The Duran Podcast - Malta resolution moves UN closer to binding ceasefire

Episode Date: November 19, 2023

Malta resolution moves UN closer to binding ceasefire

All right, Alexander, let's talk about what is taking place in the UN Security Council with regards to the war in Israel, Gaza, and everything happening in the Middle East. Because you talked about this a month ago. And I think, you know, on this channel, I think we did a couple of videos on this topic where you laid out how this is going to progress. And in those videos, I think we were very specific to say that this is not going to be what's going to happen in the UN is not going to be, you know, a next day thing. It's going to take a month or two or maybe even three months. And as all of this is unfolding in the UN, you know, a horrible war is going to unfold in Israel and in Gaza.

But as your analysis, as you gave your analysis, as you gave your analysis, about what's going to happen in the UN. So it is playing out pretty much exactly as we discussed in those early videos in October with regards to this conflict. So where are we now with everything taking place in the United Nations Security Council? Well, exactly. We've now had the first actual resolution passed by the UN Security Council. And we had the lead up to this. We've had Russian draft resolutions which were rejected, Brazilian draft resolutions which were rejected, American draft resolutions which were rejected. We've had a vote in the General Assembly, which called for a cease-five, basically. And now we've had the first resolution, actual resolution,

pass through the Security Council. And you could see the trend, the Security Council, the UN Security Council, is edging towards the eventual ceasefire binding ceasefire resolution. And they didn't quite call that in that latest resolution that we've just seen. Because for the moment, the United States still doesn't want to use the word ceasefire. It still doesn't want to have a complete ceasefire, still providing diplomatic cover for, you know, what the Israelis are doing in Gaza, but they are gradually retreating. And so we've had the resolution. And it was proposed by Malta, which is an interesting country to propose a resolution like this. There's clearly been an awful lot of backroom negotiation and discussion.

Malta is a Mediterranean country. It's an island country. It's part of the European Union. but it is also very friendly to the Arab states. It's got close historic links with many of the Arab countries. So he came up with this resolution which calls for prolonged humanitarian pauses. It specifically says that the blockades, you know, the energy and water and food should be allowed back into Gaza. It talks about the importance of adhering to international. humanitarian law. It does also call on Hamas to release its hostages, which of course it's inevitably going to do, and which is in fact the international consensus within the

international community. But it's gradually taking us ever closer to the next, to the eventual end point, which is a resolution, either from the security. Council or from the General Assembly, which straightforwardly caused for a ceasefire and does so in binding terms. So Israel has rejected this resolution. They said that this isn't connected to reality, but we are gradually working that way. And there was an article in the Financial Times which had the quoted the Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Kerring saying that in his opinion, a ceasefire, some kind of end of hostilities, is likely to come sometime around the end of November, beginning of December, sometime around then. Okay, so how does the U.S. play this?

Because I was listening to your video yesterday, and I guess if the U.S. is smart about things, they'll get Israel to a ceasefire before this resolution, this binding resolution. is passed because if a binding resolution is passed, which calls for ceasefire, I imagine, Israel has to honor that resolution. I imagine they have to honor that resolution. I'm not sure. And it's going to look terrible, not only for Israel, it's going to look really bad for the United States as well. It's going to really show the U.S.'s isolation on this matter. So they're better served. the Biden White House is better served by getting Netanyahu to a ceasefire before the UN gets Netanyahu to a ceasefire. Absolutely correct. Now, can I just say the United States does have one thing going for it, in my opinion, in all of this, which is I've been tracking very carefully the debates in the United Nations.

And I have to say that the American ambassador strikes me as a capable person. So the ambassador must be giving what I presume is good advice about the trend, the movement in world opinion, the shift in world opinion back to the State Department and to the White House. Now, one doesn't know whether this advice is being followed, but I have felt overall that as American diplomats go, this is a good one. So they have that going for them. But let's go to the voting on this particular resolution because it was extremely interesting and it exposes exactly the point you're making about how the United States risks being isolated and risks being confronted by a binding resolution, if not from the Security Council, perhaps on the General Assembly, which it doesn't really want.

that is, in other words, imposed upon it. So the resolution, the draft resolution, which only calls for extended humanitarian pauses, was proposed by Malta. The Russians, who have been driving the demands in the Security Council for an outright ceasefire, then propose an amendment. Now, let's just be very clear,

this is something that will have been debated by the Russians, with the Maltese, with all of the others. So this would have been prearranged. So the Russians proposed an amendment to the resolution. The amendment is based on the vote that was recently made by the General Assembly, which called for a ceasefire, essentially called for a ceasefire. So this is a proposed amendment strengthening this Maltese draft by converting the

extended humanitarian pools into an effective ceasefire. Five countries support Russia, all the BRIC states, Brazil, China, the UAE who are on the Security Council, the UAE isn't yet a BRIC state, but it will be very soon. They support the Russians. So does Madagascar. That's five out of the states. One state votes against the Russian amendment, and that is the United States, all the others, all of them abstain, including Malta, which has actually proposed this resolution. They don't fundamentally object, in other words, to the Russian amendment, proposed amendment to their own resolution, rather than vote against it, as you would expect that they would. Do they actually abstain? Even France, Britain, Switzerland are too embarrassed to,

vote against, to embarrass by the situation, to actually positively vote against the Russian amendment. So then the resolution itself without the Russian amendment goes to the vote. Everybody supports it except three countries. These are the United States and Britain, which both abstain. And of course, the Russians who are simply, keeping their pounder dry because they intend eventually to be the guiding force that proposes that big resolution, the one that calls for the ceasefire. So you can see that the United States is becoming incrementally more and more isolated in the Security Council. It's finding it impossible now to get its own allies, Britain, Switzerland, Japan, France, to vote.

