Why hasn't the U.N. General Assembly has failed to pass any resolution condemning Hamas for the October 7th attack.

[JohnSJ]

[DeepWinter]

1. Resistance

from Islamic and anti-Israel Nations throwing a wrench in any unified voice. Sadly erodes any UN credibility. The "United" Nations is not united.

[JohnSJ]

2. Thanks.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

3. Oh, they're united all right,

when it comes to condemning Israel on all things, they're united, but condemning terrorists that constantly attack Israel, there is no or very little condemnation.

[EX500rider]

4. Lets see....

From 2015 through 2022, the UN General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions on Israel and 68 on all other countries.

So they're the worst country in the world, huh, worse than North Korea China Iran Cuba Venezuela Etc
lol

[moniss]

5. There was an attempt by the General Assembly

on 10/26/23 to pass General Assembly Resolution A/ES-10/L.25 Titled "Protection of civilians and upholding legal and
humanitarian obligations"

It was sponsored by the following countries:

Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Brunei
Darussalam, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti,
Egypt, El Salvador, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman,
Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Türkiye, United Arab Emirates,
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, Zimbabwe and State of Palestine

It was brief in it's length and reiterated all previous Resolutions passed and then as the first paragraph it stated concern about the deterioration in Gaza, Israel, East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Territory and then the following paragraph gave their Resolution as "Condemning all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians,
including all acts of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks, as well as all acts of
provocation, incitement and destruction" and then went on to urge the usual restraint and insistence to abide by Resolutions, international laws etc. It also stated in item 7 about the hostages "Calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all civilians who are being illegally held captive, demanding their safety, well-being and humane treatment in compliance with international law"


This apparently wasn't acceptable to some who wanted a Resolution solely addressing the action by Hamas and so Canada introduced an Amendment that said "Unequivocally rejects and condemns the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took
place in Israel starting on 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages, demands the
safety, well-being and humane treatment of the hostages in compliance with
international law, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release".

Canada was the sponsor, the US for all intents was the real mover behind it, and many members, 55 voted against and 23 abstained, objected to a Resolution they felt was one sided in it's concern and application. Anybody could argue either way about the usual moves of diplomats. Several days later the original Resolution was passed that condemned all acts of violence and terrorism against all Palestinian and Israeli citizens and obviously the proper treatment and release of the hostages. That vote was 120 in favor with 14 against and 45 abstaining. The US voted against the Resolution apparently not willing to take yes for an answer unless it was narrowed and made more specific to Hamas even though the agenda item which the Resolution was brought under was about illegal conduct generally in the Occupied Territories etc. during an Emergency Meeting of the General Assembly and the agenda item was "Agenda item 5
Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory" so the meeting was apparently not solely about 10/7 and it should be noted that it would be a good guess that the title of that agenda item was not likely the first time it was used by the UN GA on the agenda of a meeting.

I include the link to the UN press release about the Resolution that passed and the failed Amendment which contains links to both and I would note that if you go to the UN digital library you can also bring up the record of votes. I am putting this up simply to add to the factual knowledge of what was done at the UN shortly after 10/7. I understand the position of all sides regarding the Resolution proposed and the Amendment offered and I understand the position of diplomats in a large group trying to get at least some kind of Resolution rather than none at all. While I may disagree or agree with certain positions or results on various things in the conduct of world events it does not mean and should not be, but often is, construed as me being anti this or pro that. Unfortunately I have to put up this clarification from time to time and it is not directed at the OP but it is for any and all who might read into something more than what is there or intended. Everyone has the right to examine anything and everything in this world and all people and all acts and to disagree, agree or just give analysis and facts and by doing so we all further each other's understanding and knowledge. If a spirit of tolerance and forgiveness were to truly fall upon the world imagine what greatness could come for this troubled world. Alas, mortal as ever.

https://press.un.org/en/2023/ga12548.doc.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Here's the voting on Canada's L.26 draft amendment condemning the Hamas attack:

In favour:
Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde,
Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus,
Czechia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Kenya, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands,
Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco,
Montenegro, Myanmar, Nauru, Netherlands
(Kingdom of the), New Zealand, Nigeria, North
Macedonia, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland,
Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,
Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Singapore,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Sudan,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Tonga,
Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, United States of America,
Uruguay

Against:
Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize,
Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brunei Darussalam,
Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros,
Congo, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana,
Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco,
Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan,
Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian
Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Türkiye,
Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of
Tanzania, Yemen, Zimbabwe

Abstaining:
Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Botswana,
Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic
of the Congo, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Grenada,
Guinea-Bissau, Jamaica, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Lesotho, Mongolia, Mozambique,
Nepal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia,
Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago

https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/n2332305.pdf

Although that was 88 in favour, 55 against and 23 abstaining, it needs two thirds of those voting (including abstentions) for a resolution or amendment to pass.

[tritsofme]

6. They would be much more likely to pass a resolution congratulating Hamas for the attack.

[sarisataka]

7. I was about to say the same thing

like Hamas, most of the UN would be happy to see Israel gone.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. (((Guess)))

[EllieBC]

9. Which also accounts for why

seemingly no one cares that they haven’t condemned it.

[JohnSJ]

10. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

[Boomerproud]

11. That fact answers any question about the UN.

A failed institution.

[TheKentuckian]

12. Because the UN doesn't condemn the attack and many if not most members

cheer it.

Hell, the UN is a de facto sponsor posing as as an aid program for decades promoting radicalization and fostering grievances while doing little else but acting as a platform for theocracies, promoters of terrorism, nations corrupt to the core, and authoritarian states to rail about bullshit.

[JohnSJ]

13. Yes. If it was a credible institution it would not have been difficult to condemn what happened on October 7, and that

speaks volumes.