The United States has vetoed a U.N. resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in the war in Gaza because it is not linked to an immediate release of hostages taken captive by Hamas in Israel in October 2023.
Okay and? Doesn’t change his attitude towards ceasefire negotiations. In other words, if you wanted a ceasefire resolution that demands returning the hostages at the same time as the ceasefire we had one in June and it predictably went nowhere.
Because Israel didn’t seriously engage with Hamas to free the hostages. It was pretty clear when Israel learned of the resolution and reaffirmed their goal to destroy Hamas instead of saying literally anything about a ceasefire.
QUESTION: Yeah. Sorry – (laughter) – I have so many. Yesterday, the prime minister – the Israeli prime minister – basically rejected the whole Biden plan, and he said, okay, we want to exchange some of the hostages for a few prisoners and that’s it, that’s the end of it. So do you still think that the ball is in Hamas’s court and not in Israel’s court?
MR MILLER: So I saw the comments the prime minister made yesterday, and then I saw the statement his office put out clarifying that they wanted to secure the release of all hostages, and then I saw the further statement the prime minister said today where he said – made clear he supports the proposal that Israel put on the table and the President laid out. So I will just say I think all of us that speak publicly at times make mistakes and misspeak, and when we do so, we have an obligation to come clarify. And we’re glad he did.
While members of Hamas had accepted the proposal, and after bad faith negotiations from Hamas, the one guy who actually had the power to accept it did not. Netanyahu’s fear of losing power aside, had Hamas actually accepted the proposal, this would have panned out better. It would force Netanyahu to rebuff the acceptance of the proposal without being able to say Hamas made unworkable demands.
On 10 June, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2735 backing the 31 May proposal, noting Israel’s acceptance thereof and calling on Hamas to accept the proposed agreement as well. The following day, Hamas and Islamic Jihad replied to the resolution with amendments to the proposal, including a timeline for a permanent ceasefire and troop withdrawals, and the Office of the Israeli Prime Minister stated, “The claim that Israel agreed to end the war before achieving all its goals is a total lie”. The United States responded to the Palestinians’ proposed amendments by calling them unworkable. The day after that, Hamas denied adding any new ideas to the ceasefire proposal. On 21 June, Hamas stated, “The priority is to stop the criminal war on our people”, and three days later, Netanyahu stated Israel would only accept a partial ceasefire that would not end the war.
…
October 2024, U.S. officials said that they believed that Sinwar was no longer interested in a ceasefire deal with Israel. These officials said that Sinwar had become “inflexible” and “fatalistic” as the war had progressed, adding that he was hoping for it to expand into a wider regional conflict involving Iran.
So, a few things about that. First of all, as you know, we’ve been trying to achieve a ceasefire that returns the hostages home, alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, and ends the war for many months now. And the chief obstacle to reaching that ceasefire and bringing an end to the war has been Sinwar, who has refused to negotiate at all in recent weeks and has said no time and time again. That obstacle has obviously been removed. Can’t predict that that means that whoever replaces Hamas[1] will agree to a ceasefire, but it does remove what has been in recent months the chief obstacle to getting one. So,we’re going to continue to work with our partners to try to find an end to the war. The Secretary already today while on Air Force One with the President flying to Berlin called the prime minister of Qatar, who has been one of our two mediators – other mediators – working to reach an end to the war. He called the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia to talk about the path forward, and he will be having additional contacts in the days ahead.
MR MILLER: I don’t think there is. I really don’t think – it’s what the Secretary said yesterday, obviously, and I think is accurate, which is it doesn’t really change the situation. Two things can be true: Number one, Sinwar is a brutal terrorist with blood on his hands, including the blood of American citizens, and not just American citizens but citizens of many countries around the world. Let’s remember, it’s not just citizens of Israel that were killed on October 7th; there were citizens of multiple countries, as I said, including the United States. That is true.
It is also true that he continues to be the person that calls the shots for Hamas. And that was true before the death of the leader of the – the political leader of Hamas; it continues to be true today. Ultimately, it was Sinwar that had the final decision-making authority, as we can see throughout these negotiations, on whether to accept a ceasefire or not.
So yes, Sinwar absolutely ought to be brought to justice. We believe that, for the – his significant acts of terrorism. And we also think he ought to accept the ceasefire deal that is manifestly in the interests of the Palestinian people as well as, of course, in the interests of Israel and the broader region.
It wasn’t the way the us wanted it. They’ve held since the beginning of this that hostages must be released if a ceasefire is established. This resolution did not require that.
We made clear throughout negotiations we could not support an unconditional ceasefire that failed to release the hostages.
Because, as this Council has previously called for, a durable end to the war must come with the release of the hostages. These two urgent goals are inextricably linked.
This resolution abandoned that necessity, and for that reason, the United States could not support it.
Simply put, this resolution would have sent a dangerous message to Hamas: There’s no need to come back to the negotiating table.
Everyone knows Hamas would not have accepted releasing the hostages unconditionally. This ceasefire proposal was the product of weeks/months of back and forth and where everyone on both sides agreed was the best way to move forward as it involved concessions on both sides. The US then vetoed it last minute since the killing Palestinians is more important than anything else.
By resolution 2735 (2024) (to be issued as document S/RES/2735(2024)), the 15-member organ noted that the implementation of this proposal would enable the following outcomes to spread over three phases, the first of which would include an immediate, full and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages; the return of the remains of some hostages who have been killed; the exchange of Palestinian prisoners; withdrawal of Israeli forces from the populated areas in Gaza; the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes; and the safe and effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout Gaza.
