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

[stormy4319trevor]

Continuing broad discussion of the release of detainees, hostages and prisoners and the agreements around this.

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

@Parkingt111 Yes, agree it's better to put forward something most likely to be accepted. I see 10 Tory MPs have written a letter calling for a ceasefire, which is good to see.

@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

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

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

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.

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?

@efacsen The idea of a suspension seems to me to be that more hostages can be got out. However, the Israeli government aim is to eliminate Hamas and the US fully backs that. It's really unclear when Israel will be able to say they have achieved that goal, and they want to be free to continue until they say they are done. So, the US is backing suspension to give Israel options to carry on with their plans as long as they want to, I think. They are clear that the US will not be imposing deadlines to finish up the campaign, so the suspension gives maximum leeway to Israel to continue and to name the time when they think their goals have been achieved.
@Parkingt111 I don't know the answer to what happens if a ceasefire is broken. Hostilities would resume, I suppose, but whether the UNSC would impose any sanctions etc. I'm not sure.

@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

@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??

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

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

@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.

@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

@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

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

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?

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

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

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

@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

@Parkingt111 seems like Biden and Blinken don't even agree with one another - Blinken for a version of some kind or other but Biden on a promise to Netanyahu to veto

Vote supposedly in an hour or so

Vote postponed until tomorrow at US request

To avoid an [embaressing] veto

I'm just catching up now and seen its been delayed again
I'm hoping that the only reason the US is postponing is because they want to reach a point where they can abstain rather than veto

I really hope the US abstain at the worst. I hope U.K. will vote for, Cameron seems to have been a good influence in that regard. Right now it all seems to be a buying time exercise perhaps Israel has promised the US that they are hours away from a huge victory or morale boost that would justify the US vetoing yet again.