UN votes overwhelmingly to demand Gaza ceasefire, the release of all hostages and unrestricted aid access
UN member nations voted overwhelmingly on Thursday, June 12, to demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages held by Hamas and unrestricted access for the delivery of desperately needed food to 2 million Palestinians.
The vote in the 193-member General Assembly was 149-12 with 19 abstentions. It was adopted with a burst of applause. The resolution, drafted by Spain, "strongly condemns any use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare."
Speaking before the vote, Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon vehemently opposed the resolution. He denied that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war, calling the accusation "blood libel," and insisted that aid is being delivered. Experts and human rights workers say hunger is widespread in Gaza and some 2 million Palestinians are at risk of famine if Israel does not fully lift its blockade and halt its military campaign, which it renewed in March after ending a ceasefire with Hamas .
At the start of Thursday's meeting, Spain's UN Ambassador Héctor José Gómez Hernández urged members to vote in favor of the resolution in light of "the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza." The Palestinian UN ambassador, Riyad Mansour, also pleaded with UN members to vote in favor. "The actions you take today to stop the killing, displacement and the famine will determine how many more Palestinian children die a horrible death," he said.
Last week, the UN Security Council failed to pass a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and calling on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid. The United States vetoed the resolution because it was not linked to the release of the hostages, while all 14 other members of the council voted in favor. There are no vetoes in the 193-member General Assembly. But unlike in the Security Council, assembly resolutions are not legally binding, though they are seen as a barometer of world opinion.
After a 10-week blockade that barred all aid to Gaza, Israel is allowing the United Nations to deliver a trickle of food assistance and is backing a newly created US aid group, which has opened several sites in the center and South of the territory to deliver food parcels. But the aid system rolled out last month by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has been troubled by near-daily shootings as crowds make their way to aid sites, while the longstanding UN-run system has struggled to deliver food because of Israeli restrictions and a breakdown of law and order.
Like the failed Security Council resolution, the resolution passed on Thursday does not condemn Hamas' deadly attack in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza. Both are US demands. Acting US Ambassador Dorothy Shea told the assembly before the vote that the resolution "sends an unacceptable message to Hamas and other Iran-backed terrorist proxies, and that message is, you will be rewarded for taking hostages, diverting aid and launching attacks from civilian areas."
The resolution references a March 28 legally binding order by the top United Nations court for Israel to open more land crossings into Gaza for food, water, fuel and other supplies. The International Court of Justice issued the order in a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of acts of genocide in its war in Gaza, charges Israel strongly denies. The resolution stresses that Israel, as an occupying power, has an obligation under international law to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those in need.
It reiterates the assembly's commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Gaza Strip as part of a Palestinian state. The assembly is holding a high-level meeting next week to push for a two-state solution, which Israel has rejected. The resolution supports mediation efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States aimed at implementing a January ceasefire agreement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
What is Iran likely to hit back with after Israel's strikes?
Israel's strikes against the Iranian capital of Tehran and targets around the country on sites claimed to be linked to its nuclear programme reportedly killed several top military officials as well as nuclear scientists. Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian warned in a televised address on Friday that a 'strong' response to Israel would be coming, in addition to the 100 drones already launched. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran will give a severe, wise, and strong answer to the occupier regime,' he said, referring to Israel. Euronews Next takes a look at what options Iran could use to strike back against Israel in light of this most recent escalation in their shadow war. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, said this targeted military operation was launched against Iran to keep the country from producing a nuclear weapon. Hours before Israel's attack, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded that Iran was not complying with nonproliferation obligations. According to experts, one of Iran's options in the wake of the strikes could be to continue developing nuclear weapons that Israel sees as an 'existential threat'. 