UNGA late resolution on Israel’s occupation: My concerns with the resolution

Embed from Getty Images

On Sept. 18, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding a swift end to Israel’s occupation of all Palestinian territories outside the 1967 Green Line. The resolution calls on Israel to completely withdraw from “Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” within 12 months.

According to the resolution Israel must, inter alia, cease all new settlement activity immediately, evacuate all settlers, and dismantle the parts of the separation wall built within the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). In addition, Israel must return any land, property and cultural assets taken from Palestinians, allow displaced Palestinians to return to their places of origin, and make reparation for the damage caused by its occupation.

A majority of members — 124 countries — voted in favor, 14 countries voted against and 43 countries abstained, including Canada.

The resolution stems from an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, in which the court declared Israel’s continued presence in the OPT is unlawful and that all states are under obligation not to recognize the decades-long occupation.
While the resolution is non-binding, it will surely contribute to tarnishing the international image of the Israeli state and its coalition government – a coalition which, according to numerous polls, would lose elections if they were held today.
Given the many concerns I have about the resolution, I would not have supported it. However, I agree with parts of the resolution. Overall, I would have abstained, as did Canada.

My primary concerns with the UNGA resolution include the following:
• The resolution does not adequately respect the advisory nature of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) statement, which should be considered one element in a broader political and negotiated solution between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
• It is likely to obstruct progress towards a two-state negotiated solution because Israel resents the resolution, regarding it as an attempt to impose a solution rather than achieve an agreement through negotiations.
• It lacks sufficient clarity to advance a negotiated resolution and exceeds the scope of the ICJ’s advisory opinion.
• Using the ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction to bypass the need for Israel’s consent is impractical and may further entrench the Israeli position.
• It fails to contribute to ending the ongoing conflict in Gaza or securing the release of hostages held by Hamas.
• It does not acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization controlling Gaza and that Israel has the right to defend itself.
• It overlooks the significant security challenges faced by Israel.
• It demands unilateral concessions from Israel without reciprocal actions from the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the rest of Iran’s “axis of resistance,” which supports the destruction of the state of Israel. This creates an unbalanced approach that may perpetuate the conflict and reinforce Israeli perceptions of bias towards the UN and the ICJ, which focus solely on Israel’s actions.
• The 12-month timeframe proposed for Israeli withdrawal from the OPT is, frankly, unrealistic.

On the other hand, I fully support specific elements of the resolution stating that:

• Israel must be held accountable for any violations of international law in the OPT, including international humanitarian and human rights laws.
• The illegality of Israel’s occupation and settlement activities in OPT is recognized.
• States are urged to refrain from recognizing Israel’s presence in these territories as lawful and to ensure that they do not provide aid or assistance that sustains the situation created by the occupation. This includes preventing their nationals, companies, and entities under their jurisdiction from engaging in activities that support the occupation.
• States are called on to cease importing products originating from Israeli settlements.
• States are called on to implement sanctions, such as travel bans and asset freezes, against individuals and entities maintaining Israel’s unlawful presence in the OPT. This includes addressing settler violence and ensuring that those involved face legal and financial consequences.

The UN is right to castigate Israel for its practices in the OPT and to call for an end to the occupation, but the one-sided nature of this resolution and its unrealistic demands, makes it both unjust and ultimately ineffective. Yet as long as Israel keeps promoting settlements and refuses to take steps to end the occupation or negotiate a two-state solution, it will be more difficult for its friends to continue to defend it in international forums.