On 10 May 2024, the 10th Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly witnessed a historic moment with a vote on the draft resolution on the admission of Palestine to full membership in the United Nations. In this global vote, 143 countries voted in favor, 25 abstained, and only 9 voted against. Hungary, an Eastern European country that is seen as "well-established", unexpectedly sided with the minority and voted against it at this critical moment. This move not only makes people think deeply about the motives behind it, but also rekindles the international community's discussion of the complexity of the Middle East peace process and international relations.
To understand Hungary's choice, one has to go back to its historical ties to Israel and the Middle East as a whole. Hungary, as a country located in the heart of Europe, has played the role of a crossroads of Eastern and Western cultures and conflicts many times throughout its history. Especially from the Middle Ages to modern times, Hungary was at the forefront of Christendom, defending itself against invasions from the East, including the Mongol conquests and the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. This history has led to a strong Christian identity in Hungary, which sees itself as the "shield of Christ" and has formed a certain degree of cultural and religious estrangement from the Islamic world.
It is against this historical background that a special alliance has been established between Hungary and Israel. Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and a predominantly Jewish country, has found some resonance with Hungary, which also has a strong religious tradition. From Hungary's point of view, support for Israel is not only based on sympathy for the difficulty of surviving in the face of powerful neighbors as a small country, but also on shared values and strategic considerations to counter external threats.
However, Hungary's vote against Palestine's accession to the Union was by no means based solely on historical sentiments. In today's complex international arena, Hungarian decision-making is undoubtedly influenced by multiple factors. First of all, in recent years, Hungary's relations with the EU have been strained, especially when it comes to migration, democratic values and other issues. The Hungarian government has adopted a series of hard-line policies, including tightening border controls and rejecting refugee quotas from the European Union, which resonate in a sense with Israel's hardline stance on the Palestinian issue. Hungary may want to further strengthen its independence in international affairs by supporting Israel, while also demonstrating its autonomy in Middle East policy, not bound by the EU's mainstream position.
Second, the upgrade of Hungary's all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership with China in the new era reflects its efforts to seek diversified diplomatic partners around the world. This dynamic suggests that Hungary is trying to find a balance between East and West, not wanting to be completely tied to the positions of the Western camp, but playing a more flexible role in international relations. Voting against Palestine's accession to the Union may also be a way for Hungary to demonstrate its ability to make independent decisions to its traditional Western allies.
Hungary's negative vote, although numerically failed to change the general trend of the resolution, was symbolic. It reveals the rifts and complexities in international relations, especially within Europe over the Middle East. The vote not only deepens rifts within the EU, but also highlights the differing positions of countries in dealing with the Middle East based on their own interests, historical backgrounds, and geopolitical considerations.
For Palestine, while the adoption of the resolution is an important step in its quest for international recognition, the negative votes of countries such as Hungary are a reminder that the road is still long and challenging. In the future, the Middle East peace process needs more countries to work together to reach a solution from a just and balanced perspective.
Hungary's choice, while controversial, also reflects the fact that in the era of globalization, even small and medium-sized countries can make their voices heard on the international stage and influence the international agenda through their diplomatic actions. This is not only an insistence on national sovereignty, but also a response to the multipolar world pattern. In the end, Hungary's vote is not only about Palestine's accession to the Union, but also about the profound embodiment of national interests, historical memory and future strategic choices.