The vast majority of the world voted at the UN General Assembly to demand an end to Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory within 12 months, with 124 countries (64%) in favor, 14 (7%) against, and 43 (22%) abstentions.
The General Assembly resolution was based on a July ruling by the top UN legal authority, the International Court of Justice, which stated that “Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful” and that “Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible”.
The countries that voted against the resolution, in effect supporting Israel’s illegal occupation, were the United States, Israel, Argentina, Czechia, Hungary, Malawi, Papa New Guinea, and Paraguay, plus the tiny Pacific island nations of Fiji, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Tonga, and Tuvalu.
These small island countries that consistently echo Washington’s unpopular votes in the UN are essentially unofficial US colonies, and mostly use the US dollar or Australian dollar as their currencies. Together, the six have a combined population of just over 1 million people, making them some of the smallest nations on Earth.
Among the large countries that abstained were India, Australia, Canada, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ethiopia.
However, in a break with Washington, a few longtime US allies voted in support of the resolution, most notably Japan, as well as France, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain.
Several countries did not vote in the September 18 General Assembly session. These include a few nations that would without a doubt have supported the resolution, such as Venezuela, which lost its voting rights because it cannot pay UN membership fees due to illegal Western sanctions. The US and its European allies have stolen billions of dollars of Venezuelan foreign assets and reserves, and Washington has blocked Venezuela from using the US-controlled financial system.
The resolution was not controversial; it simply called for the implementation of a decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s top legal body.
On July 19, the ICJ issued a historic ruling stating:
– the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful;
– the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible;
– the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
– the State of Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
– all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Since war broke out in Gaza in October 2023, Washington has repeatedly vetoed Security Council resolutions that call for peace and a ceasefire.
US President Joe Biden has strongly supported Israel as it has brutally bombed civilians in Gaza, in what UN experts say is a campaign of genocide.
In a press conference in Tel Aviv in October, Biden asserted that “if Israel didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it”, given how strategic the colonial state is for US imperial interests.
-
If Israel is legally justly etc the holder of Judaea and Samaria, can you please clarify which scenario you are pushing for: a) giving full Israeli citizenship and rights to the Arabs who have lived in these lands for generations thus ending the Jewish ethno state, b) expulsing them from the lands, thus explicitly advocating for the crime of ethnic cleansing, or c) formally establishing in law an apartheid regime with a permanent underclass? Please clarify.
-
If Israel is the homeland of any Jewish-American rando from New York, with ancestry in Buttfuckburg East Prussia, whose family hasn’t set foot in the territory for 2000 years, then when do I as a Greek person get to assert my rights in beachfront property in Marseille and in Syracuse? Apollo promised it to me, we have a Delphic oracles and everything. Also, i have a Russian friend who says Kiyv was originally the homeland if the Rus people and therefore his country should get full rights to that land. Does he also get the privilege?
-
By your own reasoning, regarding the Arabs in the lands of greater Israel, I would like to bring up jewish people living in any other country that is not officially Jewish, where “even when they were there, they did not rule it”. Can you please clarify exactly what kind of antisemitic policies you are willing to endorse and accept? Should for example British Jews enjoy full rights in the UK? Do British Jews get to consider the UK their country, their home? Do they ever get to be full and equal UK citizens, whose allegiance, rights etc are not to be questioned by any special policy, institution or individual? Or should Jews outside Israel be subject to the kind of treatment Israel reserves for Arabs in Samaria and Judaea that you say it completely super-duper legally holds?
(To be clear, I don’t endorse any of this insanity. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of your extremist argumentation.)
You didn’t really answer any of my questions.
I also clarified my point 3 in an edit that I was talking about the treatment of Arabs in Samaria and Judaea. Sorry about the confusion.
Edit, esp. for the first question, you’re blathering about Gaza, when I specifically asked about the occupied territories, which you said Israel holds super duper legally. Focus please.
Israel is the legal successor state to the British Mandate for Palestine as it was the only state established within its borders. That gives Israel a legal claim under international law to the whole territory.
Palestinians have a claim to the land because the population has lived in the land for a long time and can establish a state under the right to self determination.
These are competing claims.
They don’t need to have been sovereign before to be able to exercise self-determination.
Palestinians don’t have a claim to the State of Israel. They have a right to form their own political entity.
This is such a tone-deaf and lazy argument. You could use this same argument to defend every colonial power in history.
