 On Monday, the United Nations Security Council finally passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. It's been over five months since Israel began its genocidal war on the people of the territory, and close to 32,500 people have been killed. And it is only now that the UNSC has managed the resolution. A major culprit in this has been the United States, which vetoed three earlier resolutions calling for a ceasefire. On Monday, too, the U.S. did not support the call. Instead, it abstained, leading to the resolution passing, as the remaining 14 members supported it. However, the major question is if Israel will heed this resolution. It does not appear to do so, as attacks continue on Tuesday. We go to Abdul to know more about the resolution. Abdul, thank you so much for joining us. A very important vote in the UN Security Council, quite an unprecedented one. This issue has come up, the issue of the ceasefire has come up at the UNSC number of times. We know, of course, who has been the villain in all these discussions at the U.S. But take us through what this new resolution says, what is the exact text, and what was the pattern of voting at the UNSC? Well, Prashant, the resolution was quite different from the resolution which we were talking about next week, which was presented by the U.S., which primarily talked about, did not talk about that much about a permanent ceasefire or the need of it, but kind of, sorry, only was only expressing the need of it. But the resolution mostly prepared by the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council basically demanded in the clear-cut term that there should be a ceasefire, immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan at least, and there should be negotiations for making it a permanent ceasefire. That is the first part of the resolution. The second part of the resolution also talks about the need to release all the hostages which the Palestinian resistance groups have, the Israeli hostages. These are the two things which the resolution talks about. And as far as the voting pattern is concerned, of course, the U.S. first opposed amendment which basically, which was brought by some of the countries talking about kind of making a permanent ceasefire now, basically finally decided to abstain from the voting. And that basically allowed the rest of the countries, none of them, opposed it to vote in favor of the resolution which ultimately led to the acceptance of it. So 14 members, including the four permanent members voted in favor, which also includes France and UK, and the U.S. abstains. So that was the pattern of the voting. The most important part of the entire proceeding was that the U.S. decided not to veto the resolution which basically demands a ceasefire. And this happened for the first time. So the difference between the vote on Monday and the previous votes was that U.S. decided not to veto the resolution which basically states ceasefire, which clearly demands ceasefire in Gaza. We should remember that on the previous occasions, at least three times, U.S. used this veto wherever the resolution clearly stated the need, clearly stated ceasefire in the document. And that basically is the primary thing which makes it different from the previous resolutions, even those who were voted on the United Nations Security Council. Abdul Naim, in this context, the most important question is what does this mean on the ground? Do we see the possibility of this being enforced in any way? What has been Israel's response? And what happens if Israel just refuses to accept this resolution, which seems like a likely response from them? Well, Prashant, if you go by the international law, this resolution is enforceable. Of course, if the United Nations Security Council decides to enforce it, implement it, they can easily force Israel to do so. There can be repercussions for Israel. There can be sanctions. There can be other measures taken by the Security Council. But if Security Council decides to do that, and given the fact that U.S. has been reluctant to take any step to kind of make Israel follow or implement the resolutions which were adopted by the United Nations Security Council in the past, that is difficult at this moment to say that there will be a punishment for Israel if it chooses not to implement the resolution. As you rightly pointed out, Israel has so far has kind of completely, you can say rejected any possibility of ceasefire at this moment and in fact has threatened diplomatic repercussions to the U.S. in relation to the U.S., that if U.S. abstains or vetoes, sorry, accepts votes in favor of such resolution which asks for ceasefire, they will kind of have some kind of diplomatic some kind of diplomatic repercussion vis-a-vis the relationship with U.S. and that of course between them. But since the fact is the U.S. carries the veto power and any follow-up on the resolution will be taken up in the United Nations Security Council, it all depends on how U.S. votes. So of course this is enforceable, this should be implemented, Israel should implement it and if it does not implement, there should be steps taken by the members of the United Nations Security Council. But given the fact that the U.S. has a veto and it may use it in the Security Council, that makes Israel's case possibility that