Following the Palestinian Authority’s proposal at the UN to “implement” the ICJ’s advisory opinion, the Israeli Foreign Ministry distributed instructions to embassies to lobby heads of states to vote against the decision.
The Palestinian proposal, considered by some before the war as a neighborly body, has once again aligned with Israel’s adversaries, even if not through violent means. In recent days, the Palestinians have advanced a resolution at the UN General Assembly to enforce the ICJ’s opinion. UN member states can submit comments on the resolution’s text until tomorrow. An emergency session and vote on the resolution are expected next week.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry stated that the text aims to solidify the Palestinian interpretation of the ICJ’s opinion, which seeks to isolate Israel, label it an apartheid state, and enforce the withdrawal of the IDF from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The resolution includes unrelated elements, advancing the Palestinian agenda against Israel, and urges member states to enforce these steps.
Key Points of the Palestinian Proposal:
1. Call on UN member states to prevent companies and entities within their jurisdiction from assisting Israel’s presence in the “occupied territories,” including sanctions on products from the settlements and restrictions on Israeli officials.
2. Stop the transfer of security equipment to Israel that could assist its operations in the territories.
3. Oppose the establishment of embassies in Jerusalem.
4. Define Israeli governance as an “apartheid regime” and establish an international investigative committee on racial discrimination.
5. Demand the IDF withdraw from Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, dismantle settlements, and take down the security barrier.
6. Demand compensation from Israel for damages since 1967.
7. Convene a conference to promote the UN resolution for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
8. Call on the UN Secretary-General to implement the decision recognizing a Palestinian state.
9. Prioritize Palestinian sovereignty over Israeli security.
Minister Katz instructed embassies to reach out to high-level officials in their respective countries and urge them to oppose the resolution. He emphasized that the decision is unilateral, undermines Israel’s security needs, disregards the October 7 terror attacks, and seeks to damage Israel economically and diplomatically by encouraging boycotts and restrictions on security exports.
The message to Israel’s allies is clear: opposing the resolution does not equate to opposing the ICJ but rather opposes the cynical exploitation of international mechanisms to push an anti-Israel agenda.
