The General Assembly of the United Nations approved the measure with broad support on Tuesday, tallying 153 votes in favor, 10 against, and 23 abstentions. The resolution called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, and many observers noted that its scale and urgency surpassed the earlier November 28 vote, which had urged a cessation of hostilities without the same level of explicit humanitarian emphasis.
Among those voting against were Israel and the United States, alongside several European partners such as Austria and the Czech Republic, and smaller states from the Pacific region as well as Guatemala and Paraguay. Argentina abstained at the outset but soon aligned with the position, preceding votes from countries like Italy, Germany, and Ukraine.
As the tally closed, cheers erupted across the chamber, reflecting a sense of validation for the resolution which, while symbolically significant within the UN framework, is not legally binding on member states. The outcome appeared to broaden a consensus about the need to address a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza and the suffering of Palestinian civilians, while also calling for the release of all hostages and avoiding explicit references to the Hamas organization by name.
Before the final text was adopted, two amendments proposed by Austria and the United States were rejected. The first amendment would have condemned the October 7 attacks carried out by Hamas’ armed wing. The second sought to introduce language condemning sexual violence reportedly carried out by Hamas members in that assault and the treatment of hostages.
Today’s vote followed a request from Arab and Islamic groupings after the United States vetoed a nearly identical text in the Security Council last Friday, a move that blocked progress despite some members backing the measure. In the UN system, when a Council veto occurs, discussions can still move forward in the broader General Assembly upon request of at least two members.
During the session, Speaker Dennis Francis spoke at the outset, emphasizing the human cost and urging action. He noted that thousands more lives could be lost if urgent steps were not taken, declaring that the massacre must stop and that the Assembly must join voices calling for a humanitarian ceasefire as a matter of urgent concern.
The United States, which remains a steadfast ally of Israel, articulated the reasoning for its opposition in remarks by its ambassador to the UN. The ambassador argued that any ceasefire at this moment would be only temporary and potentially dangerous for Israelis, who would face renewed threats, and for Palestinians, who deserve a real path toward a better future free from the grip of Hamas. The representative stressed a concern that a biased Security Council or a General Assembly resolution could misrepresent long-standing commitments to security and peace.
The Israeli ambassador echoed a similar line of thinking, framing the resolution as potentially enabling terrorist activities by signaling a halt to operations that some view as essential to counter threats. He cautioned that endorsing such a ceasefire could worsen security conditions and complicate efforts to achieve durable peace in the region. The ambassador also underscored the perceived risk that international actions misaligned with realities on the ground might undermine collective efforts to protect civilian lives and uphold security guarantees.
The overall tone of the debate reflected a deep division among member states about how to balance humanitarian needs with security imperatives and about the role of the UN in influencing ongoing conflict dynamics. Yet, many participants framed the resolution as a morally urgent call for immediate relief, access to humanitarian aid, and a renewed commitment to saving lives in Gaza while maintaining a clear stance against violence that harms civilians. The proceedings highlighted the UN’s ongoing challenge of reconciling diverse national perspectives within a single, imperfect but globally recognized multilateral framework.
In the end, the assembly’s decision can be viewed as a public reaffirmation of shared humanity in the face of a protracted crisis. While it stops short of imposing binding obligations, the broad consensus signals to governments, NGOs, and aid agencies the global community’s readiness to prioritize humanitarian corridors, safe access for relief deliveries, and accountability for all attacks that endanger innocent people. The session also demonstrated the UN’s ability to mobilize international opinion and to articulate a unified call that transcends individual national positions, even as countries continue to disagree on how best to proceed in pursuit of lasting peace and security for civilians.