UN general assembly vote could mark a turning point for international law in Palestine

The United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution on Wednesday demanding that Israel end its “unlawful presence” in the occupied West Bank and Gaza within a year. More than that, the resolution called for sanctioning Israel, forbidding any member state from doing business with, promoting the legitimacy of, or in any way helping to sustain Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza. 

As is always the case with General Assembly resolutions, the resolution is unenforceable and does not have the full weight of international law. But it still matters, which explains why Israel, despite the ongoing and full support of the United States, is concerned about it.

In light of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated vows that there will be no end to Israel’s occupation and the Knesset having voted earlier this year to refuse to allow a Palestinian state to come about, this resolution is a global statement insisting that Israel comply with its legal obligations. 

While there’s no way to compel compliance with the order to end the occupation, the resolution is one more log in the growing fire of anger toward Israel.

There is also no way to force member states to obey the call to stop normalizing, engaging with, and doing business with any entity that supports the ongoing occupation. But what distinguishes this resolution from the many others at the General Assembly over the years that have condemned Israel’s actions and policies is that it makes a clear call for a specific action. It doesn’t merely call on Israel to desist from its deadly behavior. It doesn’t only call on the international community to take non-specific means to press Israel to change its behavior. This time, the UNGA made a very specific call for member states to sanction Israel both as a penalty for its ongoing crimes and as a means to force them to end. A country that voted yes and then is reluctant to follow through will face real questions from its citizens. 

This resolution represents a step away from the fecklessness the international community has shown for so long. It’s very late in coming, and, as a result, it doesn’t match the gravity of the moment. But the weakness of the past can’t be undone, and this is still a turning point. 

The United States and some European countries that abstained from the vote were unable to water down this resolution, which is, too, a significant step forward. 124 countries voted for the resolution, including France, China, and Russia, as well as Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco, which have all normalized relations with Israel. 

Only 12 countries joined Israel and the United States in voting no, while the rest abstained. Notably, the abstentions included the United Kingdom, leaving the U.S. as the only permanent member of the Security Council to join Israel in voting “no” on this resolution. Hungary, Argentina, Czechia, and the usual assortment of small countries that are dependent on the U.S. also voted “no.”

Increased economic and political pressure won’t come about solely because of the BDS movement, although Israel’s behavior is the best fuel BDS can ever have. As Israel becomes more associated with apartheid, genocide, and aggression in the region, more and more countries will be reluctant to get too deeply involved with it. Some state and private sector actors will consider Israel too risky to make long-term investments in. Not all of them, by any means, but those that do won’t be few and will grow over time unless Israel changes direction sharply.

Is this an overly optimistic projection? Only time will tell. But Israel is quite concerned about it, and that was true well before this vote at the UN. That concern motivated the all-out assault on international institutions that has characterized the Netanyahu government. It is why the international legal system’s actions in trying to hold Israel accountable in ways it never has before drew the ire of both Israel and its friends in Washington. 

Israeli campaign to undermine the ICJ

The basis for this vote in the UNGA was the International Court of Justice’s ruling in July that all of Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal, that the occupation was clearly not of a temporary character, and that it must end as soon as possible. The ICJ further ordered that other states were obligated “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.”

The UNGA resolution put clear political support behind that ruling, and Israel knew very well that it mattered, whatever blustering statements they might have made to the contrary. That was why, earlier this month, Israel mobilized its diplomats to convince members of Congress to intervene with South Africa and persuade it to drop its case at the ICJ accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. 

The effort reflects real desperation. Israeli diplomats, in a cable sent to them from Jerusalem, were instructed to urge members of Congress not just to pressure South Africa, but to threaten it. They wanted their diplomats to press advocates in American Jewish groups and allies in Congress to “put pressure on South Africa to change its policy towards Israel and to make clear that continuing their current actions like supporting Hamas and pushing anti-Israeli moves in international courts will come with a heavy price.”

They were even instructed to press Congress to threaten to suspend trade with South Africa if it continued to pursue the case. This is where we see the desperation. Even if Israel was able to persuade some Congresspeople to make such a threat, it would be empty. 

While South Africa would certainly fear losing trade with the United States, it would drive South Africa more deeply into partnership with BRICS countries, especially China. South Africa could do so while maintaining or even expanding trade with their European partners, such as Germany, which exports almost as much to South Africa as the U.S. The United States would be strengthening the BRICS alliance, which is already ascending and challenging American global dominance, and such a move would harm the U.S.’ relationship with many other African countries. 

An empty threat like this one shows just how concerned Israel really is about the ICJ returning another guilty verdict against it. The UNGA vote shows how, even in the world of unenforceable international legal rulings, such verdicts can have a real impact.

Israeli and U.S. pressure on the ICC

Back in May, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, requested arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders (two of whom have since been killed or reportedly killed by Israel) along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. 

Those warrants have yet to be issued. While it’s easy to assume that this is an example of the ICC judges (who must decide whether to issue the arrest warrants, not the prosecutor) showing bias or being pressured into a reluctance to issue warrants for Israeli leaders, that’s only one of several possibilities.

Pressure on the ICC is a very real phenomenon. Shortly after Khan requested the warrants, a joint investigation by The Guardian and +972 Magazine found that Israel had been running a program for many years to pressure ICC prosecutors, including with threats to the prosecutors and their families, to shy away from requesting warrants for Israeli leaders.

According to their report, “A recent intercepted communication suggested that Khan wanted to issue arrest warrants against Israelis but was under ‘tremendous pressure from the United States.’” 

It should come as no surprise that the United States was a full partner in these thuggish actions. For decades, the U.S. has demonstrated its contempt for and hostility toward the international legal system. When Donald Trump sanctioned Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, and the ICC in 2020, he was simply being a little more extreme in his hostility toward international institutions than most presidents.

Still, there are other factors in the delay by the ICC. One is that several countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and other individuals have filed various briefs with the Court to stop the arrests. They have not succeeded, but such things do slow down the process. It is also possible that the Court is trying to assess all the warrants to decide on them at the same time in order to avoid accusations of bias by one side or the other. 

Still, the pressure on the ICC is clear. In response to Khan’s request, the House of Representatives considered and eventually passed The Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, which would sanction any member of the ICC who tried to prosecute officials of the United States or its allies. The bill, which is clearly intended to protect Israel first and foremost, will be taken up by the Senate next week. 

Global pushback to the war on international law

Long before the genocide in Gaza began, Israel and the United States had partnered to wage war against the already feeble international system of justice. They’ve made considerable progress, but it has been incremental.

Gaza, and the inability or unwillingness of the international community to take concerted action to stop the slaughter there, threatened to deal what might have been a death blow to the legitimacy or even hope for an international system of justice. 

The vote this week in the General Assembly was a decisive pushback against those efforts. Will it be enough? That will depend on how member states respond to the call in the UNGA resolution. But now that the UNGA has made a specific demand not only of Israel—which would never listen—but of all member states to act against Israel’s criminal behavior and impunity, there is reason to think this might be a turning point. That they’ve made their demand in support of a legal ruling by the ICJ is even more powerful. There was virtually no hope for international institutions just days ago. Now there is.