On Friday, March 22, a United States-led initiative at the United Nations Security Council aimed at promoting an immediate and sustained ceasefire, contingent on the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, failed after Washington vetoed three ceasefire proposals as the conflict intensified following the Hamas militants’ assault on October 7, 2023.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced after a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Tel Aviv that the Israeli army would advance into Rafah with or without American support.
Rafah, a border town at the southern tip of Gaza adjacent to Egypt, encompassed an area of 64 square kilometers and housed about 171,800 residents before the looming threat of a possible genocide, a term used in the January 26 ruling by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Under sustained pressure from the Israeli military, about 1.4 million Palestinians have become displaced there, moved from the north for safety and security considerations.
The battle for Rafah is a recurring topic in Netanyahu’s public statements, as he argues that the remaining Hamas battalions are concentrated there. He contends that victory would require a ground invasion into Rafah to eradicate those forces.
Netanyahu has agreed to send an Israeli delegation to Washington so that the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, can review the operation in Rafah. However, sources in Tel Aviv indicate that the delegation is composed largely of politicians, with no military officers included.
Despite this, the White House is signaling that it will do everything possible to avoid a ground invasion in Rafah, while Netanyahu and senior cabinet members Benny Gantz and Yoav Gallant insist that entering the city is essential to prevent Hamas from winning the war.
Analyst Anshel Pferrer of the Israeli daily Haaretz notes that, technically, a major military operation of the scale required cannot be fully prepared before well into the spring. The army needs to mobilize forces, and that mobilization remains incomplete.
In parallel, the Biden administration uses Rafah in its media messaging as a symbol of criticism directed at Netanyahu’s government, especially as public polls in the United States show waning enthusiasm for the administration’s unwavering support of Israel during the White House race.
Failed resolution
Another display of political sleight of hand is unfolding at the United Nations Security Council, where the United States attempted to push through a resolution on Friday that would have called for an immediate and sustained ceasefire but did not require Israel to halt its military actions. The proposal was vetoed by Russia and China for its perceived inconsistencies.
Meanwhile, the possible genocide continues. When debates reference 32,000 dead, many Republicans and others cite statistics from Gaza’s Health Ministry, allegedly managed by Hamas. Even if that figure is contested, the Israeli offensive since January 26, 2024, has intensified, and the ICJ ruling had already flagged grave concerns in the past about the humanitarian impact, including casualty estimates around 25,000 at that time.
Despite these disputes, the ICJ has yet to issue binding measures in response to South Africa’s urgent demand made on March 6. The discussion underscores how international bodies grapple with urgent humanitarian crises and the political power plays that shape such decisions.
From the charging rhetoric about the dosed or repeated alarms of genocide to the broader discourse that frames the conflict in terms of strategic victories and losses, the situation remains highly contested and deeply consequential for civilians on the ground. Analysts continue to emphasize that the path to a sustainable peace is blocked by a complex web of security concerns, political calculations, and international diplomacy.
Observers warn that the rhetoric around humanitarian law and civilian protection must not be overshadowed by partisan narratives or military posturing. The continuing crisis calls for clarity, verified information, and a renewed commitment from global leaders to address the immediate needs of those affected while pursuing a durable political solution.
In the midst of these tensions, the public discourse in several capitals reflects intensified scrutiny of leadership decisions, alliance dynamics, and the broader ramifications for regional stability. The international community watches closely as events unfold, hoping for a reduction in violence and a pathway toward humanitarian access and negotiated settlement.