The key resolution, passed by a vote of 157-7 with 10 abstentions, welcomed the November 26 ceasefire and stressed the need for the `realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State'. It also stressed the need for Israel's withdrawal from the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967. Along with the reflexive dissenters mentioned above, Australia and Nauru also went on record as opposing this resolution (and therefore as supporting the illegal Israeli occupation).

Another resolution declaring all attempts by Israel to impose its `laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City' of Jerusalem as `illegal and, therefore, null and void'. Naturally, this didn't go down very well with the Coalition of Reflexive Supporters of Israel (plus Nauru), but again the international community made its views quite clear: the resolution passed with a vote of 157-6 (10 abstentions). The resolution, of course, is merely a reaffirmation of the World Court's advisory opinion in July 2004, when it ruled that Jerusalem is an "occupied Palestinian territory".

The resolution demanding Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan passed, yet again, by an overwhelming majority - 107-6 (Canada this time joining the Coalition against international law and in favour of continued Israeli expansionism). Speaking afterwards, U.S. diplomat Ned Siegel said America voted against the resolution because it would prejudge the outcome of negotiations between Israel and Syria. Erm...what negotiations? At U.S.' insistance, Olmert has rebuffed Assad's recent overtures at peace. In any event, prejudge them how? In favour of international law? Is that a bad thing? At any rate, it is completely hypocritical of the U.S. to complain about the UN `prejudging' the outcome of negotiations even as it supports increased Israeli settlements who's entire purpose is to prejudge any future settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Syria's Ambassador to the UN accused the U.S. of using its veto in the Security Council to protect Israel (duh) and appealed for a just peace and the liberation of the Golan Heights.

The other three resolutions were less important and dealt with various UN Committees. It is important to note that none of these resolutions were not `pro-Palestinian' or, if they were, that was purely incidental. They were pro-international law. As the representative for Brazil said, he voted for the draft calling for an Israeli withdrawal from the Syrian Golan because the U.N. Charter prohibits the acquisition of territory by force. Likewise, under international law, Israel has not one iota of sovereignty over Jerusalem, regardless of any bogus annexation laws it passes.

Those countries that opposed these resolutions, or (like Britain) abstained, showed a shocking disrespect for the rule of law.

Meanwhile, a UN human rights inquiry said on Friday that Israel should be made to pay reparations to Lebanon for the destruction in wrought upon the country (especially the South) during the war this summer. Doubtless, this will be opposed by the Coalition and will be hailed as further proof of the world's bias against Israel. "Reality", they may as well say, "has a well-known liberal bias." As committee member Stelios Perrakis asked,

"If the council, the international community, wishes to set up a mechanism, I remind you that the Security Council established a commission on Iraqi reparations for Kuwait. Why not also a commission for Lebanon?"

The fact is that, once again, this is not a `pro-Lebanon' decision but one that is pro-international law. During the Summer, Israel launched an illegal war of aggression - the "supreme international crime" as defined at Nuremberg - against the people of Lebanon. Moreover, during that war, Israel was guilty of "excessive, indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force", causing around $3.5 billion in damage, displacing over 970,000 people and killing over 1100 civilians, a third of them children. In an earlier report, Amnesty International described the "Israeli policy of deliberate destruction of Lebanese civilian infrastructure during the recent conflict" and called for the establishment of an inquiry to propose "effective measures to hold accountable those responsible for crimes under international law, and to ensure that the victims receive full reparation."

Unfortunately, both Amnesty and the human rights inquiry will likely be disappointed, because the day the U.S. allows sanctions to be imposed on Israel is the day that will herald the beginning of peace between Israel and its neighbours. Sadly, it looks a long way off. Likewise, the UN General Assembly resolutions will, like those passed by similar margins virtually every year since the beginning of the occupation, be dismissed and then forgotten about. The veto-wielding dictator of the Security Council would never let the opinion of the majority of the international community actually dictate the policy. It has already used some 84 vetoes - many of them regarding Israel - to this effect. Until the system is changed to make the UN a real democracy (I thought we were supposed to believe in democracy?), freedom for the Palestinians and peace for all will remain inside the halls of the UN General Assembly.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander