Against the backdrop of the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council adopting "ceasefire resolutions" five times, Israel not only did not implement them once, but also insisted on launching a strike on Rafah, the southernmost city in Gaza, the international community finally could not bear it anymore, and some people suggested that the United Nations send troops to maintain peace. According to the Observer Network, recently, Colombian President Petro pointed out that "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not stop the genocide, which means that the International Criminal Court should issue an arrest warrant for him, and the UN Security Council must start thinking about deploying a peacekeeping force in the Gaza Strip."
Indeed, the Council's coercive implementation of the ceasefire resolution, which has become almost the only option after Israel continues to kill, has finally been proposed. In this regard, we have three points.
Is it possible that the first, Petro's proposal, will be accepted by the Security Council? What is the current attitude of the P5?
Objectively speaking, there is such a possibility, because if Israel had only refused to implement the UN ceasefire resolution once, there would have been room for negotiation, but now it has refused to implement it a total of five times. It also shows that Israel simply doesn't care if it's just political pressure. Against this background, if the Security Council enforces its own resolutions, it may have two options: one is to impose sanctions on Israel in the political, economic, and military fields to force it to bow its head; The other is that the "P5" countries have sent troops to maintain peace in Gaza and stop Israel's military action.
Judging from the population and territorial area, Israel is just a small country, and if the sanctions can be truly implemented, Israel will not be able to bear them, but the Western world, including the United States, may not seriously implement such sanctions, and in the end the sanctions will be "useless" and will not achieve the effect of putting pressure on Israel. In this way, the United Nations sending troops to maintain peace, in the current context, may be the "only option" for the implementation of the ceasefire resolution. So, what is the attitude of the "P5" countries that can decide whether to send troops in the end?
Earlier, China made it clear that Israel's actions had gone beyond the scope of "self-defense", and urged Israel to implement Security Council resolutions and cease fire in Gaza by name. Russia was very direct, saying that Israel's failure to implement the ceasefire resolution was disrespectful to the Security Council and that sanctions should be imposed; Although France has not expressed its position in words, its actions have already been done in advance, and it is the first Western country to send warships to the Mediterranean Sea to provide medical assistance to the people of Gaza, and when the United Nations adopted five ceasefire resolutions, although France is an ally of the United States, it has stood with China and Russia and voted in favor.
It is very likely that even if the "proposal to send troops to peacekeep" is submitted to the Security Council, it will be "vetoed" by the United States when it is voted on, because what the United States has done in the Security Council before is mostly "serving" Israel, and Israel is a "sheepdog" raised by the United States in the Middle East, and the United States will not allow the international community to "clean up" it. Against this background, it is very difficult to pass the proposal to send troops to peacekeep, and the "confidence" of why Israel dares not to implement the ceasefire resolution lies here.
As for the United Kingdom, another "P5" country, there is little need to discuss it, because Britain will do its best to achieve what the United States wants to achieve.
Second, Israel has already aroused public outrage, and Latin American countries are in the lead, and the United States cannot stop it at all.
Since the outbreak of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, many countries have withdrawn their ambassadors from Israel in order to put pressure on Israel. Most directly, several Latin American countries were the first to break diplomatic relations with Israel, Colombia was the second, and the Bahamas made a public statement recognizing Palestinian statehood. Although the United States supports Israel, in the face of international morality, the United States cannot prevent them from "teaching" Israel a lesson.
Last week, the UN General Assembly also passed a resolution on "Palestine's accession to the UN", with 143 votes in favor and only nine countries, including the United States and Israel, opposed it. It is worth noting that among the European allies of the United States, only the Czech Republic and Hungary did not withstand the pressure and voted against. France, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, etc., directly voted in favor, and more than 20 other European countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, etc., all abstained from voting and did not choose to stand with the United States.
Outside Europe, other U.S. allies, such as Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and others, also voted in favor. This also shows that on the Israel-related issue, the United States has "betrayed its relatives."
Thirdly, Egypt has warned of the possibility of a third spillover of the conflict after Israel insisted on attacking Rafah.
The new round of Palestinian-Israeli conflict has entered the seventh month, Israel's military operation against Gaza has killed more than 34,000 civilians, most of them women and children, the entire Gaza has been bombed into rubble by the Israeli army, and now more than 1.4 million Gaza refugees have gathered in Rafah, Israel insists on launching a strike on Rafah, which is very likely to cause a large-scale humanitarian disaster. In this regard, even the United States, which has always unconditionally supported Israel, has issued a warning.
U.S. President Joe Biden demanded that Israel take only one "more limited and targeted" action in Rafah, and made it clear that if there were a large number of civilian casualties, it would be a "red line" for the United States, and the United States would choose to stop military aid to Israel. Since Rafah is adjacent to Egypt, Egypt has also issued a clear warning about Israel's military action. If the Israeli side insists, there is a risk that the conflict will spill over again.
The reason why I say "spillover again" is because the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has already led the United States and Britain to launch strikes against the Houthis in Yemen, and the Red Sea-Gulf of Aden-Arabian Sea-Indian Ocean line is now also unsafe; Second, after Israel attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria, Iran and Israel have already conducted a round of "home-based bombardment." If Israel and Egypt are to come into friction again, it will be the third spillover of the conflict. So, is it possible for such a situation to happen?
Objectively speaking, it really can't be ruled out. First, Israel has put forward a "plan" to drive the people of Gaza to the nearby Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, completely occupy Gaza by itself, and then move in new immigrants to form a new regime in Gaza under the control of Israel. Despite the loud opposition of the international community, Israel still insists on fighting Rafa, and it cannot be ruled out that this "plan" will continue to advance; Second, in the past, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula and was only forced to withdraw, and now it is obvious that it wants to make things bigger, drag the United States into the water, and it is not impossible to move with Egypt after making a move with Iran.
In this regard, in addition to issuing warnings, Egypt has deployed its army to the Sinai Peninsula, and the Egyptian prime minister said that "even if millions of people are sacrificed, not a single grain of sand in the Sinai Peninsula will be damaged", and his attitude is very tough. Let's wait and see how the situation develops next.