The United Nations recently passed a resolution, pushed by the Palestinians, demanding that Israel withdraw from the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” within 12 months. The resolution received support from 124 countries, with 43 abstaining from voting and 14 voting against it, including the U.S. and Israel. The resolution is not legally binding but calls on members to take steps to cease importation of products from Israeli settlements and transfer of arms to Israel where there are concerns they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This is the first resolution proposed by the Palestinians after gaining additional powers as a member in May, including the ability to propose resolutions.
The resolution was presented following an advisory opinion by the United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July, which declared Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and settlements as illegal and called for their withdrawal. The resolution seeks to implement the ICJ advisory opinion with a hard timeline, as opposed to the immediate withdrawal recommended by the ICJ. The proposal has raised concerns about the impact of such a decision on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, particularly in terms of security. It is feared that an expedited Israeli exit could create room for hostile entities to take over the territories, leading to a volatile security situation.
Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, criticized the resolution as “shameful” and accused the General Assembly of supporting the Palestinian Authority’s “diplomatic terrorism.” He expressed disappointment that the anniversary of the Oct. 7 massacre was not marked by condemning Hamas and calling for the release of hostages. Danon highlighted the risks posed by the resolution, particularly in allowing Iran or other hostile actors to gain control of the West Bank, as happened with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
The director general of The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation, Andrew Tucker, discussed the implications of the resolution and the ICJ advisory opinion. Tucker explained that the opinion does not consider Israel’s security concerns and prioritizes the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. He warned that the prioritization of self-determination could lead to greater conflict, especially if hostile entities take control of the territories. Tucker emphasized the need to consider the security implications of an Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as it could potentially create a volatile and dangerous situation in the region.
The resolution has stirred debate and drawn criticism from various quarters. The U.S. and Israel voted against the resolution, while other countries supported it. The concerns raised by critics revolve around the security risks and implications of an expedited Israeli withdrawal, as well as the potential for hostile actors to take over the territories. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians remains a key issue in the region, and decisions like this resolution have the potential to impact the dynamics and security situation in the area. The debate surrounding the resolution underscores the complex and sensitive nature of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the challenges involved in finding a lasting and peaceful solution.
