U.N. Set to Vote on Resolution for Israel to Withdraw to Pre-1967 Borders

On September 18, the U.N. General Assembly is set to vote on a significant resolution that urges Israel to put an end to its occupation of Palestinian territories. This comes two months after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that such occupation is unlawful, asserting that security concerns cannot justify taking territory by force.

This revised resolution, backed by the State of Palestine and 29 other nations, demands that Israel terminate its “unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory within 12 months of its adoption. It calls for Israel to immediately halt all new settlement activities and evacuate settlers from the region.

The resolution further mandates that Israel relinquish territory it has occupied since 1967 and allow displaced Palestinians to return to their homes. Additionally, it encourages states to not recognize Israel’s presence as legal, advising them to avoid trade or investment deals that could support the “illegal situation” Israel has created.

According to the text, Israel is required to comply with all its legal obligations under international law, including those highlighted by the ICJ. In July, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion that the Israeli occupation violates international law.

The request for this opinion came from the U.N. General Assembly last December, reflecting the assembly’s concern regarding Israel’s policies towards Palestinians. The ICJ’s advisory, while non-binding, confirmed that the occupation is illegal and called for Israel to dismantle its settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as to provide reparations for losses suffered by Palestinians due to the occupation.

During the assembly discussions on Tuesday, President Philemon Yang of Cameroon emphasized the need to remember those who have lost their lives and the ongoing humanitarian crisis. He remarked, “Without justice and the rule of law, Israelis and Palestinians alike will not attain what they long for most: peace and security.”

Highlighting the extensive humanitarian challenges and destruction in Gaza in recent months, Yang stressed the importance of acknowledging these issues as the assembly deliberates on the resolution.

Riyad Mansour, the Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine, spoke passionately about the existential threats faced by the Palestinian people. He warned that if the use of Israeli force continues unchecked, more Palestinians will be killed, harmed, or detained.

“I stand on this podium to tell you that justice is the only path to peace,” Mansour stated. He expressed that the Palestinian nation asks for nothing more than a fair stance from the international community but will accept nothing less than justice.

In opposition to the resolution, Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon expressed that the assembly should focus on condemning the attacks on Israel that occurred on October 7, rather than engage in what he termed the “Palestinians’ U.N. circus.” He criticized the assembly for allowing what he characterized as a distortion of reality, where he claims that moral evils are sanitized and that violence is glorified.

Danon accused proponents of the resolution of engaging in “diplomatic terrorism,” suggesting that such actions enable violence rather than peace. He denounced the resolution for misrepresenting the ICJ’s advisory opinion and failing to address the context of Israel’s security concerns in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas Greenfield urged member states to reject the resolution, advocating instead for a return to direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. She emphasized the need for Hamas to accept the proposed cease-fire deal.

Greenfield reiterated the U.S. position against any unilateral measures that could undermine the two-state solution, including the expansion of Israeli settlements and the resolution being debated. While acknowledging the ICJ’s advisory role, she warned that adopting a one-sided resolution would not contribute to achieving the desired outcome of both sides living peacefully as two states.