Public opinion ultimately calls shots, not UNSC
Right to self-defense belongs to Palestinians, not Israel
By Ebrahim Beheshti
Staff writer
After a series of unsuccessful attempts, the United Nations Security Council achieved a breakthrough on Friday by passing a resolution aimed at bolstering and streamlining humanitarian aid to the people of the Gaza Strip. The United States which previously vetoed resolutions calling for a cease-fire, chose to abstain this time, alongside Russia. Prior to the voting session, the US engaged in consultations and made a major revision to the proposed resolution by removing the call for an immediate halt to the Israeli aggression. To gain further insights into the matter, Iran Daily has spoken with Mehdi Zakerian, an international relations experts and university lecturer.
IRAN DAILY: After several attempts, a resolution was eventually passed in the UN Security Council over the Gaza war and Israeli crimes. What is the significance of the latest resolution?
ZAKERIAN: This time, the US chose to abstain from vetoing the proposed resolution, which marks a notable shift. The US and Israel had vehemently opposed any resolution pertaining to the Gaza war. However, it seems that Washington has finally yielded to global demands. The international community highlights the dire situation in Gaza, characterized by genocide, grave human rights violations, lack of safety for civilians, and limited access for relief efforts.
By endorsing the resolution, the Security Council slammed Israeli crimes and demand an end to such acts. Therefore, with the US abstaining and not vetoing the resolution, Washington’s green light for Israel to continue its crimes has faded. In fact, the containment of Israel and America’s cooperation with the international community may be the key aspects of this resolution.
Why do you think America chose not to veto the proposed resolution and instead abstained?
A: The global public conscience has expressed vehement opposition to the Israeli massacre in Gaza, resonating loudly in various countries worldwide. While the US previously condoned Israel’s acts, it now finds itself compelled to align with this global demand.
The resolution of global public opinion carries more weight than the Security Council resolution and had been expressed much earlier than the resolution against Israel and the US. Without these global condemnations, or in other words, without the resolution of global public opinion, we might not have witnessed the same outcome in the Security Council.
Can we hope that this resolution will pave the way for additional resolutions or significant measures to end the war in Gaza?
The recent resolution explicitly calls for the establishment of conditions for a “sustainable cessation of hostilities” serving as a potential foundation for the future. It shattered the alliance between Israel and the US in committing war crimes and gross human rights violations, underscoring the fact that human rights resolutions cannot be vetoed within the international system.
Conventionally, when a major power exercises veto power, other countries tend to avoid engaging with the issue, perceiving it as futile. However, this time it was demonstrated that human rights issues are not subject to veto power. In terms of international law, this marks a revolutionary or momentous event. Gross human rights violations, including mass killings and war crimes resulting in civilian casualties, bear consequences for the perpetrators, even when committed by a major power or an ally who has its full support.
While a major power may seek to disregard such inhumane acts, public opinion is becoming increasingly sensitive to them. Thirteen member states of the Security Council, apart from the United States and Russia which abstained, voted in favor of the resolution, emphasizing the imperative to halt these inhumane acts and commence aid to the affected population.
Although the US refrained from vetoing the resolution, it managed to take off the issue of an immediate cease-fire during the preliminary consultations.
Indeed, this resolution does not signify the end of the war. While the Security Council has called for aid to the people of Gaza, they still acknowledge Israel’s claim of self-defense. However, differing opinions have emerged regarding Israel’s right to legitimate defense. Personally, I do not hold such a perspective for Israel. The fundamental issue lies in Israel’s occupation of land, with its inhabitants fighting to free themselves from this occupation.
What occurred on October 7 at the hands of Hamas can be perceived as a natural reaction to Israel’s occupation. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of human rights and conventions pertaining to war, certain objections can be raised regarding the actions of Hamas fighters on that day. Nonetheless, this does not alter the fact that Israel remains the occupying force, and the right to legitimate defense belongs to the Palestinians, not Israel.
Alongside the tragic events of the Gaza war, a notable phenomenon has emerged in a more pronounced form—the influence of public opinion worldwide. Public sentiment has gradually been able to sway the positions of politicians and statesmen from countries that support Israel, or even modify them. Can this power potentially lead to positive outcomes for the Palestinians in the future?
Absolutely. The power of public opinion has indeed become a valuable asset in international relations. The portrayal of events or phenomena in the world significantly impacts the shaping of public sentiment. In the early stages of the war, particularly after October 7, the Israelis made considerable efforts to craft the narrative they desired. By emphasizing the events that transpired on that day and subsequent to the Hamas attack, they painted themselves as the oppressed party, managing to influence public opinion to some extent. Additionally, certain behaviors, such as celebrations in countries that support Palestine, inadvertently contributed to this portrayal of Israel.
Israel believed that with this carefully constructed image, it had the greenlight to take any action. However, it failed to realize that public opinion is vigilant and observant of unfolding events. As the truth gradually emerged and indefensible crimes against the people of Gaza came to light, public opinion began to recognize the discrepancy between the image Israel presented and the realities on the ground in Gaza.
Consequently, widespread condemnation of the massacre in Gaza ensued. Currently, Israel has almost no support from global public opinion, and this influential force can continue to exert pressure on states that support Israel, ultimately pushing for a cease-fire.