The substance of UN Security Council resolution 2803, which endorses the ‘peace plan’ accompanying the often-violated ceasefire in Gaza, appears concerningly disconnected from securing fundamental human rights for Palestinians and ultimately achieving sustainable peace.
This may be illustrated by comparing the language of UNSC resolution 2803 with a previous UN Security Council resolution (1860) on Gaza, passed in January 2009. A brief comparison will show that the UN Security Council has apparently receded from its commitment on Gaza being integral to the fulfilment of Palestinian self-determination. It will also show its regression on international law being the baseline for ensuring that Palestinians in Gaza have full access to basic human rights.
Gaza and Palestinian self-determination
The opening to UN Security Council resolution 1860 of January 2009 unequivocally asserts:
“[The Security Council] stresses that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be part of the Palestinian state”
In similarly clear language, a later paragraph to the January 2009 resolution says:
“[The Security Council] calls for renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognised borders”
The substance and clarity of the above-cited UN Security Council resolution language is entirely consistent with the necessity to give effect to the fundamental right of the Palestinian people to self-determination throughout Palestine – encompassing the entirety of the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza – as affirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2024 opinion.
In contrast, UNSC resolution 2803 has avoided reference to the fundamental concept of a single territorial unit for Palestine, by omitting prior language on Gaza constituting an integral part of a Palestinian state. Further, it replaces language envisioning ‘two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace’, with the following at paragraph 2 [emphases added]:
“After the PA reform program is faithfully carried out and Gaza redevelopment has advanced, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous coexistence.”
The first sentence has the twin effect of placing conditions on and – even should conditions be fulfilled – making indeterminate the full realisation of Palestinian self-determination and statehood. This is reinforced by the second sentence erasing the Security Council’s prior vision connecting a Palestinian state with ‘comprehensive peace’; in its place is ambiguous language referring to ‘peaceful coexistence’ without express linkage to a Palestinian state.
International law
UNSC resolution 1860 was passed on 08 January 2009 during the hostilities in Gaza that took place between 27 December 2008- 18 January 2009. It chose language that mirrors legal obligations under international humanitarian law when insisting on “the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”.
In contrast, UNSC resolution 1803 avoids using language that reflects legal obligations under international humanitarian law. It merely refers to ‘supporting of and delivery of public service and humanitarian assistance in Gaza’, without reference to international law standards. It makes the same omission when referring to ‘the reconstruction of Gaza and economic recovery programs’, which is troubling in light of the adverse experience of the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism.
In addition, there is a reference to international law in UNSC resolution 2803 which is deeply concerning and requires scrutiny. At paragraph 7, the resolution “authorizes… a temporary International Stabilization Force’ (ISF) in Gaza to… use all necessary measures to carry out its mandate consistent with international law, including international humanitarian law.”
UN Security Council terminology of ‘use all necessary measures‘ is tantamount to authorising the use of force. UNSC resolution 2803 thereby permits ongoing military use of force in Gaza that is virtually certain to endanger Palestinian civilians. Furthermore, the qualification provided that the use of force by the ISF be ‘consistent with international law, including international humanitarian law‘, provides little reassurance. International humanitarian law will not be a meaningful civilian protection safeguard if Israel’s and/or the United States’ distinct interpretation of the law is applied.
UNSC resolution 2803 is notably silent on accountability. LPHR has long been clear that the absence of legal accountability for serious international law violations will only embolden future repetition.
Conclusion
LPHR maintains there must be full and necessary application of international law to secure fundamental human rights for Palestinians and to achieve a sustainable peace. UNSC resolution 2803 manifestly fails to show commitment and direction towards accomplishing this vital objective.
Tareq Shrourou