UN General Assembly Adopts Gaza Ceasefire Resolution By Overwhelming Majority
The move followed the Security Council's failure to pass a similar resolution last week due to a lone veto by permanent member the United States.
The resolution was backed by 149 Member States, with 12 voting against and 19 abstaining. Among those opposing the resolution were the United States and Israel, who were joined among others by Argentina, Hungary and Paraguay.
India, Georgia, Ecuador, Romania and Ethiopia were among the countries abstaining.
End starvation as weapon of war
Brought forward by over 20 countries, it strongly condemns the use of starvation as a weapon of war, demands a full lifting of the Israeli blockade on humanitarian aid, and insists on the protection of civilians under international law.
Although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, they carry significant political and moral weight.
On 4 June, the Security Council failed to adopt its draft resolution after a veto by the United States, a permanent member.
Meanwhile, famine conditions continue to threaten lives across Gaza, and reports persist of civilians being killed or injured while trying to access food at distribution points operated independently of the UN but supported by Israel and the US.
Assembly steps into as Security Council stalls
Opening the special session, General Assembly President Philémon Yang said that 'the horrors in Gaza must end' after 20 months of war. He criticised the Security Council's ongoing paralysis and inability to fulfil its core responsibility to uphold peace and security.
He called the situation on the ground 'unacceptable', highlighting the deprivation of food, water and medicine for civilians, the continued captivity of hostages, and the need for urgent international action.
Mr. Yang noted that next week's high-level meeting in New York on implementing a two-State solution, chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, saying it would offer a chance for renewed commitment towards peace in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Key elements of the resolution:
Ceasefire: Calls for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire by all parties.
Hostages: Demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other armed groups.
Implementation: Urges the full and immediate implementation of Security Council resolution 2735 (2024), including the ceasefire, hostage and prisoner exchanges, return of displaced persons, and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.
International law: Reaffirms that all parties must uphold international humanitarian and human rights law, with particular attention to civilian protection and accountability for violations.
Starvation as a weapon: Strongly condemns the use of starvation and the denial of aid as tactics of war.
Humanitarian access: Demands the full, safe and unimpeded delivery of aid – including food, medicine, water, shelter and fuel – throughout Gaza.
Detention practices: Calls for the humane treatment and release of those arbitrarily detained, and the return of remains.
ICJ advisory opinion: Recalls the request for an urgent advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on Israel's obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
End of blockade: Demands Israel immediately lift the blockade on Gaza and open all border crossings for aid deliveries.
Accountability: Urges Member States to take necessary steps to ensure Israel complies with its international legal obligations.
UN and humanitarian personnel: Calls for full respect for the work and immunity of UN staff and humanitarian workers.
Protection of aid workers: Urges both humanitarian and UN bodies to ensure the safety of their personnel.
Medical neutrality: Underscores the duty to protect medical workers, health facilities, and transport routes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
The West's War On Iran
Opinion – Eugene Doyle What we are witnessing is the racist, genocidal Israeli regime, armed and encouraged by the US, Germany, UK and other Western regimes, launching a war that has no justification other than the expansion of Israeli power and the advancement of its Greater Israel … I have visited Iran twice. Once in June 1980 to witness an unprecedented event: the world's first Islamic Revolution. It was the very start of my writing career. The second time was in 2018 and part of my interest was to get a sense of how disenchanted the population was – or was not – with life under the Ayatollahs decades after the creation of the Islamic Republic. I loved my time in Iran and found ordinary Iranians to be such wonderful, cultured and kind people. When I heard the news today of Israel's attack on Iran I had the kind of emotional response that should never be seen in public. I was apoplectic with rage and disgust, I vented bitterly and emotively. Then I calmed down. And here is what I would like to say. Just last week former CIA officer Ray McGovern, who wrote daily intelligence briefings for the US President during his 27-year career, reminded me when I interviewed him that the assessment of the US intelligence community has been for years that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 and had not recommenced since. The departing CIA director William Burns confirmed this assessment recently. Propaganda aside, there is nothing new other than a US-Israeli campaign that has shredded any concept of international laws or norms. I won't mince words: what we are witnessing is the racist, genocidal Israeli regime, armed and encouraged by the US, Germany, UK and other Western regimes, launching a war that has no justification other than the expansion of Israeli power and the advancement of its Greater Israel project. This year, using American, German and British armaments, supported by underlings like Australia and New Zealand, the Israelis have pursued their genocide against the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza, and attacked various neighbours, including Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Iran. They