Netanyahu at a crossroads: UN ceasefire resolution challenges and domestic turmoil

Written by Elijah J. Magnier:

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the United States has used its veto power 45 times to protect Israel in the Security Council, in addition to supporting numerous resolutions favourable to Israel by mutual agreement. The latest development in the Security Council, marked by the absence of an American objection to a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza for the remainder of Ramadan – with the ultimate goal of a permanent ceasefire and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. The UNSC Resolution would not have happened without the foreknowledge of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In doing so, Washington is extending an olive branch to Netanyahu amid his struggles with political rivals and a deeply polarised Israeli society. Although official US spokesman John Kirby downplayed the significance of the resolution, describing it as ‘non-binding’, its introduction has generated significant discourse and advanced negotiations between Israel and Hamas. The move has also exposed growing doubts within Israel that threaten the stability of Netanyahu’s government, his quest for ‘total victory’ in Gaza, and his doubtful plan to occupy Rafah.

In response to America’s decision not to veto a resolution calling for a ‘permanent ceasefire in Gaza’ after six months of conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided not to send a high-level delegation to Washington to discuss plans for an invasion of Rafah. The move is a symbolic gesture that will not significantly alter the political landscape. Instead, it serves to express Netanyahu’s dissatisfaction with the US position in the Security Council. Nevertheless, America’s position could provide Netanyahu with political cover against his more hawkish cabinet members, who have threatened to resign if the Gaza conflict ends or there are perceived concessions in the negotiations. This situation underscores the complex dynamic between the Israeli leadership’s internal pressures and its relationship with international allies, particularly the United States.

The decision not to use the US veto against UN Security Council Resolution 2728 (2024), which calls for “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan leading to a durable and sustainable ceasefire”, has caused considerable controversy. This development followed a contentious vote in which most Council members stressed that all UN resolutions are binding under the UN Charter. In contrast, the United States declared the resolution ‘non-binding’ in an attempt to soften its international impact on Israel. The resolution was introduced by the ten non-permanent members (E10) of the Security Council, led by Mozambique, in a remarkable case of collective action by these members.

Article 25 of the UN Charter states that members of the United Nations are obliged to “accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council”, underlining the legally binding nature of Security Council resolutions. Therefore, Resolution 2728 (2024) legally binds all UN member states, including Israel, to comply with it, reinforced by Article 103 of the UN Charter, which asserts the importance of these obligations over any other treaty obligations a member state may have.