The Security Council held a closed session on Tuesday morning to consult on the text of the draft resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, which was drafted by Algeria, Guyana, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Malta, Ecuador, and Slovenia, which are the elected countries in the council (non-permanent), but Japan later withdrew from the list of sponsors of the draft resolution.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi learned that the United States threatened to use its veto against the draft resolution, despite the language being significantly softened and any reference to Chapter 7 or sanctions and accountability being dropped.

The draft text has been subject to several amendments, as it was put in its fourth form last Sunday since it was distributed to the council members on November 4, in its draft called “draft zero,” meaning subject to amendments and negotiations. It is expected to be voted on on Wednesday.

The non-permanent member states had agreed on the need to adopt a new resolution that goes beyond previous drafts, calls for an immediate ceasefire, reflects what is happening on the ground, and states that the situation “has become a threat to international peace and security,” a reference to Chapter VII, “without mentioning it in order to avoid an American veto so that the draft resolution does not repeat the four previous resolutions that remained on paper.”

The United States set a number of red lines in its negotiations, most notably the reference to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which stated that the situation in Gaza and regional developments have become a threat to international peace and security. This was deleted in later drafts and the language was softened to be more “moderate” and less direct in an attempt to win over the United States, while the non-permanent member states insisted that the draft should at least continue to call for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire and the unconditional release of hostages.

The first draft of the draft resolution stated that the Security Council “determines that the situation in the Gaza Strip and the regional escalation constitute a threat to international peace and security, and demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire to be respected by all parties.” The new paragraph became: “The Security Council recalls the primary responsibility to uphold international peace and security, and demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire to be respected by all parties.” This emptied the paragraph of its most important part, namely “recognition of the existence of a threat to international peace and security” and the consequences of resorting to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which means that failure by the parties to abide by the resolution could open the door to various possibilities, including imposing sanctions on the parties to the conflict for their failure to comply with the provisions of the resolution. The first draft also stated that the Security Council referred “to the interim orders issued by the International Court of Justice in the case of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) of 26 January, 28 March and 24 May 2024.” Here, too, the paragraph was amended, also due to American objections, as the paragraph became general and loose without mentioning Gaza to state, “The Security Council affirms that respect for the International Court of Justice and its functions, including the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction and its order to take provisional measures, is fundamental to international law, justice and the international order based on the rule of law.”

The American objections included the sixth operational paragraph related to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), which stated, after affirming the role of the Agency and its importance to the humanitarian response, that the Security Council “rejects measures that undermine the implementation of the Agency’s mandate, and welcomes the commitment of the Secretary-General and the Agency to fully implement the recommendations of the independent review of mechanisms and procedures to ensure UNRWA’s commitment to the principle of humanitarian neutrality. It calls on all parties to enable UNRWA to implement its mandate, as adopted by the General Assembly, in all areas of operations, with full respect for the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, and to protect United Nations and humanitarian facilities, all in accordance with international humanitarian law and the Charter of the United Nations.”

When comparing the zero draft with the leaked draft and amendments, it is noted that the sentence in the aforementioned paragraph, which states that “the Security Council rejects measures that undermine the implementation of the Agency’s mandate due to US objections,” has been deleted. The significance of the deleted sentence, although it does not name Israel, is that it refers indirectly to the law recently passed by the Israeli Knesset that will halt UNRWA operations in the occupied territories by the end of January 2025. It seems that the non-permanent member states have reluctantly agreed to “soften” the language of the draft resolution in order to avoid a US veto, which has greatly weakened it and undermined the principle for which they took the initiative to draft a draft that would raise the Security Council to the level of responsibility and reflect what is happening on the ground, which undoubtedly constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Despite all these amendments and mitigations, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield may end her term as US Ambassador to the United Nations under President Biden by using her veto again to protect Israel from any accountability or real pressure, according to some indications from some diplomats at the United Nations.