'Israel has opened a Pandora's box: the worst Iranian response might also be the most likely, a decision to withdraw from its arms control commitments and build nuclear weapons in earnest,' according to an analysis from Kenneth Pollack, vice-president for policy at the Middle East Institute in Washington. The outrage at the Israeli attack could mean that Iran can 'no longer sit on the proverbial nuclear fence and that it has to rush for a bomb or risk never having one,' according to an analysis from Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative. 'For many Iranian leaders, an Iran without a nuclear weapon (or the potential to have one) is an existential threat to the survival of the regime itself,' Panikoff continued. A recent IAEA report found that Iran enriched uranium up to 60 per cent, which is a short technical step away from weapons-grade levels (which is often considered by the IAEA to be 90 per cent uranium). The agency said it couldn't verify the country's total uranium supply since 2021 but estimates it would be around 9,247 kg as of May 17, 2025. The amount of enriched uranium to 60 per cent is 408.6 kg the report continued. However, estimates from Washington's Institute for Science and International Safety in 2022 believed that it's 'well with Iran's capabilities' to modify nuclear weapons to get them to work with 60 per cent uranium. Israeli state officials claimed in the Times of Israel on Friday that Iran now has enough uranium for nine nuclear weapons and is taking steps to 'weaponisation' or build a nuclear bomb. According to reporting by The Associated Press, Iranian officials have long insisted that their nuclear proliferation programme is peaceful. A nuclear Iranian response would play out over the long term, Pollack added, with a possible Tehran withdrawal from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and the country's 2015 nuclear agreement. The best strategy, according to Pollack, is an 'aggressive pursuit' of a new nuclear deal with Tehran, but it's unlikely any deal will happen now, 'when Iran's leadership will be least interested in one, given their likely outrage at the Israeli attack'. Without a new deal, Pollack argues Israel has inflicted a short-term setback to Iran's nuclear programme, but to ensure a nuclear threat 'not long thereafter'. American and Iranian negotiators were due to meet in Oman for a sixth round of talks regarding Iran's nuclear programme on Sunday, according to the Associated Press. Any future deal with Iran should also include missile restrictions, according to an analysis by Farzin Nadimi from the Washington Institute for Near-East Policy. There are other options that Iran could take to retaliate against Israel, including a drone or missile offensive, experts added, though the country could be outmatched by Israel's defence system, dubbed the 'Iron Dome'. The US Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in 2024 that Iran possesses the Middle East's 'largest ballistic missile arsenal,' and continues to 'emphasize improving the accuracy, lethality, and reliability of these systems'. A recent threat assessment from the US military found that Iran fields a 'large quantity' of ballistic, cruise missiles and drones that can strike throughout the region. The country's defense industry has a 'robust development and manufacturing capacity,' for low-cost weapons like drones, the report continued. US General Kenneth Mackenzie told a Senate committee hearing in 2022 that the Iranians have over 3,000 ballistic missiles of various types that could reach Tel Aviv. Mackenzie also said the Iranians had made 'remarkable advances' on their ballistic missiles despite 'a very significant sanction regime'. This arsenal includes medium-range systems that could reach Israel, the Arabian Peninsula, or southeastern Europe, Nadimi added. His analysis added that these missiles are believed to boast hypersonic velocities, manoeuvring warheads, decoys, and penetration aids. For example, state media reports claim Iran has used the Fattah-1 hypersonic missile against Israel in the past. It has been described by analysts to CNN as having a warhead with a manoeuverable reentry vehicle, which means it can avoid missile defenses by making small adjustments during its flight. Last month, Iranian media reported that officials debuted a new domestically-produced solid-fuel missile called the Qasem Basir. Aziz Nasirzadeh, Iran's defense minister brigadier general, claimed in local media that the missile had a range of at least 1,200 km and is designed to evade systems like the US-made Patriot system. The missile can also identify specific targets among decoys and is immune to electronic warfare, he added. Iran also has advanced in 'solid-propellant technology' which facilitates quicker rocket launches to dispatch satellites, something that could be adapted to intercontinental missiles, Nadimi added. Israel's most recent attack also targeted ballistic missile and drone installations, making it more complicated for Iran to respond, according to Rachel Whitlark with the Atlantic Council. Pollack said that Iran could also mount a cyber offensive against Israel, because there is a record of it doing so successfully in 2023, when it shut down electricity in some Israeli hospitals. Still, Pollack wrote that there are 'uncertainties' about the cyber capabilities of both Israel and Iran. 