General Assembly Overwhelmingly Adopts Historic Text Demanding Israel End Its Unlawful Presence, Policies in Occupied Palestinian Territory within One Year
Diverging on How Best to Resolve Crisis, Delegates Decide to Hold International Conference for Implementing UN Resolutions on Question of Palestine, Two-State Solution
Adopting a historic text demanding that Israel brings to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, no later than 12 months from the adoption of the resolution, the General Assembly today heard speakers stake out a range of positions regarding the best way to resolve this enduring crisis.
Adopted by a two-thirds majority in a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 14 against, with 43 abstentions, the text titled “Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (document A/ES-10/L.31/Rev.1) welcomed that opinion, which was issued on 19 July.
Introduced Tuesday by the Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine in an emergency special session of the Assembly, the text seeks to implement the Court’s advisory opinion (for background, see GA/12625). It sets out numerous obligations on States and international organizations, including the obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Territory. By its other terms, the Assembly decided to convene during its seventy-ninth session an international conference for the implementation of UN resolutions pertaining to the question of Palestine and the two-State solution.
Prior to its adoption, the Assembly Secretary said that in the absence of modalities, it is not possible to estimate the potential cost implications of convening an international conference. Once modalities are known, the budgetary implications will be assessed and the Assembly advised accordingly, she said.
The adoption was hailed by several delegates, including that of Syria, who said it is an expression of international solidarity with the Palestinian people and a global rejection of Israeli occupation. Further, it renews the United Nations’ unequivocal support for the establishment of a Palestinian State, he said. The representatives of Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Marshall Islands and Thailand also reaffirmed the Palestinian right to self-determination.
Voicing support for the International Court of Justice, Belgium’s delegate underscored that the resolution is in keeping with its advisory opinion. Israel’s multidecade illegal occupation undermines the human rights of Palestinians and compromises any chances of a peace process in the Middle East, he said. The adoption does not mean a reduction of Israel’s security, he pointed out, adding that terrorist groups, such as Hamas, feed on oppression and hopelessness. This text offers a realistic prospect of restoring hope in a population that has been left at the mercy of extremist ideology, he said.
The representatives of Japan, Latvia, France, Estonia, Cyprus and Monaco also underscored the need to uphold international law and the key role of the World Court. While cognizant of Israel’s security needs, Greece’s delegate said, his country nevertheless voted in favour of the text because of its principled belief that the Court’s work should be respected. Singapore’s delegate said that his delegation also voted in favour because of its respect for the Court, even though it has serious reservations about the use of the institution’s advisory jurisdiction to bypass the need for States’ consent. Calling for measures that have not been negotiated by the Israelis and Palestinians may only harden positions, he warned.
New Zealand supported the resolution, that country’s delegate said, even though it is not perfect. The 12-month time frame set out in the resolution for Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territory, is “frankly unrealistic”, she said, adding: “However, in the next 12 months, we expect Israel to take meaningful steps towards compliance with international law.” The Palestinian Authority must also take meaningful steps to ensure political and security control of the occupied territories, she said.
However, several delegates who voted against the text said it fails to address the immense security challenges that Israel faces. The representative of the Czech Republic regretted that the text does not acknowledge Hamas’ use of the Gaza Strip as a “launching pad for its rampage of killing of Israelis while systematically using Palestinian civilians as human shields”. A negotiated agreement is the best path to fostering a better future in the Middle East, he said, as did the representatives of Argentina and Hungary.
The speaker for Papua New Guinea said the draft demands that Israel make unilateral concessions without any reciprocal steps from the other parties involved. Such unbalanced demands will perpetuate the conflict and reinforce views that the advisory opinion proceedings may have been biased, given the Court’s sole focus on the actions of Israel, he added. He also pointed to dissenting opinions from the Court judges.
A significant number of countries who abstained from today’s vote expressed concerns about the language in the text itself — among these the delegates of Canada, Bulgaria, Austria, Republic of Korea, Guatemala, India, Sweden, Italy, Germany, Kiribati and Costa Rica. While there is no doubt about the illegality of Israel’s occupation, the representative of Switzerland said, the one-year timeline referenced in the text for the withdrawal of Israel does not acknowledge that country’s legitimate security concerns. The representative of the United Kingdom said her delegation abstained because the text does not provide sufficient clarity to advance a negotiated solution. Stressing that the reunification of Gaza and West Bank is a fundamental step towards a two-State solution, she also expressed concern about extremist Israeli settlers.
Australia’s delegate said: “We are concerned that, by making demands of the entire United Nations membership that go beyond the scope of the advisory opinion, the resolution distracts from what the world needs Israel to do.” His country has insisted that Israel must cease settlement activity and has sanctioned extremist Israeli settlers. “We have not supplied weapons to Israel in at least the last five years,” he added. However, Australia will continue to call out unilateral actions that it believes undermine the prospect for peace, he said, while the representative of the Netherlands pointed to reservations regarding operative paragraph 5b of the text. While it remains of utmost importance that Israel retains its ability to defend itself, this must be done in accordance with international law, including humanitarian law, she stressed.