Lavrov responded to a journalist’s question about whether there were results from the negotiations with the participation of different countries regarding the settlement in this region, saying: “The war is continuing, which means that it has not yielded any results. The main reason is that the United States does not want to influence Israel.”
Russia’s representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzia, confirmed Moscow’s readiness to support new UN Security Council initiatives for a ceasefire in Gaza, given the non-implementation of the previous resolution taken last June.
It is noteworthy that last June, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution supporting the peace plan announced by US President Joe Biden, which stipulates three stages of a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and the exchange of detainees between the Palestinian factions and Israel, with Israel later withdrawing from the Strip and ending combat operations.
The international community welcomed the Security Council’s adoption of Resolution 2735, and Hamas expressed its readiness to cooperate in its implementation.
While Israel expressed its dissatisfaction with the decision, and Israel’s representative to the United Nations, Riot Shabir Ben-Naftali, said that her country will continue its operation in Gaza, and will not participate in meaningless negotiations with the Palestinian faction movement.
This is not the first resolution of its kind to stop the war on the Gaza Strip, as three previous resolutions were adopted, but they were all piled up alongside the previous resolutions related to Palestine, and remained a dead letter.
Source: Novosti
#Lavrov #reveals #reason #Israel #continues #war #Gaza #Lebanon
Interview with Diplomatic Analyst on Recent Developments in Gaza Conflict
Interviewer: Thank you for joining us today. Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that the ongoing war in Gaza has not produced results due to a lack of influence from the United States on Israel. What are your thoughts on this statement?
Guest: It’s a critical observation that highlights the complex dynamics at play. Lavrov’s comments underscore a growing frustration among nations that are seeking a resolution but feel sidelined by U.S. policies that prioritize its relationship with Israel. This could signal a broader geopolitical tension regarding how Western nations approach conflicts involving Israeli actions.
Interviewer: Given Russia’s readiness to support new initiatives at the UN Security Council for a ceasefire, do you think there’s a feasible path forward for peace in light of previous resolutions that have gone unheeded?
Guest: The situation is indeed challenging. While the international community’s acceptance of previous resolutions indicates a desire for peace, the fact that these resolutions have not significantly changed the status quo raises questions about their efficacy. If strong measures are not taken or if influential countries like the U.S. remain hesitant, new proposals may similarly fail.
Interviewer: Israel’s representative expressed clear dissatisfaction with the UN’s attempts and a commitment to continuing operations in Gaza. What does this mean for future negotiations?
Guest: Israel’s stance poses a significant barrier to peace negotiations. By dismissing international calls for dialogue and maintaining military operations, they risk escalating tensions further. This creates an environment where the potential for constructive discussions diminishes, especially as regional and global actors assess their own positions.
Interviewer: As we look at the role of international bodies like the UN, can they realistically intervene in this situation, or do you see a shift towards a more unilateral intervention by states?
Guest: The UN has historically struggled in crises like this due to competing national interests among member states. While there may be calls for unilateral interventions, such actions would likely exacerbate tensions if not approached carefully. It raises the question: should international actors pursue stricter enforcement of resolutions, or is there a risk of inflaming the conflict even further?
Interviewer: considering these developments, what are your predictions for public sentiment around this issue? How do you think communities in affected regions may react?
Guest: Public sentiment will likely be mixed. In the regions directly affected, there’s a profound sense of urgency for immediate relief and lasting peace which may clash with governmental narratives. In broader global communities, there’s growing frustration with the perceived ineffectiveness of international diplomacy. This could spark debates around accountability and the ethics of intervention. The real challenge lies in negotiating these narratives to foster an environment where dialogue can truly take place.
Interviewer: Thank you for your insights. They will surely provoke thought and discussion among our readers.
Debate Question for Readers: Considering the complexities surrounding international diplomacy in the Gaza conflict, do you believe that a genuine resolution is achievable under the current geopolitical climate, or do you see any interventions as merely temporary fixes that ignore deep-rooted issues? Share your thoughts!
Ational consensus precede any intervention, or can individual states take action for humanitarian reasons without broad support? This dilemma complicates the prospect of meaningful intervention, as unilateral actions can lead to further fragmentation of the conflict rather than resolution.
Interviewer: We’ve seen previous resolutions, such as Resolution 2735, fall flat. What lessons can the international community learn from the failures of these past efforts?
Guest: There are several key takeaways. First, any resolution must address the underlying issues, not just the symptoms of the conflict. Second, genuine commitment from all involved parties, including influential nations, is essential. Without the U.S.’s involvement in a constructive manner, as Lavrov pointed out, any proposed solutions may lack teeth. we need a holistic approach that integrates all stakeholders, including those who have often been marginalized in these discussions, to create a truly inclusive pathway towards peace.
Interviewer: In your opinion, what role should Russia play in the ongoing negotiations, especially considering their recent statements and support for new initiatives?
Guest: Russia has positioned itself as a potential mediator but must tread carefully. Their readiness to support ceasefire initiatives can serve as a counterbalance to U.S. influence, but it is crucial that they engage with all parties, not just those that align with their interests. This dual approach of advocating for peace while also maintaining diplomatic relations with regional players could help re-establish trust and pave the way for serious negotiations.
Interviewer: Thank you for sharing your insights on this complex issue. It’s clear that the path to peace in Gaza remains fraught with challenges, but understanding these dynamics is essential for moving forward.
Guest: Thank you for having me. Addressing these challenges with a concerted and collaborative approach is indeed vital for achieving long-lasting peace in the region.
