UN adopts resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire, aid access and release of hostages
The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on Thursday calling for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, days after the US vetoed a similar measure in the Security Council.
A total of 149 countries voted in favour while 12, including the US, Israel and Argentina, opposed the resolution. And 19 countries abstained.
The resolution, presented by Spain, demands the release of all hostages held by Hamas, the return of Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel, and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
It underscored the need for accountability to ensure Israel's adherence to international law but stopped short of explicitly calling for sanctions.
In addition, it 'strongly condemned any use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and the unlawful denial of humanitarian access', and further stressed the obligation to avoid depriving Gaza's civilians of basic survival needs, 'including by wilfully impeding relief supplies and access'.
Before the resolution's passage, Palestinian ambassador Riyad Mansour declared the measure's language to be the 'strongest to date' but stressed that words must now turn into decisive action.
'Israel's continuing defiance of international law, UN resolutions and global condemnation demands an immediate response,' Mr Mansour said.
He urged member states to stamp their national authority: 'Use the tools available to you, each and every one of you.
'No arms, no money, no trade to support the oppression, ethnic cleansing and land theft against Palestinians."
While General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, they serve as a significant indicator of global opinion. Previous UN calls to end the war between Israel and Hamas have gone unheeded.
Unlike the Security Council, where permanent members such as the US have the power of veto, the General Assembly operates on a majority vote.
There has been increasing international pressure over the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where thousands have been killed and millions face severe shortages of food, water and medical supplies.
With the vote taking place days before an international conference at the UN aimed at reviving two-state negotiations, the text also reiterated the General Assembly's 'unwavering commitment to the two-state solution … where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace and security".
The vote comes more than 77 years after the General Assembly's 1947 resolution partitioned British-ruled Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. Israel declared independence in 1948, sparking a war with neighbouring Arab nations, while Palestinian statehood remains unrealised.
The US is now urging countries to boycott next week's UN conference, co-sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia.
When asked by The National about Israel's attendance in next week's summit, Israel's UN envoy Danny Danon said 'absolutely not".
"We will not take part in this conference," he said. 'I was very happy to see that the United States decided also not to participate in this circus."
Mr Danon also took aim at French President Emmanuel Macron.
'When Mr Macron arrives at the UN, I will ask him if he has solved all the problems in France and Europe. If he thinks coming here and pushing this conference will actually be constructive, it's not constructive.'
He also criticised the resolution for not demanding the immediate release of the 55 hostages still being held, not condemning Hamas 'for the atrocities' it committed on October 7, and not holding the militant group accountable.
In October 2023, the General Assembly called for an immediate humanitarian truce in Gaza, with 120 votes in favour. By December 2023, support grew significantly, as 153 countries voted to demand an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.
Later that month the assembly increased its call, adopting a resolution, with 158 votes in favour, demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
15 minutes ago
- The National
Fate of Iran nuclear talks in doubt as Israel continues to attack
The US hopes that talks with Tehran about its nuclear programme will continue, despite Israel's attacks on Iran that have called into question the merit of negotiations. Following Friday's strikes, Iran said it was withdrawing from the sixth round of nuclear negotiations that were due to take place in Oman on Sunday with US Special Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff. The talks were supposed to forestall military action against Iran by forcing it to give up all uranium enrichment capabilities and abandon its drive to obtain a nuclear weapon. For weeks, US President Donald Trump sounded optimistic that a deal could be reached, while also threatening dire consequences for Iran if it didn't make an agreement. Ultimately, Israel rendered the thrust of those talks moot by launching a 'pre-emptive' strike against Iran's military leaders and its nuclear sites. Despite those actions, Mr Trump insisted Iran possibly has a 'second chance' to come to the negotiating table. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian empire. No more death, no more destruction, just do it, before it is too late,' he wrote in another post on Truth Social. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran will make Israel regret its attacks. 'The Iranian nation and the country's officials will not remain silent in the face of this crime, and the legitimate and powerful response of the Islamic Republic of Iran will make the enemy regret its foolish act,' Mr Pezeshkian said in a video statement aired on state TV. Mr Trump later told Reuters that the US still has nuclear talks planned with Iran on Sunday but that he is not sure if they will take place. 'I tried to save Iran humiliation and death,' Mr Trump said, adding he is not concerned about a regional war breaking out as a result of Israel's strikes. A US official told The National that Washington is planning for talks to continue. 'We still intend to have talks,' the official said, without specifying when these might occur. When asked by NBC News why he thinks Iran would still want to hold talks, Mr Trump said Iranian representatives were calling him to suggest they still wanted a deal. 'The same people we worked with the last time … Many of them are dead now,' he told the network. Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said Iran might continue talks, provided the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is willing to do so. 'He has to make a decision' about how much he wants to respond, Mr Vatanka said. 'If he wants to step down, the obvious thing to do is to go back to the negotiations, to look for a way to either give up enrichment, temporarily or for good, or find a compromise somewhere between,' Mr Vatanka said. 'If you can avoid humiliating Ali Khamenei, if you think you … he's going to stay in power, then don't humiliate him. Find a way for him to find it easy to come back and negotiate'.
