The UN General Assembly voted for the continuation of the work of UNRWA – Ukraine “abstained” against the backdrop of a total “for”: why is this decision of Ukraine justified?
On December 19, 2024, the General Assembly, in resolution A/79/L.28/Rev.1, demanded that Israel repeal the law passed by the Knesset, which prohibits the activities of UNRWA (UN Relief Agency for Palestinians in the Near East) in the country.
The resolution in support of UNRWA proposed by Norway (document 123-A/79/L.28/Rev.1) was supported by 137 countries, 12 voted against and 22 abstained.
.......
Ukraine “abstained” against the backdrop of total “for”: why is this decision justified?
This choice is not a sign of an “anti-Israel position.” It reflects the diplomatic difficulties and objective difficulties that Ukraine faces in the conditions of a bloody war with the aggressor Russia.
Ukraine, despite its abstentions, does not oppose Israel. In conditions of war, it is limited in its foreign policy maneuvers and is forced to take into account pressure from major players such as the EU and Arab countries.
Ukraine, by abstaining from voting on the UNRWA resolution, seeks to emphasize that an effective resolution of the problems is impossible without the participation of Israel itself. This position is based on the principle: it is unacceptable to resolve issues of a sovereign state without its consent. Kyiv has repeatedly stated that unilateral decisions only deepen conflicts.
Ukraine's abstention also demonstrates support for the idea that international disputes require dialogue between all parties. Such a step can be regarded as a call to the UN to take into account the interests of Israel, which in the long run is beneficial to the Jewish state.
Ukraine is in a difficult geopolitical situation where it needs to maintain relations with various groups of countries.
Support for Western Allies. Most EU countries voted for the resolution. A negative vote could cause tension with partners providing Ukraine with weapons and humanitarian aid.
The need for dialogue with Arab countries. A vote against the resolution could worsen relations with Arab states, which in some cases also support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.
The plight of Ukraine
Ukraine is at war with Russia, and this determines its foreign policy:
Dependence on the UN and international support. In conditions of war, Ukraine is forced to avoid drastic steps that could weaken its position in the organization.
Focus on survival. Ukraine is focused on its internal problems and protecting its population, which requires caution in any foreign policy decisions.
Historical context of the votes
Ukraine often abstains in votes regarding Israel, but this does not mean antipathy:
Previously, Ukraine had already abstained from a resolution condemning Israeli policy in the Middle East. However, its officials stressed that this was due to the need to maintain a balance, and not anti-Israel sentiment.
Ukraine has repeatedly reaffirmed its support for Israel's right to self-defense, especially against the backdrop of terrorist attacks.
Ukraine's position towards Israel
Despite abstentions at the UN, Ukraine seeks to strengthen bilateral relations with Israel:
Humanitarian cooperation. Israel supports Ukraine with humanitarian aid, including medical equipment and rehabilitation of the wounded.
Dialogue at the highest level. The Ukrainian leadership regularly expresses gratitude to Israel for its support, despite disagreements on certain issues.
General challenges. Both states face external threats and strive to maintain sovereignty, which creates the basis for mutual understanding.
Why is this important for Israel?
Ukraine, despite its abstentions, does not oppose Israel. In conditions of war, it is limited in its foreign policy maneuvers and is forced to take into account pressure from major players such as the EU and Arab countries.
Ukraine is a key link in the struggle to preserve international order. Her cautious voting is aimed at protecting her own interests, but this does not exclude solidarity with Israel.
Mutual understanding between countries is important for strengthening strategic relations, and Israel should take into account the objective difficulties faced by Ukraine.
.......
Israel introduced this ban because it believes that UNRWA has effectively become an instrument of influence for Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Despite the obvious interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, the UN insisted on its own. Moreover, the organization threatened to appeal to the International Court of Justice if Israel does not comply with its demands. Considering the court’s previous experience, Israel has virtually no doubts about its “objectivity.”
The UN General Assembly in 2024 was noted for its “productivity”, adopting 17 resolutions condemning Israel, and only 9 resolutions regarding other countries of the world.
How did the voting go?
The resolution in support of UNRWA proposed by Norway (document 123-A/79/L.28/Rev.1) was supported by 137 countries, 12 voted against and 22 abstained.
The resolution was opposed by:
USA, Israel, Czech Republic, Hungary, Argentina, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Micronesia, Tonga, Nauru and Fiji.
Abstained:
Ukraine, Canada, Australia, Austria, Georgia, Greece, Lithuania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Panama, Moldova, Estonia, South Sudan, Rwanda, Serbia, Slovakia, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Samoa, Togo and Uruguay.
Supported the resolution:
137 states, of course Russia, Iran, but also including countries that previously abstained or called themselves “friends of Israel.” Among them were Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Cyprus and other European countries.
Comparison with previous polls
The December 11 vote for the Gaza ceasefire resolution showed a more anti-Israeli stance, with 159 countries voting in favor. Compared to this vote, support for anti-Israel initiatives has decreased slightly, perhaps indicating a gradual change in sentiment.
.......
Prospects
Israel's reaction to the resolution is predictable: the country will reject interference in its internal affairs. However, given the decline in the number of votes in favor of anti-Israel resolutions, one can hope that over time the trend will change even more.
However, critics of the UN do not miss the opportunity to emphasize that an organization mired in its own bureaucracy risks losing its relevance. Perhaps, like its anti-Israel agenda, the UN itself will one day become part of history.
