Photo credit: www.bbc.com
UN General Assembly Adopts Palestinian-Drafted Resolution on Occupation
The United Nations General Assembly has embraced a non-binding resolution put forth by Palestine, demanding that Israel terminate its “unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” within the next year. In a significant vote, 124 member states were in favor, while 14 opposed, including Israel, and 43 chose to abstain. Notably, Palestine, recognized as a non-member observer state, did not have the right to vote.
This resolution draws from a July advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which stated that Israel’s activities in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip constitute a violation of international law.
The Palestinian ambassador hailed the vote as a critical milestone “in our struggle for freedom and justice.” Conversely, the Israeli ambassador characterized it as “diplomatic terrorism,” underscoring the contentious nature of the matter.
While resolutions passed in the General Assembly lack legal binding force, they possess considerable moral and political significance as they encapsulate the views of the UN’s 193 member states.
This development occurs in the context of a prolonged conflict in Gaza, which escalated nearly one year ago on October 7, when Hamas militants launched an attack that resulted in approximately 1,200 Israeli fatalities and 251 hostages taken. Since that escalation, reports suggest that over 41,110 individuals in Gaza have lost their lives, according to the territory’s Hamas-led health ministry.
Moreover, violence has surged in the West Bank, where the UN reports that more than 680 Palestinians and 22 Israelis have been killed in the ensuing conflict.
The aforementioned ICJ advisory opinion, while also non-binding, asserted that Israel’s ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful, and it urged the country to “end its unlawful presence… as rapidly as possible.” The court’s findings called on Israel to “evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and to “provide reparations” for any damages caused.
Since 1967, Israel has established approximately 160 settlements that house around 700,000 Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The ICJ noted that these settlements are established and maintained in violation of international law, a claim that Israel has consistently contested.
In response to the court’s findings, Israel’s Prime Minister condemned the ruling as a “decision of lies,” affirming the belief that “the Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land.”
Wednesday’s resolution from the General Assembly acknowledged the ICJ’s declaration and demanded that Israel “immediately end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” within a maximum timeframe of 12 months, urging compliance with international legal obligations.
The foreign ministry of the Palestinian Authority praised the resolution’s adoption as a “pivotal and historic moment for the Palestinian cause and international law.” They asserted that the backing of nearly two-thirds of UN member states reflects a global consensus on the necessity to end the occupation and cease associated offenses, reaffirming the Palestinian people’s rights to self-determination.
Conversely, Israel’s foreign ministry criticized the resolution as “distorted” and unrelated to reality, claiming it fosters terrorism and undermines peace prospects. They argued that such actions bolster organizations like Hamas and suggested that the Palestinian Authority is not genuinely seeking conflict resolution but rather aims to harm Israel.
The United States, which voted against the resolution, expressed concerns that it was “one-sided” and did not accurately represent the ICJ’s opinion. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield stated, “There is no path forward or hope offered through this resolution today. Its adoption will not save Palestinian lives, bring the hostages home, end Israeli settlements, or reinvigorate the peace process.”
The United Kingdom also opted for abstention, with Ambassador Barbara Woodward clarifying that this abstention wasn’t due to disagreement with the ICJ’s findings but stemmed from a belief that the resolution lacked clarity to effectively promote a negotiated two-state solution.
Source
www.bbc.com