Sinwar did not accept it, so no, Hamas officially did not accept it. While members of Hamas had taken it favorably, he did not, and that’s what counts.
The person who could make that decision did not, and they proposed a new agreement, which is not accepting the proposal put forth. If only Sinwar agreed to it, then Hamas would actually have accepted it. But the person in the article who said they accepted it was not able to make that decision because this decision was up to Sinwar.
MR MILLER: The – now, there may – the – so it – so here’s the difference. Over the past few weeks, there have been no negotiations for an end to the war because Sinwar has refused to negotiate. There’s been no path to ending this war because Sinwar has refused to talk about releasing the hostages or coming to a ceasefire. We now see an opportunity with him being removed from the battlefield, being removed from the leadership of Hamas, and we want to seize that opportunity.
MR MILLER: So we continue – we’re in conversation with them. We would like to get back to the point of getting to a ceasefire, which would set the stages for an end to the war and would help answer this question about what the future looks like and what the day after looks like for the situation in Gaza. As I’ve said over the past few weeks, Sinwar has been unwilling to engage in any meaningful way in the ceasefire talks. And I think it is probably reasonable to conclude he’s watching what is happening in north, he’s watching Iran’s attacks against Israel, and looking and thinking maybe he’s about to get what he’s always wanted, which is a full-scale regional war, and that may have changed his calculation. But either way, he ought to return to the talks because it is manifestly in the interest of the Palestinian people to get to a ceasefire in Gaza.
MR MILLER: I don’t think there is. I really don’t think – it’s what the Secretary said yesterday, obviously, and I think is accurate, which is it doesn’t really change the situation. Two things can be true: Number one, Sinwar is a brutal terrorist with blood on his hands, including the blood of American citizens, and not just American citizens but citizens of many countries around the world. Let’s remember, it’s not just citizens of Israel that were killed on October 7th; there were citizens of multiple countries, as I said, including the United States. That is true.
It is also true that he continues to be the person that calls the shots for Hamas. And that was true before the death of the leader of the – the political leader of Hamas; it continues to be true today. Ultimately, it was Sinwar that had the final decision-making authority, as we can see throughout these negotiations, on whether to accept a ceasefire or not.
So yes, Sinwar absolutely ought to be brought to justice. We believe that, for the – his significant acts of terrorism. And we also think he ought to accept the ceasefire deal that is manifestly in the interests of the Palestinian people as well as, of course, in the interests of Israel and the broader region.
Honestly don’t understand how hostages weren’t a required part of that resolution.
Edited to include the “required” component. There is nothing requiring a hostage release with the ceasefire, to clarify my initial statement.
Probably because Israel has never been serious about negotiations to free the hostages. It’s their excuse to continue their genocide, after all.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/20/middleeast/netanyahu-offers-5-million-and-safe-passage-for-returning-hostages-intl/index.html
Okay and? Doesn’t change his attitude towards ceasefire negotiations. In other words, if you wanted a ceasefire resolution that demands returning the hostages at the same time as the ceasefire we had one in June and it predictably went nowhere.
Yes it does, if he’s willing to do that wouldn’t that open up options for negotiations? And why did resolution 2735 go nowhere?
Because Israel didn’t seriously engage with Hamas to free the hostages. It was pretty clear when Israel learned of the resolution and reaffirmed their goal to destroy Hamas instead of saying literally anything about a ceasefire.
The resolution itself says Israel accepted it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2735?wprov=sfla1
While initially Netanyahu grumbled, Israel accepted it.
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-june-24-2024/
While members of Hamas had accepted the proposal, and after bad faith negotiations from Hamas, the one guy who actually had the power to accept it did not. Netanyahu’s fear of losing power aside, had Hamas actually accepted the proposal, this would have panned out better. It would force Netanyahu to rebuff the acceptance of the proposal without being able to say Hamas made unworkable demands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_Israel–Hamas_war_ceasefire_proposal
…
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-october-17-2024/
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-august-7-2024/
Uh… Yeah. I don’t think I need to say anything else.
Thanks, you’re right, my sources very accurately describe what happened when Hamas did not accept the ceasefire.
It was. Just not the way Israel wanted. So the US vetoed it for them.
It wasn’t the way the us wanted it. They’ve held since the beginning of this that hostages must be released if a ceasefire is established. This resolution did not require that.
https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-on-a-un-security-council-resolution-on-the-situation-in-the-middle-east/
Everyone knows Hamas would not have accepted releasing the hostages unconditionally. This ceasefire proposal was the product of weeks/months of back and forth and where everyone on both sides agreed was the best way to move forward as it involved concessions on both sides. The US then vetoed it last minute since the killing Palestinians is more important than anything else.
The source I provided does not support your opinion.
https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15723.doc.htm
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority both accepted this resolution.
Sinwar did not accept it, so no, Hamas officially did not accept it. While members of Hamas had taken it favorably, he did not, and that’s what counts.
Hamas did accept it.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hamas-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-ready-negotiate-over-details-official-says-2024-06-11/
The person who could make that decision did not, and they proposed a new agreement, which is not accepting the proposal put forth. If only Sinwar agreed to it, then Hamas would actually have accepted it. But the person in the article who said they accepted it was not able to make that decision because this decision was up to Sinwar.
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-october-17-2024/
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-october-9-2024/
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-august-7-2024/
I do. Hamas won’t give them up, so a ceasefire including them is irrelevant. They’d much rather blame the israe for noncompliance