represent a clear and present danger to peace and stability in the region. Iran has operated with considerable restraint but has also shown its willingness to use its military to keep the US-Israeli menace at bay. What most people forget is that the project to secure Iran's borders and keep the likes of the British, Israelis and Americans out is a multi-generational project that long predates the Islamic Revolution. I would recommend 'Iran: A modern history' by the US-based scholar Abbas Amanat that provides a long-view of the evolution of the Iranian state and how it has survived centuries of pressure and multiple occupations from imperial powers, including Russia, Britain, the US and others. The country was raped by the Brits and the Americans and has won a hard-fought independence that is being seriously challenged, not from within, but by the Israelis and the Western warlords who have wrecked so many countries and killed millions of men, women and children in the region over recent decades. I spoke and messaged with Iranian friends today both in Iran and in New Zealand and the response was consistent. They felt, one of them said, 10 times more hurt and emotional than I did. Understandable. A New Zealand-based Iranian friend had to leave work as soon as he heard the news. He scanned Iranian social media and found people were upset, angry and overwhelmingly supportive of the government. 'They destroyed entire apartment buildings! Why?', 'People will be very supportive of the regime now because they have attacked civilians.' 'My parents are in the capital. I was so scared for them.' Just a couple of years ago scholars like Professor Amanat estimated that core support for the regime was probably only around 20%. That was my impression too when I visited in 2018. Israel and the US have changed that. Nationalism and an existential menace will see Iranians rally around the flag. Something I learnt in Iran, in between visiting the magnificent ruins of the capital of the Achaemenid Empire at Persepolis, exploring a Zoroastrian Tower of Silence, chowing down on insanely good food in Yazd, talking with a scholar and then a dissident in Isfahan, and exploring an ancient Sassanian fort and a caravanserai in the eastern desert, was that the Iranians are the most politically astute people in the region. Many I spoke to were quite open about their disdain for the regime but none of them sought a counter-revolution. They knew what that would bring: the wolves (the Americans, the Israelis, the Saudis, and other bad actors) would slip in and tear the country apart. Slow change is the smarter option when you live in this neighbourhood. Iranians are overwhelmingly well-educated, profoundly courteous and kind, and have a deep sense of history. They know more than enough about what happened to them and to so many other countries once a great power sees an opening. War is a truly horrific thing that always brings terrible suffering to ordinary people. It is very rarely justified. Iran was actively negotiating with the Americans who, we now know, were briefed on the attack in advance and will possibly join the attack in the near future. US senators are baying for Judeo-Christian jihad. Democrat senator John Fetterman was typical: 'Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel. We must provide whatever is necessary—military, intelligence, weaponry—to fully back Israel in striking Iran.' We should have the moral and intellectual honesty to see the truth: Our team, Team Genocide, are the enemies of peace and justice. I wish the Iranian people peace and prosperity. Eugene Doyle
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
NZ Has A Vast Sea Territory But Lags Behind Other Nations In Protecting The Ocean
Article – The Conversation Two international ocean science and policy meetings this month have called on nations to be more ambitious in their efforts to protect and restore marine ecosystems. For the past fortnight, the city of Nice in France has been the global epicentre of ocean science and politics. Last week's One Ocean Science Congress ended with a unanimous call for action to turn around the degradation of the ocean. And this week, the United Nation's Ocean Conference agenda focused on better protection of marine biodiversity, sustainable fisheries and emissions cuts. The message is clear. With only five years to the UN's 2030 target for its sustainable development goal – to conserve the oceans, seas and marine resources – and the Global Biodiversity Framework requirement to protect 30% of the ocean, we need to make significant progress. We all attended last week's meeting, together with more than 2,000 marine scientists from 120 countries. Here, we reflect on New Zealand's role and obligations to contribute to these global goals. Legal imperatives Globally, the ocean is warming and acidifying at accelerating rates. New Zealand's waters are not immune to this, with more marine heatwaves which further stress our threatened marine biodiversity. We depend directly on these ocean ecosystems to provide the air we breathe, moderate the impacts of climate change and feed millions of people. New Zealand has significant influence on ocean policy – from Antarctica to the sub-tropical Pacific, and within its sea territory, which is 15 times the size of its landmass and spans 30 degrees of latitude. The government is required by law to take action to secure a healthy ocean. A recent advisory opinion from the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea unanimously found that states, including New Zealand, have obligations under international law to reduce the impacts of climate change on marine areas, to apply an ecosystem approach to marine law and policy, reduce pollution and support the restoration of the ocean. New Zealand courts have recognised the need to take a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to marine management, based on science, tikanga and mātauranga Māori. These legal cases are part of a global upswell of strategic environmental