In New York last week, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution on Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, or OPT). The UNGA declared Israel’s presence is unlawful and must end “without delay.”
The monumental vote – with 124 countries in favor, 14 against, 43 abstaining, and 12 not voting – upholds a July 2024 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the U.N.’s main judicial body. (I wrote about it here in Good Authority.)
UNGA resolutions are not legally binding like U.N. Security Council resolutions. That’s one of the reasons resolutions get held up far more often at the council than in the assembly. That’s also why the outsize influence of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States – the five permanent Security Council members, each with unilateral veto power – is a regular point of contention.
Last week’s UNGA resolution is more weighty than most, however, given that the ICJ said it was up to the different U.N. organs and agencies, including the UNGA, to determine “the precise modalities and further action required” to end the occupation.
The ICJ ruling said Israel’s presence in the OPT is unlawful because it has abused its status as an occupying power, including by annexing land in the OPT, exploiting Palestinian natural resources, extending Israeli law into the territory, and attempting to alter the territory’s demographic character through the forcible displacement of Palestinians and building of settlements. The UNGA agreed.
More pressure on Israel?
As a first step toward complying with the ICJ advisory opinion, the UNGA urged all countries and international organizations to not recognize or support the Israeli occupation and to “support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of its right to self-determination.”
Both the ICJ ruling and UNGA resolution were issued in the shadow of the current Israel-Hamas war. But the process behind both decisions actually started before the war. The court in July was responding to a 2022 UNGA request for an advisory opinion. That resolution (“Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”) went forward, with 87 UNGA members voting in favor of it, 26 against, 53 abstaining, and 27 not voting.
That the number of “yes” votes grew from 87 in 2022 to 124 in 2024 is notable. A global consensus is growing around Palestinians’ self-determination rights, perhaps due to the war in Gaza. In this vein, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, said the following after the recent vote:
The international consensus over this resolution renews the hopes of our Palestinian people – who are facing a comprehensive aggression and genocide in Gaza and the West Bank, including Jerusalem – to achieve its aspirations of freedom and independence and establishing a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Agnès Callamard, secretary-general of Amnesty International, called the resolution and the next steps it outlines “crystal clear.” But the politics are messy and Palestinians will encounter opposition on multiple sides.
Before the vote, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., condemned “hypocrisy and bias in the U.N.” and called the UNGA proceedings a “circus,” an “empty show,” and “an insult” to the victims of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks. After the vote, Danon said the UNGA had participated in “diplomatic terrorism.” Oren Marmorstein, spokesperson for Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, added that the resolution was “a distorted decision that is disconnected from reality, encourages terrorism and harms the chances for peace.”
The United States was one of 13 countries – and the only major world power – to join Israel in voting the resolution down. (France, China, and Russia voted in favor of the resolution, while the U.K. abstained.) In her remarks before the vote, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield said the resolution was one-sided – a line Marmorstein would later echo. Thomas-Greenfield also said the resolution wouldn’t save lives, get Israel and Palestine closer to peace, or advance progress on a two-state solution. And without U.S. support, it’s hard to see progress on any of these goals.
What the UNGA resolution says
The UNGA upheld the ICJ advisory opinion that Israel’s presence in the OPT is unlawful and gave Israel 12 months to end the occupation. But Israel isn’t likely to comply. This is a problem – for Palestinians, Israel, and Israel’s allies.
As I said after the ICJ decision, rejecting the court’s opinion – and now the UNGA resolution – risks continuing violations of international law. Fundamentally, further violations by Israel (and those who help it maintain the occupation) would hurt Palestinians; make Israel a pariah state; and undermine the reputation of Israel’s allies, the most steadfast and powerful of these being the United States.
Israel’s deep security concerns are not in dispute – its allies agree about these security concerns. What’s in dispute is how Israel works to secure itself. The ICJ has ruled and the UNGA has confirmed that Israel must secure itself from within its territory, not Palestinian territory.
Here are some highlights from the resolution:
- Israel must remove its military forces from the OPT, including Palestinian airspace and maritime space.
