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.

Archive link

  • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • crashfrog@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      But they can’t, though, because they aren’t self-determining - sovereign - and never have been. There’s no legal Palestinian claim to the State of Israel.

      • spirinolas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is such a tone-deaf and lazy argument. You could use this same argument to defend every colonial power in history.

        • crashfrog@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          They have a right to form their own political entity.

          They did. It’s called Jordan.

                • crashfrog@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The source is well-known history. Open any book on the topic: British Mandate wasn’t just given to the Jews. The State of Israel was created for the Jews, and the Kingdom of Transjordan (now Jordan) was created for the Arabs. When they say “river to the sea” what river did you think they meant?

                  Jordan is the nation that Palestinians already have. They don’t want another one; they want the Jews to not have one at all.

                  • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    People frame it so innocently as “uwu the smol bean Jews just want a state” to be obfuscatory of the fact that it is an ethnostate, a thing that categorically shouldn’t exist. Not only that, it’s an expansionist and evidently exterminationist one at that.

                  • irreticent@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Everything I’ve read contradicts everything you’ve claimed. Good luck with your propaganda campaign.