On September 18, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution demanding Israel to immediately withdraw from the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), including East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank. The resolution used strong language, stating, "Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful" and emphasized its obligation to end this unlawful occupation "as rapidly as possible." This landmark resolution was introduced by the State of Palestine, which gained recognized status at the UN earlier this year amid growing global outrage over Israel's military actions.
The UNGA's vote showcased broad international condemnation of Israel's actions, with 124 countries voting for the resolution, 14 against, and 43 abstentions. Major backers included traditional allies of Palestine, highlighting shifting diplomatic currents. Notably, the United States and Israel were among the few who voted against it.
The recent resolution follows the concerning ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) earlier this July, which declared Israel's occupation as illegal. This ruling, known for its forthrightness, stated, "The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as the occupying Power... violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel's presence [...] unlawful." The clarity and strength of this statement left no room for misinterpretation.
Despite the strong support for the UNGA resolution, observers remain skeptical about its actual impact. The non-binding nature of the resolution means it lacks enforcement mechanisms, raising questions about whether Israel will comply. Analysts suggest the political significance and pressure generated by the vote might lead to future changes, but immediate tangible results seem unlikely.
The UNGA resolution explicitly calls on Israel to cease its unlawful practices, including military presence and settlement activities, and to return land and assets seized since the occupation began. It also demands reparations for damage caused to Palestinians and the right for displaced people to return to their homes.
While the international community grapples with the complex dynamics of the conflict, the ICJ ruling serves as both recognition of Palestinian grievances and sets expectations for state accountability. All UN member states are urged to avoid actions supporting the continuation of Israel's occupation.
The political fallout from this resolution might spur discussions around seeking more concrete interventions, such as arms embargoes or economic sanctions against Israel, especially if it continues to disregard both the UNGA resolution and the ICJ ruling. The weight of international opinion, particularly from key nations, may shape future negotiations.
The recent vote, the first time Palestine has introduced its own resolution for voting as part of the 193-member General Assembly, signifies the changing tides at the UN. With rising frustration over the perceived ineffectiveness of past agreements, the establishment of more defined parameters — including explicit dates for withdrawal — marks a notable shift.
Many who voted for the resolution, including countries from Africa, Europe, Asia, and Latin America, reflected increasing global solidarity with Palestinians. Those abstaining or voting against it, such as Argentina and Hungary, signaled deep divisions among nations on how to categorize and respond to the occupation.
Some nations articulated concerns about the focus on unilateral demands rather than fostering dialogue between Israel and Palestine—believing both parties need to negotiate terms of peace rather than simply being issued mandates. Yet the decoupling of international law from political negotiations appears to be gaining traction, as demonstrated by the recent push for accountability.
International experts and observers assert Israel cannot legitimately claim self-defense when it continues to engage as an occupying power, often targeting civilians and infringing on basic rights. The ICJ advisory opinion reaffirms this perspective, emphasizing the distinction necessary between self-defense and the unlawful actions of occupiers.
This new wave of international condemnation of Israel's actions encapsulates growing dissatisfaction and urgency for change. Palestinian voices are increasingly amplified within international forums, shining the spotlight on human rights abuses, calls for political accountability, and efforts to garner support for self-determination.
The road forward remains fraught with challenges, as those opposing the Israeli occupation call for continued pressure on both Israel and its allies. While the spirit of the recent resolutions signals shifts, the clash between political will and enforcement remains complex—one compounded by regional dynamics and international alliances.
World leaders are now faced with the pressing question: what steps will they take moving forward to uphold international law and prioritize Palestinian rights?
