On September 18th, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for Israel to withdraw its presence from Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and Gaza: all settlements are to be evacuated. The resolution calls on all UN member states to introduce boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel to pressure it to vacate these territories.  

Effectively, the resolution is calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the “occupied Palestinian territory” and the establishment of a “judenrein” state of Palestine.  

It will also result in the redivision of Jerusalem, as it was under Jordanian rule (1948-1967). The resolution was adopted by a majority of 124 member states. Fourteen states opposed the resolution, and 43 states abstained from voting.  

This resolution is highly problematic, for many reasons. 

First, it is important to understand that this resolution, and the ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 19, 2024, are the fruit of a lengthy, unprecedented, and well-funded lawfare campaign by the Palestinians that began with the second intifada. Their campaign is designed to promote the objective of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to liberate the whole of Palestine, by avoiding good faith negotiations and undermining Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. 

Supported by the Arab League, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)– whose members collectively, represent more than half the UN member states -the Palestinians have deliberately used the General Assembly as a vehicle to manipulate the international courts. Under its current President, the ICJ showed itself willing to be politicized and manipulated. The one-sided ICJ proceedings were politically driven – a witch hunt, not an honest process.  

The voting on this resolution was as follows:

This UNGA resolution pays lipservice to international law. But the one-sided ICJ Opinion and the resolution actually undermine international law. As several judges noted, the sole focus on Israeli violations and conclusion that Israel’s presence in the territories is illegal defy law, logic, and reality.

Because of the biased questions it was asked to answer, the Court basically rewrote history, ignored the Arab aggression of 1948 and 1967, as well as Palestinian terrorism since the 1970s, and failed to take account of Israel’s territorial claims and rights to security.

Most problematically, the Opinion and this Resolution ignore the realities on the ground. The PLO wants an Islamic state from the river to the sea, not a two-state solution. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has no authority in the West Bank and Gaza, so who does the ICJ think is going to govern? We can be sure it won’t be the Palestinian moderates; Iranian-sponsored terror cells are too deeply embedded.

This resolution, if implemented, is setting up a scenario for the possible creation of yet another failed Islamist state in the region, bent on the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world.  

Blaming Israel for everything and giving the Palestinians impunity to continue their own gross violations of international law rewards Palestinian rejectionism, violence, and aggression. It sets a dangerous precedent and will cause more violence in the region, not less.

Regarding so-called “East Jerusalem” – Israel was perfectly entitled to reunify Jerusalem when they took control in 1967. East Jerusalem under Israeli rule had brought more freedom and prosperity to its inhabitants than under all previous regimes, including the Ottoman, British, and Jordanian.

Polls show that most Arabs in East Jerusalem prefer Israeli rule. The rights of Christians and Jews will be threatened in an Islamic State of Palestine governed by Hamas. This resolution paves the path to oppression and is a travesty of justice.

Did you read it yet?

thinc.’s analysis of the ICJ Ruling on the “Occupied Palestinian Territory”

thinc. Briefing – Reminder as context to this situation:

 In its July 19, 2024 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has opined that Israel’s “continued presence” in the West Bank (i.e. Judea and Samaria), East Jerusalem, and Gaza (referred to as the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” (OPT) is unlawful.

 According to 11 of the court’s 15 judges, Israel must unconditionally end its presence in said territory. In addition, the UN and all states must cooperate to implement measures to ensure that Israel brings its presence in these territories to an end “as rapidly as possible.

 This opinion faced significant criticism by some of the court’s own judges. Four of them offered a fundamentally different perspective, saying that Israel’s presence is not unlawful, and Israel is therefore not obliged to bring its presence in the Territories, as such, to an end.

 To gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the ICJ’s recent Advisory Opinion on Israel’s presence in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, we invite you to read our full briefing.