council vote any of it will actually change anything on the ground in Gaza? No, I think that really the only thing that could change Israeli policy is

either a sudden change in the Israeli government. That's one thing, but that's unlikely to happen while hostilities are still underway. The second thing is a threat, a credible threat from the US that it would start constricting the supply of arms, because nothing else so far has worked in terms of getting substantial amount of aid into Gaza, and in particular, northern Gaza, with the threat of feminism most severe. Julian, thank you very much for this. It's always really great to have you on. Thank you. A pleasure. All right.

That is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening and talk to you tomorrow.