Three ways UNGA promoted peace in post-Oct 7th Middle East

What happened in the UN while Israel was reeling with the shock of the Oct 7 atrocities committed by Hamas and either joined by, or merely cheered on by, Gazan civilians? I will be generous and say that the whole world was reeling from the images that Hamas proudly released to the virtual space that envelopes us all. How they all behaved after the initial shock wore off shows something about their values. Let us look at how this played out at the UN.

First example

Israel was still in shock when the UN held an emergency session on 27 Oct calling for:

an immediate and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities, [and] the unhindered provision of essential aid to civilians throughout the Gaza Strip, …

The resolution, ES-10-21 passed with 121 in favour, 44 absentions, 14 opposed, and 14 absent for the vote. This resolution could have approached being an expression of true humanitarian values if the GA had also passed the following proposed amendment:

After operative paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:
Unequivocally rejects and condemns the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting on 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages, demands the safety, well-being and humane treatment of the hostages in compliance with international law, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.

I was unable to find the actual voting for this proposal so we only know that 88 voted for it, 55 against, and 23 abstained, not a large enough margin for it to pass.

To make it easy, I am sharing the list of countries who voted against Resolution ES-10-21, in other words, voted against Hamas:

You can see the entire voting results here.

UN Watch concluded that:

This one-sided resolution, adopted as part of the General Assembly’s Tenth Emergency Special Session on Israel, is concerned about Palestinian rights only. Other than one line calling for the release of captives, there is no mention of any right by Israel or its citizens to basic security and self-defense. This resolution fails to expressly condemn Hamas’ atrocities committed on October 7, and instead expresses concern about the ensuing “escalation of violence.” While it generally condemns “all acts of violence” and calls for the release of captives, it does not mention Hamas by name or hold Hamas accountable for any of its violations against Israelis or Palestinians. At the same time, the resolution expressly criticizes Israel’s response, particularly its order for Gazan civilians to evacuate to the South, which the resolution considers “forced transfer of the Palestinian civilian population.” By criticizing Israel’s efforts to comply with international law and protect Gaza civilians, including through its evacuation order, failing to condemn Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields, and demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire which would enable Hamas to regroup and preserve its own supplies, the resolution ties Israel’s hands and enables further Hamas terrorism. [emphasis added]

Second example

On 12 December, UNGA passed Resolution ES-10-22 which calls for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, immediate and unconditional release of hostages and ensuring humanitarian access to the hostages.

I suppose this sounds reasonable enough, no? However, quite similarly to ES-10-21, UN Watch identifies the problem with this resolution thus:

While the resolution is directed at all parties, it is deemed condemnatory towards Israel because it demands a ceasefire without conditioning that upon Hamas laying down its arms and releasing the hostages. The resolution separately demands release of the hostages, but this is not connected to the ceasefire demand. A ceasefire that fails to achieve these goals (disarming Hamas and releasing hostages) only enables further Hamas terrorism and undermines peace in the long run. Moreover, by failing to name Hamas and to condemn its October 7th atrocities and by directing its demands equally at both sides, the resolution creates a false moral equivalence between Hamas’ intentional crimes and Israel’s response in self-defense. It also implies that Hamas’ atrocities were somehow justified as part of an ongoing conflict in which both sides equally commit violations.

Resolution ES-10-22 was passed with 153 in favour, 10 against, and 23 abstentions, and 7 absentees. Here are the countries who opposed the resolution:

The complete voting record can be see here.

Third example

On 10 May, UNGA voted on Resolution ES-10-23. It reaffirms previous resolutions regarding the rights of the so-called Palestinian people and it upgrades the level of participation allowed in the UN to the Palestinian Authority, aka the PLO/Hamas — what the UN and many others erroneously call the State of Palestine. The decision is to be effective 10 Sept 2024.

The votes were: 145 in favour, 9 opposed, 23 abstentions, and 16 absentees. The nine countries who opposed were: Argentina, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea and the United States. (Full list of votes here)

UN Watch has this to say about Resolution ES-10-23:

In the context of upgrading Palestine’s status, the resolution blames the Israeli occupation and settlements for the lack of peace, while ignoring Palestinian rejectionism and terrorism. Even worse, this upgrade rewards Palestinian terrorism while Israel is still in the midst of a war against Hamas for its brutal October 7th attack on Israeli communities. It sends a message to the Palestinian leadership, to Hamas, and to Hamas’s sponsor the Islamic Republic of Iran, that terrorism against Israelis pays off. At the same time, this erodes Israel’s right to self-defense.

Moreover, though it cites UNSC resolution 2334 which outrageously declared it illegal for Jews to live in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, it omits any mention of UNSC resolution 242, which established the “land for peace” framework and expressly did not require Israel to withdraw from all of the territories acquired in the 1967 Six Day War.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

With 193 member states in the UN, there is the potential for much variation in voting patterns depending on the particular issue under consideration. When it comes to Israel, however, there seems to be global consensus that Israel uniquely merits censure by the world body regardless of what the specific issue is.

Here is how the voting on the three resolutions covered in this article shows on the map of the world, where brown is those who opposed the resolutions, green is those in favour, yellow is abstentions, and blue is absentees:

Resolution ES-10-21

Resolution ES-10-22

Resolution ES-10-23