The National
15 minutes ago
- The National
Airspace over Iran, Iraq and Jordan remains closed after Israel attack
Airspace over Iran, Iraq and Jordan remains closed after Israel launched a wave of strikes across Iran on Friday morning, killing senior military officials and targeting key nuclear sites. The restrictions have led to widespread travel disruption after airlines across the region cancelled and delayed flights. Iran announced the closure of its airspace until further notice and President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country would make Israel regret its attacks. 'The Iranian nation and the country's officials will not remain silent in the face of this crime, and the legitimate and powerful response of the Islamic Republic of Iran will make the enemy regret its foolish act,' Mr Pezeshkian said in a video statement aired on state TV. Jordan's civil aviation authority said on Friday evening that the airspace shutdown remained in place as the 'risk level has not changed'. The authority is 'evaluating the dangers to civil aviation', its chairman, Capt Haitham Misto, told the Jordan News Agency (Petra). The Iraqi Ministry of Transport announced on Friday that the 'complete suspension of air traffic at all Iraqi airports and the closure of Iraqi airspace' would continue until further notice. Syria also announced a closure of its airspace, which was due to lift at 3pm local time. Its civil aviation authority said this decision would reviewed based on safety requirements. Passenger flights grounded Etihad Airways, the UAE's national carrier, cancelled its services to and from Tel Aviv on Friday, as Israel shut Ben Gurion Airport and placed its air defence systems on high alert in anticipation of retaliation. Other major airlines, including Emirates, Lufthansa and Air India, rerouted services mid-flight on Friday. An Emirates flight from Manchester was diverted to Istanbul, while an Air India flight from New York to Delhi was diverted to Sharjah. In a statement to The National, Emirates said it had cancelled and rerouted some flights. The airline said it is 'monitoring the situation and making all efforts to ensure minimal disruption to customers, while assisting impacted passengers'.
Middle East Eye
37 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
Israel's attacks on Iran amount to crime of aggression, legal scholars say
Israel's attacks across Iran on Friday, which targeted "dozens" of sites including nuclear facilities, military commanders and scientists, are manifestly illegal, leading scholars of international law have said. Accusing the government in Tehran of beginning to build nuclear warheads, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attack was aimed at "rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival", adding that it would take "many days". "We struck at the heart of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme," Netanyahu said in a recorded televised address. "We targeted Iran's main enrichment facility in Natanz. We targeted Iran's leading nuclear scientists working on the Iranian bomb. We also struck at the heart of Iran's ballistic missile programme." Netanyahu's decision is premised on "preventive self-defence" arguments, which justify the use of force against another state to prevent an anticipated future attack. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters However, such an argument is inconsistent with the rules governing the use of force under international law, including the limited justifications for the use of force established by the United Nations Charter and the prohibition of the crime of aggression. The use of force is only lawful if it seeks to repel an imminent attack or one that is underway, experts have explained. International law scholar Marko Milanovic said that the stated goals of Israel this time are about preventing a future nuclear attack by Iran. It is not a response to an attack that has started, or one that is imminent. Iran has yet to obtain any nuclear weapons. Therefore, there was no threat of an imminent attack justifying preemptive self-defence. 'It cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack' - Marko Milanovic, legal scholar There are three positions with respect to the right to self-defence under international law, explained Milanovic in an article for Ejil Talk. The first is that states can use preventive self-defence to deflect future anticipated threats, in particular those perceived to be existential. The second is that states can use force with the aim of preempting future attacks that are imminent, and the third is that states can only resort to the use of force when attacks have already occurred. According to Milanovic, the use of force to prevent a future attack, as used by Israel in its Friday operation, is considered 'legally untenable' by the majority of international lawyers. "Israel's use of force against Iran is, on the facts as we know them, almost certainly illegal," he wrote. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". 'No self-defence at all' The only justification for the use of force is outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is to respond to an attack that is underway. "Unless Israel is able to provide substantially more compelling evidence than is currently publicly available, it cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack," said Milanovic. "Israel is therefore using force against Iran unlawfully, in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter. It is committing aggression." The crime of aggression is one of the four core international crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It refers to the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression, or use of force in violation of the UN Charter, by a person in a leadership position, such as a head of state or senior military commander. Other scholars on Friday also accused Israel of committing the crime of aggression. Professor Kevin Jon Heller of the University of Copenhagen said: "Few acts are more unequivocally illegal than preventive (non-imminent) self-defence. So Israel's attack is both unlawful and criminal - the crime of aggression." "Israel's attack on Iran is not simply a violation of the UN Charter. It is a manifest violation of it," he wrote on X. Sergey Vasiliev of the Open University of the Netherlands also qualified the attack as falling under the crime of aggression. "This operation is an unlawful use of force," he wrote. "Iran presented no imminent threat to Israel that would justify such an attack. This is an act of aggression." Netanyahu's justification for Friday's attack is similar to arguments made by Russia to justify its invasion of Ukraine, said Milanovic, or those used by the US to justify the use of force against Iraq. "The problem with this approach is that it is so boundless that it completely eviscerates the prohibition on the use of force - a state could act whenever it perceives an existential threat," argued Milanovic. "In short, this 'preventive' form of self-defence is simply not self-defence at all." According to Jon Heller, while the US has taken the same position as Israel only occasionally, "Israel is the only state that has unequivocally endorsed the right of preventive self-defence."
