The United Nations on Wednesday passed a Palestinian-drafted resolution demanding Israel withdraw from the ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory’ within 12 months, with Israel’s new ambassador calling the measure ‘shameful.’
‘This is a shameful decision that backs the Palestinian Authority’s diplomatic terrorism,’ Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon said after the vote.
‘Instead of marking the anniversary of the Oct. 7 massacre by condemning Hamas and calling for the release of all 101 of the remaining hostages, the General Assembly continues to dance to the music of the Palestinian Authority, which backs the Hamas murderers,’ Danon added.
The draft proposal received support from 124 countries, with 43 abstaining from voting and 14 others voting against it. The U.S. voted against the resolution and was joined by Argentina, Czech Republic, Fiji, Hungary, Israel, Malawi, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tonga and Tuvalu.
The resolution has no legally binding effect, but the General Assembly has also called on members to ‘take steps towards ceasing the importation of any products originating in the Israeli settlements, as well as the provision or transfer of arms, munitions and related equipment to Israel… where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.’
This is the first resolution proposed by the Palestinians after gaining additional powers as a member following a vote in May, including granting them the ability to propose resolutions.
The Palestinian territories pushed for the resolution on the back of a July advisory opinion by the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ) that determined Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and settlements is illegal and should be withdrawn.
Andrew Tucker, the director general of The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation, told Fox News Digital ahead of the resolution vote that the proposal would essentially seek to implement the ICJ advisory opinion with a hard timeline, whereas the ICJ merely said it should be done ‘immediately.’
‘The court came out with an opinion in July,’ Tucker explained. ‘It’s an opinion: It’s not a ruling, it’s not a criminal case. They’re not deciding a dispute. It’s a legal opinion that the court is being asked to give by the General Assembly.’
‘But it goes to the heart of the Israel-Palestinian conflict,’ Tucker said. ‘In essence, the court is being asked to give its opinion on really the key issues that have been disputes between Israel and the Palestinians for decades, and the General Assembly is now implementing that opinion.’
‘The court [is] saying: [It] doesn’t matter what Israel’s security concerns are, doesn’t matter [that] there’s a war going on in Gaza,’ Tucker continued. ‘It doesn’t matter that Hezbollah is threatening to attack from the north. All of these things are irrelevant.’
‘The Palestinians have a kind of absolute right to self-determination, and that means that Israel’s presence in the territories has become illegal,’ he added. ‘Now, legally… there’s a lot to be said about this. For example… never before has the right to self-determination been given this level of priority.’
Tucker argued that the implications of such a decision could lead to ‘greater conflict’ because Israel’s expedited exit could leave open the chance for Iran to dig into the West Bank the same way it did with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
‘If Israel withdraws from these territories… It’s only 10 kilometers from there at the smallest [point] between the West Bank and Tel Aviv,’ Tucker said.
‘So whoever gets control of these territories, if it’s hostile toward Israel, which is unfortunately the case, we’re facing a highly, highly volatile security situation,’ he added.
Reuters contributed to this report.
