Sir: On Friday October 27, 023, Nigeria voted with other 119 (later 120) member countries of the UN in favour of the UN Resolution calling for Immediate and Sustained Humanitarian Truce in Gaza.  A letter signed by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Ambassador Yussuf M. Tuggar reiterates the call for humanitarian truce in Israel-Gaza conflict.  The letter contains the cardinal terms in the resolution prepared by Jordan led Arab states and adopted by the General Assembly. By mentioning Hamas, the letter tends to give a slight nudge to the lacunae pointed out by the state of Canada in their proposed amendment to the UN Resolution which skilfully avoids mentioning Hamas. Significantly, the resolution neither mentions Hamas nor condemns the October 7 attack by the Hamas group.

It seems like asking for a ceasefire during an attempt to snuff out Hamas militants and free 200 Israeli hostages abducted in the ‘unprovoked’ attack against Israeli civilians is asking the state of Israel to hang on a noose made by same Hamas. There is also an apparent misapprehension of the scale of devastation caused by the raging conflict, especially issues around women and children caught up in the crossfire or shelling. Under the laws of war (Jus In Bello) there is self defence necessity. While self defence is an inalienable right both under the Charter of the UN and international custom, collateral damage is the indices that factors the proportionality of force used especially as it pertains to civilian objects. One cardinal question would be whether the Israeli offensives are disproportionate with the level of collateral damage reported considering the military advantage anticipated in taking out the ‘human shielded’ Hamas group with their ‘quasi nuclear Iran-enabled’ weaponry and sophistication?

It beats one’s imagination why the amendments to the said UN resolution proposed by the State of Canada never saw the light of the day, apparently part of the reasons they abstained while the U.S., their North America regional ally and superpower, voted against it.

 
Munir Akram’s, the Pakistani Ambassador to the UN linking the October 7 attack to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other rights violations alleged to have been committed by the state of Israel tends to beg the case. While the said occupation falls outside the Jus In Bello, this motive tends to be quite remote or outrightly irrelevant when juxtaposed with the October 7 mass killing and abduction of Israeli civilians by Hamas.

Not condemning the October 7 terror attack on the state of Israel and not passing a resolution in the manner of UN Resolution 1373 that declared global war on terror after the 9/11 terror attack on the U.S. champions, antisemitism in unimaginable proportions.

The UN should rather task state of Israel on Precision, a cardinal Principle of Jus In Bello and not an outright ceasefire. This does not rule out exploring avenues for extended humanitarian corridors. By adopting the pro-Arab resolution, the world has surprisingly thrown caution to the winds in the several decade of Israel Palestine impasse.
Elias Offor, legal practitioner and security analyst, wrote from Abuja.