Detainees, Truce and Agreements *title altered at OP's request*

@Efacsen I read that the US cannot come to an agreement in the wording. Not even the watered down version
So likely to veto it again even if they do vote

There was supposed to be another attempt at a vote at UNSC today but no mention of it anywhere yet

Hope it's not fizzled out

Also sorry don't mean to spam but I'm also concerned where the hostages must be kept right now? Alot of the ground has been covered. The tunnels don't seem very safe. Or are they being moved around to avoid being detected?
I see a new video has been released I think two days ago
I haven't looked at the video but BBC had a still image and the background looked more like a room than a tunnel

Or Rafah? There has been airstrikes in rafah but I don't know about ground operations
The ceasefire can't come soon enough

Also I have just seen Gallant state that Israel's ground operation will expand to additional areas. And Khan Younis is now the capital of terror
What new areas could it be? Mawasi?

A few points discussed today from various representatives

• The UN's Special Envoy for the Middle East Peace Process, Tor Wennesland, said that "2023 ends as one of the deadliest" in the history of the conflict between Israel and Hamas, "with the situation deteriorating on nearly all fronts"
• US ambassador Robert Wood told the meeting that Hamas's 7 October attack “must be condemned”, and work towards a two-state solution has to be done
• UK ambassador James Kariuki called for "a sustainable ceasefire that breaks the cycle of violence"
• UAE ambassador Mohamed Abushahab, said the suffering of civilians in Gaza had to stop and called on Israel to open up all access routes for humanitarian aid

@Parkingt111 yes humanitarian pauses far from what's needed

Meeting has broken up now and vote delayed due to 'impasse'

Seems like there is no way round US hegemony at the UN even when nearly every nation disagrees with them

@Efacsen hmm I'm not sure how I feel about cessation of hostilities.
On the one hand it can be said its the step in the right direction but on the other hand it's just pauses which isn't really great.
So what happens after the pause ends? Israel continues bombing and Hamas carries on firing rockets?
I think at this point they should be able to agree to something more substantial

@Efacsen I Don't see why Hamas will cooperate this time if they didn't the last time.
Giving the Red Cross some access at least would mean faith would be built with these organisations and Israel.
At the moment Israel has little or non faith in the Red Cross or UNWRA and I can see why.

IDF has apparently just bombed the UNWRA HQ in northern gaza

And the vote looks like it might be postponed again because of disagreements about the wording

These 2 things aren't necessarily related just happened at the same time

The UNSC meeting has started the resolution is much watered down IMO 'cessation of hostilities' has been replaced by 'urgent steps towards the cessation of hostilities'
ie prolonged humanitarian pauses

Hamas are still tasked with releasing all hostages and in addition allowing humanitarian access to the hostages [wh it didn't do during the previous ceasefire despite it being a condition

Just watching it now

@Parkingt111 the resolution can be enforced by economic sanctions or military intervention by the UN {highly unlikely}

Don't know if there has to be another veto-able vote to pass resolution on sanctions

IDK much easier to find ways to sanction Israel than Hamas??

@stormy4319trevor I'm not sure if a suspension is good enough or would lead to the sort of things you're describing. Or if there's any chance of cessation not being vetoed

Can't see an exact time for the meeting to start - ?early evening

A question I have if anybody can help answer please. If the resolution passes, but either side refuses to abide by it then how would it be enforced?

It will still be a significant move, but I think there's a higher chance that if the wording can be agreed upon then they will abstain than holding hope that they will vote yes.

