Sept. 18 (UPI) — The U.N. General Assembly will vote Wednesday on a resolution calling on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territory two months after the International Court of Justice ruled it was unlawful and that security concerns cannot override the universal prohibition on taking territory by force.
The revised draft of a resolution sponsored by the State of Palestine and 29 other countries demands that Israel end its “unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory no later than 12 months from the adoption of the resolution and cease immediately all new settlement activity and evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
It states that Israel must hand back territory seized since its occupation started in 1967 and allow displaced Palestinians to return to their homes and urges states not to recognize as legal Israel’s unlawful presence and abstain from trade or investment deals that may assist Israel in sustaining “the illegal situation it created.”
The text further requires that Israel immediately comply with all its legal obligations under international law, including as stipulated by the International Court of Justice, which after examining the issue at the request of the assembly issued an advisory finding in July that the Israeli occupation violated international law.
The assembly asked the court in The Hague in December 2022 to provide an opinion on the legality of the Israeli occupation and its policies and treatment of Palestinians.
The court’s advice to the assembly, which is non-binding, was that the occupation was illegal and that Israel should reverse all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and pay Palestinians reparations for losses caused by the occupation.
Speaking as the assembly debated the resolution Tuesday, General Assembly President Philemon Yang of Cameroon urged members to keep uppermost in their minds those killed and the unfolding humanitarian disaster.
“Without justice and the rule of law, Israelis and Palestinians alike will not attain what they long for most: peace and security, ” said Yang.
The Assembly must “not lose sight of the many lives lost, the staggering humanitarian challenges and infrastructural destruction that continue to take place, particularly in Gaza in the past several months,” he added.
The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine Riyad Mansour said the existential threat the Palestinian people were facing could not be ignored saying that more Palestinians would be killed, maimed, and detained unless Israeli use of force was checked.
“I stand on this podium to tell you that justice is the only path to peace. We are a nation that asks for nothing more than your nations but can accept nothing less,” he said.
Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon said the assembly should be considering a resolution condemning the Oct. 7 attacks on his country instead of gathering to “watch the Palestinians’ U.N. circus, a circus where evil is righteous, war is peace, murder is justified and terror is applauded.”
He accused those backing the resolution of what he called “diplomatic terrorism” of being enablers giving impetus to the violence and succor to those who choose conflict over peace
He argued that the resolution distorted the flawed” advisory opinion of the ICJ and turned reality on its head, glossing over Hamas‘ Oct. 7 attack and Israel’s legitimate security concerns.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas Greenfield urged members to reject the motion in favor of joining the United States in “pressing Israelis and Palestinians to recommit to the hard work of direct negotiations,” and to press Hamas to “take the [cease-fire] deal on the table.”
She said Washington opposed any unilateral measure that undermined the prospects for a two-state solution including the growth of Israeli settlements and the resolution under consideration.
While the United States respected the ICJ’s role in advising the U.N. General Assembly and in assisting in the peaceful resolution of disputes, adopting a one-sided resolution that “selectively interpreted” the substance of its opinion would not advance progress toward the goal desired by all sides of “two states living in peace, side-by-side.”