Israel may violate the ceasefire resolution more likely given the record and given the statements made by the Israeli officials so far. Well, thank you so much for the update. We'll come back to you for the next story as well. The High Court of Justice in London has delivered its verdict in a case on whether Julian Assange can appeal against his extradition to the United States. The judges decided that he could appeal on very narrow grounds, that is if the U.S. did not provide certain assurances on the trial he would face if he were extradited. The judges have said that the grounds of possible appeal have to do with Assange's First Amendment rights and the question of the death penalty. To clarify again, if the U.S. does not provide assurances on these counts, Assange will be able to appeal against his extradition. Legal technicalities aside, he still faces a very serious threat of being sent to the United States which could be deadly for him and will also be a huge blow to journalism across the world. We go back to Abdul for the details. Welcome back Abdul, the verdict of the court has come just a few hours before we are recording this show so could you maybe for the benefit of a viewer tell explain what the verdict is, what does it imply? Well Prashant, in the Julian Assange case, the court, the Royal Court in Britain, has basically in a way has granted, you can say Assange's right to appeal, leave for appeal in the other courts against his extradition to the U.S. on certain conditions and the conditions are that it has given basically the U.S. almost up till April 16th, you can say a chance to provide assurances on three counts and those three counts are that if Assange is extradited his rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, freedom of speech and expression will be protected. Second, because of his nationality, we all know that because he's an Australian and U.S. may use it as an excuse to kind of not grant Assange's right under First Amendment, because of his nationality, proceedings in the case will not be biased against it and the third that there will be no death penalty during his trial. These are the three counts on which the court has given the U.S. kind of till April 16th to file fresh assurances. If it files the fresh assurances, there will be a next hearing on April May and whichever date the court decides, maybe that is a tentative date to basically discuss, to examine those grounds, those assurances. If U.S. chooses not to give fresh assurances or not to clarify on these three stand points made by the court, Assange will be free to file an appeal against his expression, which we all know the courts have already kind of granted. So that's what the verdict says, that is what we know so far. But it does seem that the grounds are quite narrow because on the one hand, it does seem that all is needed for the U.S. is to give some kind of a document with assurances, whereas Assange has not been given the option of, for instance, claiming to be a political prisoner, he cannot bring fresh evidence about for many of those issues. So in fact, it seems to narrow the grounds a lot for Assange. Exactly, and that shows the overall proceedings related to this particular extradition of Assange is basically happening. There is some kind of, you can say, understanding between the courts and maybe the bureaucracy or the states here and there, that Assange needs to be extradited, that satisfies their kind of case against freedom of speech and so on and so forth, that such kind of journalism or freedom of press will not be tolerated. There is some kind of understanding which basically guides this kind of thing, because as you rightly pointed out, Assange has not been, in fact, denied some of the grounds on which he basically sought basically right to appeal to the higher judiciary, to the judiciary, basically appeal, file appeal to other courts. As you rightly pointed out, there cannot be fresh evidences provided and so on and so forth. As MNS International already pointed out, that even if those assurances are provided by the U.S., there is no guarantee that they will be carried out the way it has been mentioned in the submission in the court and in any other fora, because there have been records in the past that the U.S. basically state has been very vicious. They may take, give some assurances at this moment, but at the later stage, they might revoke it, finding one excuse or the other. So entire proceeding does not give, of course, much hope at this moment about the entire case and it seems that there is some kind of collaboration, of course, behind the scene, diplomatic understanding behind the scene, which basically prevents Assange's his right under the law, his right under the overall freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of press in particular, which basically has been, so the verdict overall, this verdict overall is not seen as clear on the point of extradition, on the appeal and so forth, as it should have been otherwise. Abdul, thank you so much for that analysis. And that's all we have in this episode. We'll be back with a fresh daily debrief tomorrow. Meanwhile, do visit our website, people'sdispatch.org, follow us on all the social media platforms, and if you're watching this on YouTube, please hit the subscribe button.