'It's not entirely clear what cyber weapons Iran has up its sleeve or what vulnerabilities it may have discovered in Israel's infrastructure,' he said. Meta is making a $14.3 billion (€12.4 billion) investment in artificial intelligence (AI) company Scale and recruiting its CEO Alexandr Wang to join a team developing "superintelligence" at the tech giant. The deal announced Thursday reflects a push by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to revive AI efforts at the parent company of Facebook and Instagram as it faces tough competition from rivals such as Google and OpenAI. Meta announced what it called a "strategic partnership and investment" with Scale late Thursday. Scale said the $14.3 billion investment puts its market value at over $29 billion (€25 billion). Scale said it will remain an independent company, but the agreement will "substantially expand Scale and Meta's commercial relationship". Meta will hold a 49 per cent stake in the start-up. Wang, though leaving for Meta with a small group of other Scale employees, will remain on Scale's board of directors. Replacing him is a new interim Scale CEO Jason Droege, who was previously the company's chief strategy officer and had past executive roles at Uber Eats and Axon. Zuckerberg's increasing focus on the abstract idea of "superintelligence" - which rival companies call artificial general intelligence, or AGI - is the latest pivot for a tech leader who in 2021 went all-in on the idea of the metaverse, changing the company's name and investing billions into advancing virtual reality and related technology. It won't be the first time since ChatGPT's 2022 debut sparked an AI arms race that a big tech company has gobbled up talent and products at innovative AI startups without formally acquiring them. Microsoft hired key staff from startup Inflection AI, including co-founder and CEO Mustafa Suleyman, who now runs Microsoft's AI division. Google pulled in the leaders of AI chatbot company while Amazon made a deal with San Francisco-based Adept that sent its CEO and key employees to the e-commerce giant. Amazon also got a license to Adept's AI systems and datasets. Wang was a 19-year-old student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) when he and co-founder Lucy Guo started Scale in 2016. They won influential backing that summer from the startup incubator Y Combinator, which was led at the time by Sam Altman, now the CEO of OpenAI. Wang dropped out of MIT, following a trajectory similar to that of Zuckerberg, who quit Harvard University to start Facebook more than a decade earlier. Scale's pitch was to supply the human labour needed to improve AI systems, hiring workers to draw boxes around a pedestrian or a dog in a street photo so that self-driving cars could better predict what's in front of them. General Motors and Toyota have been among Scale's customers. What Scale offered to AI developers was a more tailored version of Amazon's Mechanical Turk, which had long been a go-to service for matching freelance workers with temporary online jobs. More recently, the growing commercialisation of AI large language models - the technology behind OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and Meta's Llama - brought a new market for Scale's annotation teams. The company claims to service "every leading large language model," including those from Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft, by helping to fine-tune their training data and test their performance. It's not clear what the Meta deal will mean for Scale's other customers. Wang has also sought to build close relationships with the U.S. government, winning military contracts to supply AI tools to the Pentagon and attending President Donald Trump's inauguration. The head of Trump's science and technology office, Michael Kratsios, was an executive at Scale for the four years between Trump's first and second terms. Meta has also begun providing AI services to the federal government. Meta has taken a different approach to AI than many of its rivals, releasing its flagship Llama system for free as an open weight product that enables people to use and modify some of its key components. Meta says more than a billion people use its AI products each month, but it's also widely seen as lagging behind competitors such as OpenAI and Google in encouraging consumer use of large language models, also known as LLMs. It hasn't yet released its purportedly most advanced model, Llama 4 Behemoth, despite previewing it in April as "one of the smartest LLMs in the world and our most powerful yet". Meta's chief AI scientist Yann LeCun, who in 2019 was a winner of computer science's top prize for his pioneering AI work, has expressed scepticism about the tech industry's current focus on LLMs. "How do we build AI systems that understand the physical world, that have persistent memory, that can reason and can plan?" LeCun asked at a French tech conference last year. These are all characteristics of intelligent behaviour that large language models "basically cannot do, or they can only do them in a very superficial, approximate way," LeCun said. Instead, he emphasised Meta's interest in "tracing a path towards human-level AI systems, or perhaps even superhuman". When he returned to France's annual VivaTech conference again on Wednesday, LeCun dodged a question about the pending Scale deal but said his AI research team's plan has "always been to reach human intelligence and go beyond it". "It's just that now we have a clearer vision for how to accomplish this," he said. LeCun co-founded Meta's AI research division more than a decade ago with Rob Fergus, a fellow professor at New York University. Fergus later left for Google but returned to Meta last month after a 5-year absence to run the research lab, replacing longtime director Joelle Pineau. Fergus wrote on LinkedIn last month that Meta's commitment to long-term AI research "remains unwavering" and described the work as "building human-level experiences that transform the way we interact with technology".
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
Why did Israel attack Iran in the middle of US-Iran nuclear talks?
