Is Washington's abstention vote a change in course on Gaza?

Editor's note: CGTN's First Voice provides instant commentary on breaking stories. The column clarifies emerging issues and better defines the news agenda, offering a Chinese perspective on the latest global events.

The United Nations Security Council, following several rounds of failed attempts, finally passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas this week. Washington, which had repeatedly thwarted such a call, abstained from the vote.

"Finally, finally, the Security Council is shouldering its responsibility," Algerian ambassador to the UN and the only Arab member of the Council, Amar Bendjama said as he applauded the resolution. "It is a call we have all been desperate to hear from the council," said Slovenia's envoy to the UN, Samuel Zbogar.

True, with more than 32,000 people already killed in Israel-Hamas conflicts, the resolution is widely seen as a huge step forward for peace in the Gaza region.

But is it enough? Does it, with Washington finally deciding not to strike it down, represent a real shift in the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the Gaza region?

U.S. calculations behind abstention vote

Since Israel-Hamas exchanged fire last year, Washington, to show its "staunch support" for its decades-long ally, had vetoed three previous resolutions calling for a ceasefire, agreeing with the Israeli government's position that it had the right of self-defense.

While the Biden administration decided not to veto this time, the move, to a large degree, is out of political calculations. To begin with, as images of wounded children in Gaza are circulating online, the U.S. government has been harshly criticized, both at home and abroad, for failing to persuade Israel and is under mounting pressure to act against the violence.

Some 60 percent of American voters are dissatisfied with the Biden administration's handling of Israel-Hamas conflicts – eight points higher than in December, according to a survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in March. The high level of disapproval, as the WSJ noted, has made its way to the ballot box. More than 100,000 people voted "uncommitted" in Michigan's Democratic presidential primary in February. Arab-American activists who backed Biden in 2020 have vowed to withhold their support, according to Reuters.

Arab Americans, furious with Washington's policies in Gaza, even shunned Biden's campaign manager as she visited Michigan. "It's unfathomable at this point in time that we're trying to talk about electoral politics with a genocide unfolding," Al Jazeera quoted Abdullah Hammoud, the Mayor of Dearborn, a Detroit suburb as saying.

Anger is boiling up even within the Democratic Party. Half of the five dozen Democratic voters interviewed by Reuters said they were considering "sitting out the election or casting their lot with a third party." While Jewish Americans are believed to have contributed to Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election, the Gaza conflicts have opened a fissure in the base of the Democratic Party.

This, apparently, is not what the Biden administration is ready to accept. As the clock ticks towards the 2024 general election, Biden is under an urgent task to win 2020 voters back and consolidate his base. Allowing the 2728 resolution to pass and quench domestic anger is the first logical step.

A change in course?

Washington's decision not to wield its veto is widely seen as the "first concrete gesture by the Biden administration to take some critical distance from the Israeli military operation."

But in the meantime, the U.S. clarified that it has not changed its policies on Gaza. "Our vote does not, and I repeat that does not represent a shift in our policy," White House spokesperson John Kirby said, stressing that "Nothing has changed about our policy. Nothing."

No matter whether the U.S. is serious in continuing to support its ally, one thing is for sure: Biden is unhappy with Israel's military operations in Gaza and the rifts between the U.S. and Israel are widening. The White House, on several occasions, has urged the Netanyahu government to change its strategy and called for a two-state solution. But apparently, it has not worked.

"The crucial variable is that the Biden administration is obviously not happy with Israel's military posture now, and allowing this resolution to pass was one relatively soft way to signal its concern," The New York Times quoted Richard Gowan, an expert on the United Nations at the International Crisis Group, as saying.

In this context, Washington's decision to allow the resolution to pass is, on the one hand, an attempt to quench domestic anger, and on the other, a diplomatic gesture to hint to Netanyahu to rein in operations. If Washington is sincere in ending the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it should at least take some concrete measures.

But so far, the Biden administration still keeps its arms sales to Israel. No additional conditions have been announced on Washington's aid either. Although American officials are drafting options for formally recognizing an independent Palestinian state and Biden escalated his rhetoric for a two-state solution, the White House has not yet made any significant policy changes, according to NBC reports.

Worse still, upon the passage of the 2728 resolution, American officials including Kirby, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller and U.S. ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield went to great lengths to claim that the resolution is not binding, which was immediately refuted as binding by UN experts.

Apparently, Washington, despite its abstention vote, still sees unequivocally supporting the Israeli government as the right choice.

Real solution to Gaza conflicts

The two-state solution – the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel – is the ideal solution to the Gaza conflict. This is a consensus by the international community. The Palestinian issue should not be ignored and forgotten. And thus the fundamental way out is to implement a two-state solution and establish an independent Palestinian state for the peaceful co-existence of the Palestinians and Israelis.

But in reality, a two-state solution is beset with difficulties. As the world's super power, the United States should have played an essential role in ending human sufferings in Gaza. But regrettably, the country's decision is made out of selfish political calculations, rather than humanitarian considerations.

If Washington is serious in helping people in Gaza, stopping its political calculations would be the first logical step.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)