In New York at the UN, in Brussels at the EU, in The Hague, in Cairo, in Rio and even at Westminster, a set of subtle and interrelated diplomatic dances are under way.
Israel’s foremost supporters are attempting to apply the squeeze on their ally while avoiding making undiluted calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza they fear would leave a battered Hamas in charge, its leadership at large.
The leading Arab state on the UN security council, Algeria, is seeking a vote on Tuesday in New York on its resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire and supporting the provisional orders issued against Israel by the international court of justice three weeks ago. The US has declared that it will veto the resolution – having already come to Israel’s defence twice in this manner since 7 October.
In a lengthy statement on Monday, the US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, explained the thinking of Joe Biden’s administration: “The US is working on a hostage deal between Israel and Hamas, which would bring an immediate and sustained period of calm to Gaza for at least six weeks, and from which we could then take the time and the steps to build a more enduring peace.”
The US has its own draft, aimed at protecting itself reputationally, asserting pressure on Israel not to mount its threatened ground offensive in Rafah.
The wording created waves on Monday night because it called for an immediate ceasefire, language the US has not previously used, although with the critical rider: “as soon as practicable”. By opposing an Israeli buffer zone, mass displacement and a ground offensive in Rafah in the current circumstances, the US resolution is trying to limit Israel’s options and advance the negotiations in Cairo about a possible ceasefire deal.
In Brussels the story is simpler. On Monday, attenders at a meeting of the EU foreign affairs council agreed on the necessity of an immediate humanitarian pause in Gaza that would lead to a sustainable ceasefire, the unconditional release of hostages held by Hamas, and the provision of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.
The wording is similar to the semi-stated policy of the UK government: an extended pause to get hostages out and Palestinian prisoners released, and to negotiate a sustainable ceasefire.
First coined jointly by the UK foreign secretary, David Cameron and the German foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, “sustainable ceasefire” is a critical phrase in the diplomatic debate. As defined by Cameron, it means Hamas no longer posing a security threat to Israel, which logically entails the removal of the current Hamas leadership from Gaza.
Some EU members would prefer to have backed an unconditional immediate ceasefire, but that would have lost the support of Germany.
In Westminster, the dispute is as much between two opposition parties: the Scottish Nationalists, who have tabled a simple call for an immediate ceasefire to be debated on Wednesday; and Labour, which has sought to remain close to the UK government’s position and for more than a month has used the language of a sustainable ceasefire, implicitly requiring Hamas to surrender or be defeated by Israel.
At the weekend, as the pressure mounted within the Labour party, the language and arguably the position shifted. A motion passed unanimously at the Scottish Labour conference on Saturday faced many directions, starkly asserting that that there was no justification for the loss of innocent life but also affirming it was not tenable for Hamas to remain in Gaza.
In Munich speaking to key diplomats over the weekend, Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, would have received one message from Arab states who want an immediate ceasefire and possibly another from the US secretary of state.
Starmer would also have been told that Hamas may be persuaded in the context of a ceasefire to resume discussing the formation of a technocratic government whose source of authority would be the Palestine Liberation Organization. This would entail a recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
In his speech to Scottish Labour, Starmer avoided a decision. The shadow cabinet will decide on Tuesday whether to cross the Rubicon and support an immediate ceasefire.
But the story does not end there. On Wednesday and Thursday, Brazil – its leadership has openly accused Israel of genocide – will host the G20 foreign ministers meeting in Rio. A global clash on Gaza is likely. Meanwhile in Geneva, the parties to the arms trade treaty will meet to discuss weapons transfers to the Israel and Palestine conflict.
And by 26 February, Israel will have issued its required report to the international court of justice on how it is complying with the orders issued by the court to supply aid to Gaza and end incitement of genocide.
It is against this multi-faceted backdrop that Israel will decide whether to still pursue a ground offensive in Rafah. On Monday, a member of Israel’s war cabinet said the offensive would start by the beginning of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan in just under three weeks unless Hamas released its remaining Israeli hostages.