Once again, the world has woken up to watch the minute hand inch closer to midnight. Early on Friday, more than 200 Israeli fighter jets hurtled across the skies over Iran, hitting targets linked to the nation's burgeoning nuclear programme and killing at least three senior members of the Islamic Republic's military leadership – as well as several nuclear scientists. The attacks, which Israel has said will not stop, reportedly also hit a number of residential apartment blocks in the capital Tehran, killing an unknown number of women and children, state media said. Emergency services have said that 95 people wounded in the strikes have so far been brought to medical centres across the country. The strikes came the morning after news broke that the sixth round of the US-Iran nuclear talks would take place in Oman Sunday, with US President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff set to hold another round of indirect negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. For now, the two sides seem far apart – a US proposal shared with Tehran in May reportedly called for a complete end to the enrichment of nuclear fuel on Iranian soil, even for a civilian energy programme. Tehran has reportedly been drafting its own counter-proposal, which would preserve the Islamic Republic's right to domestically enrich uranium for civilian purposes while also securing a way out from under the crippling economic sanctions levelled by Washington. As rumours spread Thursday of an impending Israeli attack on Iran, Trump told reporters he was counselling restraint. "We are fairly close to a pretty good agreement," he said. "I don't want [Israel] going in, because I think it would blow it." Hours later, Israel's fighter jets were in the air. 'Sabotage' Diba Mirzaei, a doctoral researcher at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA), said that it was no coincidence the attacks had been launched on the eve of the talks. 'I don't think that Israel only wanted to derail the negotiations,' she said. 'I actually think they wanted to sabotage them, to force Iran to maybe abandon them altogether." Seyed Ali Alavi, a lecturer in Middle Eastern studies at SOAS University of London, said that the strikes would doubtless cast a shadow over Sunday's talks – if they still went ahead. "The recent direct attacks on Iran are unprecedented since the Iran-Iraq War. It is very likely to impact the ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran, particularly the Sunday meeting," he said. "However, we have not yet received news or announcements from Tehran regarding the Sunday meeting. This does not imply that the negotiations have been fully terminated – it is likely that they could continue, but under a more intense atmosphere." Mirzaei pointed to reports in Iran's own state media that the initial attacks had badly wounded Ali Shamkhani, one of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's senior advisors and a crucial figure in the ongoing talks. 'During the attacks, one of the main negotiators on the Iranian side, Ali Shamkhani, has been reported either killed or severely injured – so an important person on the Iranian side is now missing or not capable of being part of those negotiations.' As the US woke up to the news of the attacks, Trump struck a decidedly different tone. As US officials denied any involvement in the attack, only saying that Israel had informed the US of its strikes ahead of time, the president took to his personal social media platform Truth Social, where he appeared to portray the attacks as a triumph of hardline negotiating tactics. 'I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal,' he wrote. 'I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done.' 'There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left.' A few hours later, the president posted again, reminding the world of a 60-day deadline he had reportedly given the Islamic Republic at the beginning of the talks. 'Two months ago, I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to 'make a deal',' he wrote. 'They should have done it! Today is day 61. "Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!" Months in the making Mirzaei said that the US's hardline position during the talks cast some doubt on how committed Trump – who pulled the US out of the six-nation nuclear treaty with Iran during his first term in office – was to sealing a deal on Tehran's nuclear programme. 'I'm not really sure how sincere the Trump administration is in those nuclear talks,' she said. 'The US basically wants Iran to not even have the civil use of nuclear energy, which would be very far-reaching. No country has to do that – when you look at the non-proliferation treaty, every country has the right to use nuclear energy for civil purposes. So of course Iran would not agree to such a deal.' Iran's own willingness to restrict its nuclear programme to civilian use was called into question earlier this week when the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the UN's nuclear watchdog – determined that Tehran was not complying with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was the first such censure issued against Iran in almost 20 years, prompting a furious Tehran to announce that it would be setting up a new enrichment site in a 'secure' location. 'The censure by the IAEA is very severe,' Mirzaei said, adding that the litany of non-proliferation breaches listed in the report suggested that Tehran "isn't interested in de-escalating either". Tehran launches about 100 drones towards Israel after Iran's nuclear sites hit 04:04 Israel, the only nation in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, has consistently painted a nuclear Tehran as an existential threat – a refrain once again picked up in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's first speech following the attacks. Mirzaei, who stressed that Israel had fought hard against the first multilateral agreement on Iran's nuclear programme more than 10 years ago, said that the magnitude of Friday's attack spoke to a plan potentially months in the making. '[As a trigger,] the nuclear talks between Iran and the US were more important for Israel than the IAEA censure,' she said. 'Because if you look at an attack of that scale, this is not something that has been planned for a couple of days, but has probably been planned for weeks, for months even … I think the plans were there, and now, because of the meeting that was supposed to take place on Sunday between Iran and the US, they basically saw that the timing was fit to do that.' Now, with Tehran reeling from the unprecedented assault, the question of just how Iran will respond to the strikes in the days to come has taken on an urgent edge. 'I don't think that Iran is interested in a full-scale war, but I don't think that it can actually prevent a full breaking out if those attacks continue,' Mirzaei said. 'But instead of just looking at the military options that Iran has, you can also look at the political options. And I do believe that Iran could in the near future actually withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, for example – it could abandon its cooperation with the IAEA, it could actually just cancel all of the negotiations with the US. And all those options on the political front are also very worrisome.'
