UN to Vote on Palestinian Resolution Calling for End to Israel’s Occupation

The U.N. General Assembly is set to vote on a resolution addressing the Israeli presence in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. This resolution calls for an end to what it describes as Israel’s “unlawful presence” in these regions within a year. It also demands the withdrawal of military forces and the evacuation of settlements.

This move comes as the conflict between Israel and Hamas nears its one-year mark, following attacks by Hamas on southern Israel on October 7, prompting a large-scale response from Israel. Concurrently, violence in the West Bank has escalated significantly.

Opening the assembly session, Palestinian U.N. ambassador Riyad Mansour portrayed the situation as an “existential threat” for Palestinians. He characterized Israel’s control over the territories as a form of enslavement and called for the end of the long-standing occupation. Mansour stressed the need for Palestinians to return to their homes and live in peace and freedom.

In response, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Danny Danon, has urged member states to reject the resolution. Danon condemned it as a form of “diplomatic terrorism” aimed at undermining Israel. He criticized the resolution for failing to address the violence perpetrated by Hamas and twisting facts to present a skewed narrative.

“Instead of addressing the horrific acts committed by Hamas on October 7, we observe a performance at the U.N. where evil is celebrated and terror is justified,” he stated during the meeting.

Although the resolution, if approved, would not carry legal weight, its passage would indicate global sentiment towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike the Security Council, which has veto power, the General Assembly allows for a broader expression of opinion among its 193 member states.

This initiative follows a decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July, which deemed Israel’s presence in Palestinian territories as unlawful. The court stated that Israel has no sovereign rights over these areas and is breaching international laws by acquiring land through military force.

Despite the ICJ ruling not being legally binding, the Palestinians crafted this resolution in an effort to act on the court’s findings. The resolution focuses on Israel’s exploitation of its status as an occupying power and the resulting illegality of its presence in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Mansour emphasized the unlikelihood of Palestinians accepting a life of oppression. He stated that any perception that peace could be achieved without a fair resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unrealistic. The ultimate goal is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on the borders as they were in 1967, with East Jerusalem recognized as its capital, coexisting peacefully alongside Israel.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas Greenfield highlighted several issues with the resolution, calling it flawed. She pointed out that it disregards the ICJ ruling’s context and fails to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, thus complicating Israel’s right to self-defense.

“This resolution does not provide positive outcomes for the Palestinian people. It could further complicate current situations and hinder efforts towards a peaceful two-state solution,” she remarked.

The proposed resolution also includes provisions for Israel to provide reparations to Palestinians for damages associated with its occupation. Furthermore, it encourages countries to refrain from trade and investments that would support Israel’s presence in these territories.

In addition, the resolution calls for accountability regarding any breaches of international law by Israel and suggests sanctions against individuals or entities that facilitate this presence. It also recommends that arms exports to Israel be halted if they are suspected of contributing to violence in the territories.

Mansour indicated that the initial draft of the resolution called for Israel to end its occupation within a six-month timeframe, but it was amended to a year due to concerns expressed by some member countries.

He remains skeptical that Israel will heed the resolution, suggesting that it may simply be ignored by the Israeli government.