On Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted overwhelmingly with a vote of 124-14 to strip away Israel's right to self-defense in the region, calling for the IDF to withdraw to pre-1967 territory lines. Forty-three countries abstained. Especially given that there is no mention of the October 7 terrorist attack against Israel perpetrated by Hamas, the vote was a particularly egregious one from the anti-Israel body.
The resolution was not only supported by 124 members, but by the body's Secretary-General. As the Jerusalem Post reported:
The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday voted 124-14 to strip Israel of the right to self-defense against Palestinian terrorism in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem.
The text of the resolution was based on the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion in July that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory was illegal.
Prior to the vote, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he supported the ICJ option and would abide by the vote, which calls on the IDF to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines within 12 months.
The United States was one of the 14 countries that voted against the resolution. United States Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Tuesday called out how the resolution "refuses to address the reality that Israel, a United Nations member state, simply has a right to protect and defend its people from acts of terror and violence."
"Despite the fact that Hamas just upended ceasefire negotiations by brutally murdering six hostages, and despite the fact that Hamas continues to use civilians as human shields in Gaza, this resolution does not include any measures to pressure Hamas to heed Security Council Resolution 2735, accept the deal on the table, and implement it without delay or further conditions," she also said, highlighting the butchery of Hamas.
The resolution is not only inherently anti-Israel, but also unrealistic. Even countries in support of the resolution, like New Zealand, acknowledged problems with the timeframe:
New Zealand Ambassador to the UN Carolyn Schwalger said her country had supported the resolution, even though it considered that it was not possible for Israel to adhere to it.
“The 12-month time frame set out in the resolution for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territory is frankly unrealistic,” she said. “A two-state solution needs to be the product of negotiation. Aspirations need to be tempered by realism, given the complexities to be addressed.”
“However, in the next 12 months we expect Israel to take meaningful steps towards compliance with international law, particularly through withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territory,” Schwalger said.
“We also expect the PA to take meaningful steps to assume political and security control of the occupied territory,” she added.
What New Zealand's Ambassador to the UN Carolyn Schwalger does not acknowledge, though, is that Israel's enemies do not actually want a two-state solution. They want a one-state solution, and one where Israel does not exist.
In speaking with Townhall about the UNGA vote, Andrew Tucker of Thinc (The Hague Institute for International Cooperation), emphasized this point that "Palestinians don't want a two-state solution." He also explained how the resolution came to be. Thinc has been warning against the resolution since before it was even voted on.
The Palestinians, Tucker explained, called an emergency special session to get such a resolution through. Not only is the resolution "appalling," but Tucker explained "it's kind of a huge ambush campaign that has been going on for several years, and this is the fruit of it."
The resolution is based on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from July, but the Palestinians have also been trying to go through the UN for years to bypass the Oslo Accords, Tucker explained when it comes to recognizing the statehood that they're seeking. Palestinians were recognized as having non-member observer state status by the 2012, which gave them, as Tucker further explained, a "podium to operate on the international stage as if they were a state" and emboldened them with a route to continue going after Israel.
Speaking further about the Palestinians' efforts with the General Assembly the ICJ, Tucker explained that approximately 10 months before the October 7 attacks, "a very one-sided resolution" was passed against Israel. Tucker noted "it's got to be connected" that Hamas then felt "emboldened" to go after the Jewish State, that they could "get away with it," especially if Israel is "regarded as an illegal occupier."
That we're looking at the workings of the ICJ and the General Assembly is why, Tucker explained, there's no mention of October the 7th in such a resolution. It goes deeper and further back. "They rewrite history" in this resolution, anything before 1967, which not only "undermines completely Israel's legitimacy," as Tucker explains, but also further creates "huge security problems," especially as "Iran will fill the vacuum" if Israel is forced to vacate.
While the resolution is not enforceable and amounts to "political statements," as Tucker put it, such a vote nevertheless emboldens Israel's foes.
In addition to 124 countries, the resolution has the support from CAIR. In a statement, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad noted they "welcome" the resolution. As Katie covered at the time last December, Awad praised Hamas' October 7 attack against Israel.
It's worth reminding that Republicans introduced legislation last December to defund the UN, with Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Mike Rogers (R-AL) doing so in the House, while Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced legislation in the Senate.
This is not the only recent news to do with international bodies acting against Israel. Last week, the ICJ rejected a request from South Africa in bringing claims of genocide against Israel. The judges there want to keep to their schedule, Tucker explained. Among those particularly problematic judges includes the president, who is Lebanese.