The UN General Assembly approved it overwhelmingly on Tuesday. 153 votes in favour, compared to 10 against and 23 abstentions.A resolution calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza is a far greater outcome than the one achieved on November 28 demanding a cessation of hostilities.
Countries that voted against included Israel and the United States, as well as some European states (Austria, Czech Republic), as well as small countries Pacific, Guatemala and ParaguayWhile Argentina was the first to abstain, Argentina was also the first to agree to this position. Italy, Germany and Ukraine.
At the end of the vote, many countries loudly applauded the result, which garnered even more support. (153 compared to 120 last time) We call for this international ceasefire, even though the votes of the Assembly are not binding.
Today’s verdict was “minimum”” and focused on a call for a ceasefire in the face of “the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the suffering of the Palestinian people”, but also included a call for the release of all hostages and did not mention Hamas by name.
Before the resolution itself, the Assembly had rejected two amendments that Austria and the United States had tried to introduce; In the first one, it openly condemned the attacks carried out by the armed wing of Hamas on October 7, and in the second one, it introduced new changes and Condemnation of sexual violence allegedly committed by Hamas members in that attack and the treatment of the hostages.
Today’s vote was requested by two groups of countries, Arab and Islamic, after the United States vetoed a resolution last Friday that had almost similar content and was supported by thirteen of the fifteen members of the Security Council. Couldn’t move forward after US veto.
According to UN regulations, every decision vetoed by the Council is discussed in the Parliament. upon request of at least two members.
In today’s session, Speaker Dennis Francis, who often confines himself to procedural interventions without expressing his opinion, spoke at the beginning of the session and declared: “I wonder how many more thousands of lives must be lost before we do anything. There is no time left. This massacre must stop. “That’s why I’m adding my voice to the demand for an urgent humanitarian ceasefire.”
The United States, Israel’s unshakable ally, explained the reason for its opposition in the words of its UN ambassador: Linda Thomas-Greenfield- “Any ceasefire now would be temporary at best and dangerous for Israelis, who would at worst subject themselves to brutal attacks, but also for Palestinians, who deserve the chance for a better future, away from Hamas.”
Thomas-Greenfield regrets what her country did “We cannot support a biased Security Council” nor a General Assembly that ignores everything we stand for.”
The same ideas were echoed by Israeli ambassador Gilad Erdan, who remained true to his own style. He went even further in rhetoric, “Anyone who supports this decision gives terrorists a free pass (because) the ceasefire means only one thing, the survival of Hamas.”
He added that such decisions put a strain on the UN. “A moral stain on humanity” as well as contributing to its irrelevance.