The newspaper relies, among other things, on statements from the non-governmental organizations Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW). According to the “NYT”, HRW accuses the US of having “diluted” the resolution. AI Secretary General Agnes Callamard also called it “shameful” in a statement that the US had weakened the text of the resolution. According to Callamard, the resolution was “necessary but completely inadequate given the ongoing carnage and widespread destruction.”
The humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders (MSF) also considered the resolution completely inadequate. “This resolution has been weakened to the point that its impact on the lives of civilians in Gaza will be almost negligible,” MSF said on Friday after it was approved. The text falls “painfully far” short of what is needed given the crisis in the Gaza Strip: “an immediate and sustained ceasefire”, said Avril Benoit, executive director of MSF in the USA.
debate
How does October 7th change the Middle East?
“A step in the right direction, but not enough”
The Arab League also criticized the UN resolution as late and insufficient. The resolution “was not enough to stop the Israeli aggression machine,” Egyptian television quoted League Secretary General Ahmed Abul Gheit as saying on Saturday. It is an “attempt to prevent hunger in the coastal strip and to save people in catastrophic situations, especially women and children”.
What is needed is not just aid to the Gaza Strip, but also “protection of civilians from constant bombardment” and the implementation of a sustained ceasefire, explained Abul Gheit. Blocking an immediate ceasefire is “a license to kill”.
The document is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough, said the Palestinian representative to the UN, Rijad Mansur, who at the same time complained that it took 75 days for the resolution to be adopted. Hamas classified the resolution as “inadequate” and reiterated its demand that Israel stop its attacks.
more on the subject
Call for more humanitarian aid for Gaza
Israel continues on the offensive
Criticism of the resolution also comes from Israel: UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan complained that the Security Council should have focused more on the release of the hostages. Furthermore, Israel already allows “aid deliveries to the extent necessary”.
After the adoption of the UN resolution, Israel declared that it would maintain its actions against Hamas. Foreign Minister Eli Cohen said his country would “continue the war in the Gaza Strip” against the Palestinian Islamic organization until it was “eliminated” and the 129 hostages it still held were released.
Israel also announced that it would continue to monitor all humanitarian deliveries to the Gaza Strip. This was necessary “for security reasons,” Cohen explained. The UN resolution refrained from demanding that deliveries be controlled “exclusively” by the UN. Instead, only a UN humanitarian coordinator should be appointed.
Wide criticism of the UN resolution
After a long struggle, the UN Security Council on Friday agreed on a resolution to increase humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip.
The US and Russia abstain
According to the resolution adopted by the UN Security Council, all parties to the war between Israel and Hamas must facilitate the “safe and unhindered delivery of large-scale humanitarian aid”. There was no call for an immediate ceasefire. 13 of the 15 member states of the UN's most powerful body voted in favor of the resolution; the veto states USA and Russia abstained.
Members of the Security Council fought hard for days to draft the resolution. A central point of contention was the possible demand for an immediate ceasefire; a corresponding passage was not included in the resolution.
It simply states that the conditions for “a sustainable cessation of hostilities” must be created “urgently.” Russia wanted to include in the text a call for an immediate ceasefire, but the US, which is an ally of Israel, blocked this with its veto.