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
Israel attack on Iran tests Trump promise not to be dragged into war
Yet Israel's massive strikes on Iran will test that promise as never before, potentially setting up a showdown with his base as Trump decides how much support the United States will offer. Trump had publicly called for Israel not to strike as he sought a negotiated solution, and his roving envoy Steve Witkoff had been scheduled to meet Iranian officials for the sixth time Sunday. Trump, who hours earlier warned that a strike would cause "massive conflict," afterward praised Israeli strikes as "excellent" and boasted that Israel had "the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the world" thanks to the United States -- and was planning more strikes unless Iran agrees on a deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, has insisted that the United States was not involved in the strikes and warned Iran not to retaliate against the thousands of US troops stationed in nearby Arab countries. "The US has calculated that it can help Israel and that the Iranians will obviously be aware of this, but at the end of the day, at least at the public level, the US stays out," said Alex Vatanka, founding director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute in Washington. The hope is that "the Iranians will do a quick cost/benefit analysis and decide it is not worth the fight," Vatanka said. He said Iranian leaders are for now focused on staying alive, but could decide either to swallow a tough deal -- or to internationalize the conflict further by causing chaos in the oil-rich Gulf, potentially sending oil prices soaring and pressuring Trump. 'America First' impulse Most key lawmakers of Trump's Republican Party quickly rallied behind Israel, whose prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a hero for many on the US right. But Trump's populist "America First" base has been skeptical. Tucker Carlson, the prominent media commentator who counseled Trump against a US strike on Iran in the first term, has called fears of Tehran building a nuclear bomb overblown, saying neither Iran nor Ukraine warrants US military resources. Trump has brought outspoken non-interventionists into his administration. In an unusually political video this week, Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, warned after a visit to Hiroshima that "warmongers" were putting the world at risk of nuclear catastrophe. In a speech in Riyadh last month, Trump denounced decades of US interventionism in the Middle East and said, "My greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and to be a unifier. I don't like war." How far to back Israel? Daniel Shapiro, who served as US ambassador to Israel under former president Barack Obama, said he was certain the United States would support Israel in defense against Iranian retaliation. But Trump will face a harder decision on "whether to use the United States' unique capabilities to destroy Tehran's underground nuclear facilities and prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon," said Shapiro, now at the Atlantic Council. "The decision will split his advisers and political base, amid accusations, and perhaps his own misgivings, that Netanyahu is attempting to drag him into war." Lawmakers of the rival Democratic Party widely revile Netanyahu, including over Israel's bloody offensive in Gaza. "This attack by Netanyahu is pure sabotage," said Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro. "What does 'America First' even mean if Trump allows Netanyahu to drag the country into a war Americans don't want?" he wrote on social media. Netanyahu has long insisted that Iran's ruling clerics -- who support Hamas in Gaza -- pose an existential threat to Israel. The strikes came after Iran defiantly said it would ramp up output of highly enriched uranium, playing hardball ahead of US talks. Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the progressive Center for International Policy, said that China -- identified by Trump as the top threat -- could seize the moment, perhaps by moving on Taiwan, as it sees the United States as even more distracted. "Even without direct involvement, Washington now faces the prospect of indefinite resupply, intelligence and diplomatic backing for Israel, just as the war in Ukraine intensifies and global crises multiply," Toossi said. "Wars are easy to ignite, but once unleashed, they tend to spiral beyond control, and rarely end on the terms of those who start them."
