A Historic UN Resolution on Palestine: What Does It Mean for Israel and the World?

Introduction: This week marked a pivotal moment in international diplomacy when the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution calling for Israel to vacate occupied Palestinian territories within a year. While the resolution is non-binding, it reflects a seismic shift in global sentiment toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A Bold Resolution with Limited Power? Despite its overwhelming support, the resolution lacks the enforceability to compel Israel to comply. Non-binding resolutions, though symbolic, often fail to translate into actionable change. However, this resolution carries moral weight, with several traditionally pro-Israel nations endorsing it for the first time, signaling a possible shift in their foreign policy approaches.

• The ICJ's Advisory Opinion:
  The resolution draws heavily from an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which declared Israel's occupation illegal under international law. While ICJ rulings are also non-binding, their influence shapes global legal norms and can create momentum for international pressure.

The Unchanging Ground Reality in Palestine On the ground, the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories remains dire. Settlement expansion continues, as do restrictions on movement and access. Palestinians have long endured land confiscations, settler violence, and a separation wall that divides communities and families.

• Israel’s Legal Responsibility:
  The resolution’s call for reparations and the return of property speaks to the broader conversation about Israel's responsibilities under international law. Beyond merely vacating the land, Israel is urged to acknowledge the harm caused and provide restitution. But is this feasible in the current geopolitical climate?

International Community's Role: What Now? The resolution also places responsibility on the international community, urging states to stop any support—direct or indirect—that sustains the occupation. But will countries that have long backed Israel financially and diplomatically reconsider their policies?

• What About Western Support?
  The fact that several Western nations supported the resolution signals a shift in global attitudes. Could this be a step toward rethinking long-held alliances or is it just posturing in the face of increasing criticism of Israeli policies?

What This Means for Palestinian Self-Determination At the heart of this resolution is the question of Palestinian self-determination, a right that has long been obstructed by occupation. The ICJ’s ruling affirmed that Israel's actions directly undermine this right, casting Israel’s claim to the territory as untenable under international law.

• The Return of Refugees:
  One of the most significant points in the resolution is the demand for the right of return for Palestinians displaced since 1967. This issue has long been a sticking point in peace negotiations, with Israel resistant to the idea. Yet, without addressing the displacement of millions of Palestinians, any lasting peace remains elusive.

• The Voting Breakdown: A New Global Shift? The resolution was passed by 124 UN member states, with 14 voting against and 43 abstaining. The voting pattern reflects the complex geopolitical relationships that shape responses to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

  • Against:
    As expected, Israel and its staunchest ally, the United States, voted against the resolution. However, the inclusion of Argentina under President Javier Milei and Paraguay shows a shift in Latin America's diplomatic landscape, aligning closer to Israel than in previous years.

    Noteworthy European Opposition: Hungary and the Czech Republic were the only European nations to oppose the resolution. Both have shown increased alignment with Israeli policies, with Hungary in particular standing out as one of Israel’s most vocal defenders in the European Union.

  • For:
    Major European countries like France, Spain, and Portugal voted in favor, alongside global powers such as China, Russia, and Brazil. These votes indicate growing consensus across different regions, including Africa and Asia, that the status quo is untenable.

  • Abstentions:
    India’s abstention raised eyebrows, given its close relationship with Israel under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. India’s decision to distance itself from both its BRICS partners and its traditional stance in support of Palestine reflects shifting strategic priorities, with increasing defense and trade ties between Israel and India.

  The Debate Over Israel's Right to Defend Itself A key point of contention is the argument frequently advanced by Israel and its allies—that Israel’s occupation is part of its "right to defend itself." This rationale has been repeatedly invoked in the wake of attacks, most notably after Hamas' assault on Israel on October 7.

  • What the Law Says:
    International legal experts, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), challenge this claim. The ICJ’s 2004 advisory opinion on Israel’s separation wall rejected Israel's invocation of self-defense in occupied territories. Critics argue that Israel cannot claim to be defending itself while actively maintaining an occupation and depriving Palestinians of basic rights.

    • A Divisive Issue:
      The concept of self-defense, as it applies to an occupying power, remains deeply controversial. Some nations, particularly the United States, argue that Israel’s actions are justified by security concerns. Yet, many international law scholars assert that a state cannot justify occupation, settlement expansion, and violence against civilians under the guise of self-defense.

  What the Votes Reveal: Geopolitical Implications The growing number of abstentions—43 this time, compared to fewer in previous votes—signals caution, particularly among Israel’s Western allies. Countries like Australia, Canada, and Germany abstained, citing the resolution’s failure to explicitly include Israel’s right to defend itself.

  • A Growing Divide:
    While the abstentions suggest hesitation, the overwhelming majority of nations still back the resolution, indicating that more of the world’s governments are pushing for an end to the occupation. This could create political momentum, although it is unlikely to lead to immediate change.

  Will the Resolution Change Anything on the Ground? Despite its political significance, the resolution is nonbinding and thus cannot force Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Analysts agree that the resolution is unlikely to lead to substantial change in the near future. Palestinians continue to face increasing violence in the West Bank and Gaza, while settlement activity intensifies.

  • A 12-Month Deadline:
    The UNGA's resolution sets a 12-month deadline for Israel to end its occupation, but without enforcement mechanisms, it is largely symbolic. However, the political implications of the deadline could influence future UN debates and actions, perhaps laying the groundwork for more binding international efforts.

  Conclusion: A Symbolic Step, But Far From a Solution While the resolution reflects global frustration and may pave the way for future action, its nonbinding nature and the deep divisions among key global players suggest that little will change in the short term. Palestinians remain trapped in a cycle of violence and occupation, with no clear path to peace in sight.