On September 18, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory within one year. The vote, which ended with 124 votes in favor, 12 against, and 43 abstentions, was interpreted by some as a significant triumph for Palestinian rights.
It should not be forgotten, however, that 54 countries (excluding Israel), or about 28% of all member states, did not support the resolution. This is evidence not only of a lack of moral courage, but also of a pervasive hypocrisy that continues to shape global governance. In fact, it reflects the ongoing efforts to erode the international regime in order to ensure Israel’s impunity.
The resolution in question demands that Israel “end without delay its illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.” It reiterates the findings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled in July that Israel’s occupation was illegal, that its settlements on occupied Palestinian land were also illegal and should be dismantled, and that Israel should pay reparations for damage suffered by Palestinians.
International law is very clear on the issue of occupation: it is a criminal act. A consensus among international scholars emphasizes that an occupier cannot invoke the right of self-defense against the people it occupies – an argument that Israel has used to justify its genocidal acts.
In the context of this decision by the International Court of Justice, voting against and abstaining from voting on the UN General Assembly resolution cannot be seen as a mere form of political neutrality. By choosing not to support a resolution that reaffirms the illegality of the Israeli occupation, these countries are implicitly endorsing Israel’s actions and helping to perpetuate a status quo marked by brutal oppression and suffering. They are also openly ignoring and thereby attacking the provisions of international law.
It is important to recall that this vote comes amid ongoing Israeli aggression against Gaza and the West Bank, in which nearly 42,000 Palestinians – mostly women and children – have been killed and more than 100,000 injured. In January, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling that Israel is “plausibly” violating the Genocide Convention through its actions in Gaza. This genocidal violence is a direct consequence of Israel’s decades-long illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
The October 7, 2016 attack by Hamas cannot be viewed in isolation. Its roots lie in decades of brutal occupation that have left Palestinians trapped in what many describe as the world’s largest open-air prison, where systemic oppression, displacement, and violence have defined the lives of millions of Palestinians. Understanding this context is essential to addressing the underlying issues and moving toward a just and lasting resolution that respects the dignity and humanity of all involved.
The United States, one of 12 countries that voted against the resolution, has long supported the Israeli occupation, sending billions of weapons to its military before and after October. For its role in arming Israel, the United States has repeatedly been accused of complicity in Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Oddly, the U.S. representative to the UN voted “no” despite the fact that Judge Sarah Cleveland, who represents the United States at the ICJ, voted in favor of all of the court’s opinions in the July decision.
The US position is all the more problematic because it has taken the exact opposite stance on occupations in other countries. In 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and occupied parts of its territory, Washington was at the forefront of international condemnation, sending billions of dollars in military and financial aid to the Ukrainian military. This established a troubling double standard that other US allies have also followed.
The UK, for example, expressed “serious concerns” about the January ICJ ruling and rejected accusations of genocide against Israel. On September 18, it chose to abstain. Despite warnings from its own legal advisers that British weapons could be used for human rights abuses in Gaza, the British government continued to supply weapons to the Israeli military, suspending only 30 of 350 arms export licenses.
Like Washington, London has also provided significant military support to Ukraine in its fight against Russian occupation and has fully supported investigations into war crimes committed by Russian forces.
Germany, which also abstained on September 18, is another example of a country whose position is troubling. As Israel’s main arms supplier, Germany is accused of facilitating genocide, complicating its moral position and raising questions about its commitment to human rights. Its government has announced its intention to intervene in the main hearing of the International Court of Justice in the genocide trial against Israel, categorically rejecting the accusations of genocide without substantial justification.
As it seeks to block legal proceedings against Israel, Germany has accelerated its own investigations into war crimes committed in Ukraine.
Other countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific – mainly the United States and NATO allies – also voted against the UN General Assembly resolution or abstained, placing geopolitical considerations above international law and ethics.
The hypocrisy inherent in these geopolitical alliances raises critical questions about the integrity of the international legal framework. Why are violations committed by Israel, an ally of powerful Western countries, met with silence or insufficient condemnation, while others are not? This inconsistency not only deepens divisions between the West and the Global South, but also undermines the legitimacy of international law and its ability to prevent atrocities.
The more Israel is protected by these countries, the more it flouts international law without fear of consequences, and the more brutal and deadly its abuses become. And its violations do not only affect the Palestinian population. This pattern of impunity undermines fundamental principles of justice and accountability and encourages others to commit such crimes.
The abstention of 43 countries and the opposition of 11 others to the UN General Assembly resolution sends a clear message to the world: there are “no rules.” This alarming trend suggests that nations with powerful militaries can act unilaterally, in defiance of international law, without consequences. If we fail to halt this erosion of the legal regime, we risk descending into a world governed by the “law of the jungle.”
Such a breakdown in international law would have catastrophic consequences for human civilization. It would foster a climate in which the powerful could trample on the rights of the powerless, perpetuating cycles of violence and oppression. The hypocrisy evident in the global response to the plight of the Palestinians illustrates this dangerous disregard for justice and accountability. As these 54 countries continue to turn a blind eye to grave violations, the foundations of the global order are threatened.
To restore trust in international law, countries must prioritize human rights over strategic interests. This requires a united front from the international community. Nations must hold each other accountable for their actions and denounce violations, regardless of their political affiliations or alliances. A true commitment to justice requires that the principles of international law be applied consistently and impartially.
Only decisive action can uphold the ideals of international law and save the world from a bleak and lawless future.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Tel Aviv Tribune.
