dw.com
UN Votes to Condemn Hamas, Advance Two-State Solution
The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on September 12, 2025, condemning Hamas' October 7 attacks, demanding the release of hostages, and supporting a two-state solution, despite opposition from the US and Israel.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of this UN resolution?
- The resolution may provide cover for states supporting Palestine against accusations of implicitly legitimizing Hamas. However, Israel's rejection, coupled with its continued settlement expansion and potential unilateral recognition of Palestine by other countries, may escalate tensions and hinder a lasting peace. The long-term success hinges on whether it fosters genuine de-escalation or further polarization.
- What are the diverging perspectives on the UN resolution's implications?
- Israel views the resolution as encouraging Hamas and failing to recognize it as a terrorist organization, while France sees it as isolating Hamas internationally for its crimes. The US boycotted the vote, arguing the resolution rewards Hamas and hinders peace prospects. These contrasting perspectives highlight the deep divisions surrounding the conflict.
- What immediate impact does the UN resolution have on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
- The resolution, while opposed by Israel and the US, garnered 142 votes in favor, condemning Hamas' actions and demanding hostage release. It also calls for a two-state solution, putting international pressure on Israel to cease settlement expansion and military actions in Gaza. This signifies increased international isolation of Hamas.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view of the UN resolution, including perspectives from Israel, Palestine, the US, and France. However, the sequencing might subtly favor the pro-resolution side by presenting the resolution's adoption and supportive statements before detailing the opposition. The headline could be improved to be more neutral, focusing on the resolution's content rather than its support or opposition.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, although phrases like "circ politic rupt de realitate" (political circus detached from reality) reflect a subjective assessment rather than objective reporting. The choice to include quotes from officials on both sides is positive, enhancing neutrality.
Bias by Omission
While the article includes various perspectives, it could benefit from including analyses from independent experts beyond Richard Gowan from the International Crisis Group. Further detail on the specific "concrete, time-limited, and irreversible steps" mentioned in the resolution would provide greater clarity. The article also doesn't delve into the potential consequences or ramifications of the resolution, beyond the immediate reactions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The UN General Assembly's resolution directly addresses SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by aiming to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution. The resolution condemns Hamas attacks, calls for the release of hostages, and urges an end to hostilities. While the impact is positive in its intention to promote peace and justice, the actual effectiveness remains to be seen given the opposing views and potential for further escalation.