and climate litigation. If New Zealand does not comply with these marine legal obligations, it may well find itself before the courts, incurring significant legal and reputational costs. International agreements In 2022, New Zealand was one of 196 countries that committed to protecting at least 30% of the world's coastal and marine areas by 2030 under the Global Biodiversity Framework. New Zealand was an enthusiastic supporter, but only 0.4% of its marine territory is fully protected in no-take marine reserves. Former prime minister Helen Clark has criticised the current government for lagging behind on marine protection, especially in failing to ban bottom trawling. At this week's UN ocean summit, a further 18 countries have ratified an agreement known as the High Seas Treaty, bringing the total to 50, still short of the 60 nations needed for it to enter into force. New Zealand signed this treaty just before the last general election, but is yet to ratify it. Foreign Minister Winston Peters represented New Zealand at the UN ocean conference, but focused mainly on issues in the Pacific. Meanwhile, the government announced sweeping changes to the national direction on environmental policy, including reworking the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement to better enable the use and development of the coastal environment for 'priority activities' such as aquaculture, resource extraction, infrastructure and energy. Oceanic environmental change is real and accelerating Some countries showed that effective leadership can help navigate to a safe future for the oceans. For example, China's commitment to clean energy has seen carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall for the first time despite higher power consumption. At the UN ocean summit, French Polynesia's president announced his administration would establish one of the world's largest networks of marine protected areas. The cost of inaction far outweighs the economics of the status quo. Ongoing ocean warming is already affecting weather patterns, with more extreme storms. It is possible for marine ecosystems to recover quite rapidly if they are protected, at least temporarily. Yet this year, New Zealand's government found itself in hot water (once again) with both conservationists and Māori for its management of fisheries. We argue New Zealand has an opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate it can shift the downward spiral of oceanic degradation. The overwhelming message at the half-way point of the UN Ocean Decade is that for marine science to transform the state of our oceans it needs to include Indigenous peoples who have routinely been sidelined from ocean policy discussions despite their longstanding rights and relationships with the ocean. New Zealand already has a foundation of transdisciplinary and Indigenous ocean research to develop ocean policies that are fit for local purposes and to answer global calls to action. We have a unique window of opportunity to lead the changes needed. Conrad Pilditch, Professor of Marine Sciences, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Elizabeth Macpherson, Professor of Law and Rutherford Discovery Fellow, University of Canterbury; Joanne Ellis, Associate Professor of Marine Science, University of Waikato; Karen Fisher, Professor in Human Geography, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Karin Bryan, Professor of Coastal Oceanography, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Rachael Mortiaux, PhD Candidate in Law, University of Canterbury, and Simon Francis Thrush, Director of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Disclosure statement Conrad Pilditch currently receives funding from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. Elizabeth Macpherson receives funding from Te Apārangi The Royal Society. Karin Bryan receives funding from the Marsden Fund, the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, the George Mason Centre for the Natural Environment and Waikato Regional Council. Simon Francis Thrush receives funding from ERC, Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Auckland Foundation Joanne Ellis, Karen Fisher, and Rachael Mortiaux do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Palau's President Says New Index Should Be Used To Classify Economic Position
'We face profound socioeconomic vulnerability and we cannot let GDP alone determine our eligibility for support.' Christina Persico Palau's president says the country is sometimes classified as a high-income nation based on its gross domestic product (GDP) – something he called a 'pressing injustice'. Surangel Whipps Jr delivered an address at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Geneva, Switzerland, last week. Whipps said this classification ignored a 'deeper truth'. 'Many of our people live in income poverty,' he said. And climate disasters pushed them deeper into that, Whipps said. 'We face profound socioeconomic vulnerability and we cannot let GDP alone determine our eligibility for support.' He said the UN's multidimensional vulnerability index (MVI) should be used to 'ensure a more just and accurate measure of our economic reality'. The United Nations is working with small island developing states (SIDS) on the development and implementation of an MVI. The UN said most SIDS are not the poorest nations, but their costs are so much greater – and accessing financing is more difficult. 'A multidimensional vulnerability index has the potential to ensure truly inclusive sustainable development,' it said. 'These small island nations have repeatedly said that traditional measures of development insufficiently capture their vulnerabilities. 'When it comes to financing, debt relief and aid, the use of unsuitable, outdated, simplistic [gross national income] measurements unfairly lock out SIDS from accessing the help they need.' Whipps also spoke on climate impacts in his nation, and said the dialogue's theme – 'Everyday counts – act for resilience today' – 'resonates deeply with us in Palau'.
