At the U.N. Security Council, China and Russia have vetoed a U.S. draft resolution on the war in Gaza. The U.S. resolution appeared to call for a ceasefire, but it was written in a way to make the resolution unenforceable. Our guest Phyllis Bennis says this was mere “wordplay” and a “convoluted” attempt by the Biden administration to play both sides, as it comes under increasing internal and external criticism over its close relationship with Israel. Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and an international adviser to Jewish Voice for Peace. She has written several books on U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East. When it comes to dissent over U.S. support of Israel, “the pressure is mounting in ways that I’ve certainly never seen,” she says, adding that it’s imperative for the public to continue pushing for more action, as “it’s crucial that the weapons sales be cut” and a real ceasefire be reached immediately.
AMY GOODMAN: Joining us now from Washington, D.C., is Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She also serves as an international adviser to Jewish Voice for Peace. Her new article in The Hill is titled “Gaza shows food airdrops often take lives instead of saving them.” She also recently wrote a piece for Al Jazeera headlined “What lies behind the Biden administration’s changing ‘ceasefire’ language.”
Well, let’s start there. Phyllis, if you can talk about what the U.S. has introduced into the U.N. Security Council? It could be voted on today. And also what could be voted on are the — is the resolution that has been adopted by or sponsored by eight of the elected members of the Security Council.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Thanks, Amy.
You know, what we’re looking at here is a lot of playing with words. What is different is the language of the Biden administration — we heard it yesterday from Secretary of State Blinken, we’re hearing it from President Biden, we’re hearing it from others — using the word “ceasefire,” saying “immediate ceasefire” in some cases. We’re seeing The New York Times is saying that the U.S. is introducing a resolution at the Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire.
That’s not the case. What the U.S. resolution calls for — and we should be clear: There has not been a formal distribution of what the U.S. is actually going to put on the table for the vote this morning. There’s at least three different versions circulating around. But they’re all about the same on the critical description. It’s in the first paragraph. The first operative paragraph of the resolution uses the language of an immediate ceasefire, but it doesn’t actually call for a ceasefire. What it does is recognize the importance of a ceasefire, and then says, “And therefore, we should support the negotiations that are underway in Doha, in Qatar.” These are the negotiations that have been underway for weeks. They are mainly focused on the release of hostages, as well as the parameters of a short-term ceasefire, probably six weeks. But the key thing is that the U.S. draft does not call for an actual Security Council call for a ceasefire.
The language of the eight of the 10 elected members of the Security Council is much simpler and much more direct. It says explicitly that the Security Council demands an immediate ceasefire, respected by all parties, leading to a sustainable ceasefire, period, full stop. The U.S. language is very convoluted. It’s various versions of “The Security Council determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire to protect civilians on all sides,” and then says something about “And therefore, we unequivocally support the negotiations that are underway.”
So it takes all of the authority out of the Security Council, makes the council into essentially a group of cheerleaders for the existing negotiations that are underway and takes away any additional pressure that an actual Security Council demand for an immediate ceasefire would have, because Security Council resolutions, as you know, Amy, and I think most of our listeners know, is part of international law. It’s enforceable. It doesn’t mean that it would be enforced, but it’s a very powerful signal, something that an acknowledgment of the importance of a ceasefire is simply not that. It’s not that.