The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on Wednesday demanding an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, overcoming a majority of 124 votes in favor against 14 against.
The debate was marked by a notable number of abstentions, reaching a total of 43among which was that of Uruguay. This resolution, although non-binding, is significant as it is the first submitted by the State of Palestine, which lacks full membership status in the UN.
The result of the vote required a two-thirds majority for its acceptance. Despite the majority acceptance, the fact that the resolution was submitted by Palestine and not by a full member state adds a historical nuance to the event. In recent months, Palestine has managed to advance certain competencies within the UN system, which has led to the submission of this resolution on the occupation.
The Muslim and African blocs showed almost unanimous support for the new resolution. On the other hand, the European Union once again revealed its lack of unity, with different countries casting divergent votes: some in favour, such as Spain and France, others against, such as Hungary and the Czech Republic, and a number of abstentions, including Germany, Italy and Poland.
Response from Israel and allies
The response from Israel and its allies was equally forceful, highlighting the strong alliance between Israel and the United States in this type of vote, considered critical by many observers. Along with Israel, countries such as Argentina, Paraguay and several island nations in the Pacific expressed their support for the vote against the resolution. This pattern of international alignments highlights the existing polarization around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and highlights the differences in the positions of multiple nations.
The resolution also sets a twelve-month deadline for Israel to comply with the demand to cease its occupation, including East Jerusalem. This point has been controversial, given that Assembly resolutions are not binding. The text also goes on to make demands on land restitution and reparations to victims of the occupation, posing challenges for international cooperation in the context of this protracted conflict.
Despite the clarity of the resolution, countries such as Canada, Australia, India and other European nations decided to abstain, which has led to criticism about the lack of a broader consensus on an issue of such international relevance. In comparison, this resolution received less support than the one passed last May, which supported full Palestinian membership in the UN, resulting in 143 votes in favor on that occasion.
Statements by diplomats
During the presentation of the resolution, Palestinian ambassador to the UN Riad Mansour stressed that “no occupying power should infringe on our inalienable rights.” The use of the word “justice” emphasized Palestine’s position, which considers this the only path to lasting peace. Mansour urged respect for international law without allowing political interests to undermine it.
On the other hand, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UNcalled the decision “a circus where terror is applauded.” Danon argued that those voting in favor of the resolution are, in a way, legitimizing violence and claiming that this measure is a step backwards towards peace in the region. For him, the resolution represents a systematic attempt to isolate Israel.
The rejection of the U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfieldfocused on criticism of “unilateral resolutions”. According to her, real negotiations leading to peace depend on a bilateral approach and not on votes that ignore the reality of the conflict. This approach postulates that the definitive solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine can only come through direct and constructive dialogue between both parties.