It’s hard to see Israel complying with this measure, given that it has been waging a retaliatory war in Gaza since the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas militants, with no end in sight. The Israeli military has also ratcheted up military operations in the West Bank, also part of the OPT. The Palestinian Authority – not Hamas – governs the West Bank. Israeli forces have also abetted settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
- Israel must evacuate settlers from Palestinian territory and award Palestinians reparations for damages caused by the occupation. Israel must also allow Palestinians displaced by the occupation to retrieve their property and return to their homes.
More than 700,000 settlers – approximately one-tenth of Israel’s Jewish population – now live in the West Bank, so an evacuation would be a major logistical operation. It took Israel more than a month to withdraw approximately 9,000 settlers from Gaza in 2005. Assuming a similar pace, it could take Israel six to seven years to remove all settlers.
And it’s unlikely that West Bank settlers would be easily moved. Settlers in Gaza were willing to stand off against their own government and military in 2005, and some faced criminal charges for resisting. To complicate matters, a growing right-wing movement in Israel wants to resettle Gaza. So we could see more, rather than less, settlement activity, not just in the West Bank but also in Gaza.
- States must not recognize the illegal occupation.
This includes not rendering to Israel arms or other aid that would help it maintain its presence in the OPT. This also includes taking steps to end imports of products manufactured in settlements, as well as imposing travel bans and asset freezes for individuals who help maintain the occupation. Which individuals “count” as helping to maintain the occupation remains to be defined. Possible candidates include Israeli officials and officials of allied governments like the United States. Possible candidates also include Israeli military and intelligence personnel, as well as settlers. Heads of companies working out of settlements also risk legal exposure.
- Israel must be held accountable for violations of international law.
Whether for violations of international humanitarian law (i.e., the “laws of war,” including the Geneva Conventions), international criminal law (including, possibly, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), or international human rights laws (such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination), the UNGA emphasized the importance of accountability for Israel and justice for Palestine.
- Israel must comply with the ICJ’s preliminary ruling in South Africa v. Israel.
In January, ICJ judges in another case said Israel has plausibly violated its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This followed a December complaint by South Africa arguing that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. (See my coverage of the case here in Good Authority.) That ICJ case could take years to resolve but, in the meantime, the preliminary ruling says Israel is legally obligated to prevent and punish acts of genocide and public incitement to commit genocide. Israel is also obligated to facilitate humanitarian assistance to Gaza and preserve evidence of possible genocide crimes. It doesn’t appear that Israel has complied with this ruling either.
That the UNGA mentioned this separate case at the ICJ is notable. The General Assembly clearly sees Israel’s conduct in Gaza since Oct. 7 as linked to its historical occupation of Palestine. As Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, the UNGA resolution has “dramatically changed the legal context of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.”
What happens now?
Discussion on how to end the war in Gaza and how to reach a two-state solution continues this week. The General Assembly has also requested a follow-up report from U.N. Secretary General António Guterres within three months. This report would document compliance and noncompliance with the resolution and the ICJ decision. The actual consequences of noncompliance aren’t clear, however – for Israel, third-party countries, or international organizations, including the U.N.
Importantly, without U.S. support, UNGA efforts may prove futile. In April, the United States blocked a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have recommended to the UNGA that Palestine become a full U.N. member state. (Currently, Palestine is a “non-member observer state.”) The United States was the only member of the 15-country council to cast a negative vote, with the U.K. and Switzerland abstaining. The U.S. Congress, with Pres. Joe Biden’s support, even threatened to pull aid to Palestinians if Palestine obtains full U.N. membership without Israel’s consent.
Palestinians’ diplomatic success may hinge on the results of the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, seems more sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinian people than Biden and certainly more than her Republican opponent, Donald Trump. If Harris wins the election and concrete support for Palestinians coalesces within the Democratic Party, she could conceivably change the direction of U.S. Middle East policy. Certainly, without a U.S. vote of support in the Security Council – or at least an abstention – Palestinians will not reach equality at the U.N. or elsewhere.
But countries that are committed to the international rule of law and that are sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinian people have been lending their support to Palestine in other ways, including blocking military aid to Israel and deliberating on economic sanctions, as well as recognizing a Palestinian state outside the auspices of the United Nations. However limited these moves might seem, they represent a significant shift in international politics.
Stay up to date on all things politics and political science. Sign up for Good Authority’s weekly newsletter by entering your email address in the box below.