with it in voting down a Russian amendment calling for a ceasefire. So with every day that passes, every week that passes, we get closer to that ceasefire position. And you can see the problems. In Britain, there's now, you know, growing crisis within the Labour Party. Kirstama, the Labour leader, wanted to support the American position, which is also, of course, the British government's position that he is now facing a growing rebellion within his own party. We discussed it in a video. But it's now getting much worse. Top officials in the Labour Party are resigning. More and more Labour MPs are coming out openly now and are voting in the British Parliament for a ceasefire. sooner or later, the Labour Party itself is going to change this position. It's impossible for

Kirstama to hold firm in opposing a ceasefire. When labour shifts is positioned, given that this is the popular, electorally popular position in Britain, the pressure on the Conservative government will enormously increase and before long they will end up. And I'm confident of this supporting a ceasefire as well. So we can see the way the direction of travel in this matter. And it is in the Security Council that this battle is now playing out. I wonder if the Biden White House can get Netanyahu to a ceasefire before the UN forces the ceasefire. Well, my own sense is what they're trying to do is something slightly different. they know that Netanyahu himself is probably going to oppose this because politically he'd be toast

if he agreed to it. So I think they're trying to get him out and there's more and more moves to try to get him out. I saw that the opposition leader in Israel is now saying that Netanyahu must resign. And I would not be at all surprised if he's had some people whispering into his ear on behalf of the Biden administration, telling him, you know, let's get Netanyahu out because he's now the obstacle to some kind of political settlement of this thing, or at least, you know, what the US needs to do is to get ahead of this problem. I'm sure this is what their UN ambassador is telling them, that, you know, we're losing control of the diplomacy.

The UN sentiment in the UN is moving steadily in one particular direction. You remember we had the discussion a short time ago with Professor Sacks, Professor Jeffrey Sacks, who is close to the UN. And he told us the same thing. The sentiment there, the other, the diplomats, the representatives of the various countries, they're all talking to each other. They're all moving in that direction towards the ceasefire. And I'm sure this is what the US delegation to the Security Council is reporting back to the State Department and to the White House. So the administration needs in its own interests and in the US's interests to get ahead of this.

They probably have figured out by now that Netanyaki himself, for political reasons, cannot agree. So they're looking probably to find some way of leveraging him out, putting someone else in, coming to some kind of arrangement whereby an actual resolution from the Security Council or the General Assembly is no longer needed, because that is effectively the situation we already have. So that, I think, is probably their game plan. Yeah. Just a final note, I imagine that if they are to maneuver Netanyahu out, Netanyahu knows that if he were to be replaced, then he's in a world of trouble, domestic in Israel. Yes.

All the court cases and stuff like that. So I imagine that the U.S. is trying to work out some sort of a deal with whoever they're thinking of putting in power after Netanyahu in order to guarantee that Netanyahu were he to step down would be, I don't know, for lack of a better word, let's just stay immune to any type of legal prosecution or something like that. Because the individual like Netanyahu, the person, I imagine what's what's driving him to keep this conflict going. One of the things that drives him to keep this conflict going is his own personal troubles in Israel. And he's trying to avoid that at all costs. So you have to give Netanyahu. To get him out, you have to give him something so that he can

agree to step aside. I completely agree with that. I think that is exactly the deal that is eventually going to be done. Netanyahu steps down or is voted out or something of that kind. A new government has formed. The Biden administration works with it to try to bring the situation in Gaza's back under control. Hopefully at that point, we go back to the security. Council and the UN because there's all sorts of unfinished business left over from what, you know, happened on the 7th of October, which really does need to be locked out. I mean, we shouldn't forget what happened on that day. But Netanyaki himself, there's nothing politically to be gained from putting him in prison.

And I think that would be a dangerous thing to do, actually, in Israel. This is my own personal view. also you can't leave him in Israel as a political figure because he's an enormously skilled political operator and he'd be looking for some way to come back so you'd look for some kind of a deal he gets immunity for prosecution and at the same time he basically quits Israeli politics because well he's been there for a long time I think the consensus probably is that it's no time for him to go. All right. Let's see how all of this unfolds.

The durand.com. We are on Rumble, Odyssey, Bichute, Telegram, Rock Finn, and Twitter X, and go to the Duran shop. 20% off. Use the code. The Duran 20. Take care.