OK I have just seen that diplomats are doing what they can to atleast get the US to abstain from the Vote rather than vote no. As if they abstain like how the UK did last time, the resolution will still pass

Ah OK I can see why it is taking awhile to agree upon then as its not quite the same thing.
I think that in this instance though the US has the upper hand. The rest of the countries may be forced to accept it knowing that otherwise the US will just veto the vote again

@Parkingt111 and @stormy4319trevor agree that in theory a change of wording shouldn't be an obstacle to getting the resolution passed - but it seems like it's more than that is needed to make it acceptable to the US

US wants to change the wording from 'cessation of hostilities' to 'suspension of hostilities' - to me cessation means a clear permanent stop and suspension has connotations of something less permanent? less clear? less enforceable

IDK maybe that's the best that can be achieved ATM - given US diplomats being in Israel yesterday saying still standing shoulder to shoulder with their ally etc etc - and it's better than nothing/what we have now

New vote today if the wording can be agreed

I was just thinking this morning, that if the only reason the US or UK is saying no to the ceasefire resolution is because of the wording then would it not be better to negotiate so that the wording can be agreed upon by them too. Or allow them to change it so that it leads to them voting yes.

I don't know if its as simple as that but I think most are desperate for a ceasefire now and it would be a shame it didn't go through because of the way the resolution was worded

UN security council postpones Gaza vote it's a bit long but very thorough

Patrick Wintour
The UN security council has postponed a vote calling for a sustainable cessation of hostilities to give more time to meet US objections to the wording of the draft resolution.

The vote was due on Monday mid afternoon in New York but the US said it could not support a reference to a cessation of hostilities, but might accept suspension of hostilities.

The Arab countries negotiating the text said they had been encouraged by the US approach which suggested the White House was trying to find some wording that they could support as opposed simply to vetoing resolutions, the position it adopted on a humanitarian pause on 18 October and on an urgent humanitarian ceasefire on 9 December.

Divisions within the US administration have been growing with some officials saying the US is misunderstanding the scale of disillusionment in the Global South over US perceived hypocrisy in calling out Russian war crimes in Ukraine, but finding a multitude of reasons to justify the large scalekillings of Palestinians in Gaza.

A range of US diplomats have visited Jerusalem to urge the Israeli government to adopt different military tactics, but with only limited success, and a US support for a suspension of hostilities at the UN, if it happened, would be a signal of US frustration with the Israeli government.

The US has also previously rejected cessation of hostilities resolutions at the 15 strong security council due to the absence of clear criticism of Hamas for its killing of more than 1,000 Israelis, including many women and children on 7 October. The latest draft prepared by the United Arab Emirates simply condemns all acts of terrorism, and calls for all hostages to be released unconditionally.

Pressure has been building on the US after the UN general assembly on 12 December voted by 153 to 10 with 23 abstentions to call for an urgent cessation of hostilities. Permanent members of the security council cannot apply their veto on the General Assembly votes as they can on those held at the security council.
But general assembly votes are expressions of world opinion and do not have the force of law supposedly attached to security council resolutions. In practice many resolutions are ignored.

The sense of US isolation at the General Assembly was a mirror image of the isolation Russia experienced at the Assembly last year over the invasion of Ukraine.

In a bid to win over the British foreign secretary, Lord Cameron, the draft resolution as prepared on Monday had called for a sustainable ceasefire, matching the wording he had used in a weekend article jointly penned with his German counterpart. The wording was designed to make it easier for the UK to move from an abstention, the UK position the last time the issue was debated at the Security Council, to a positive vote in favour.

The UK has on occasion on Middle East issues voted positively for resolutions initially opposed by the US, notably in January 2009 when Gordon Brown instructed the UK envoy to back a UN ceasefire resolution after 13 days of fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The UK stance helped force the US move from opposition to abstention.

A UN call for a suspension of hostilities would in conjunction with other parts of the resolution put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza at scale, and by land sea and air. A monitoring process would be established to overcome blockages to aid reaching Gaza.

Thanks for the update
I'm not very optimistic either but I'm wondering how long before the US crack under the pressure esp as there's signs that the UK is also inching towards a ceasefire
They have changed stances from Humanitarian pauses to sustainable ceasefire. Which although isn't a full ceasefire, it is still a shift in the right direction

UNSC Meeting starts at 10pm GMT

Apparently this is is hugely over-optimistic - according to US and Hamas sources - it's the line being pushed by the Israeli gov in response to political pressures at home arising from the accidental killing of the 3 hostages on Friday

So sadly not really true