"Follow" me, more exciting sneak peeks
A vote at the United Nations General Assembly has attracted global attention. This is not just an ordinary vote, but a major resolution on whether or not to admit Palestine to membership in the United Nations. The result? There were 143 votes in favour, 9 against and 25 abstentions. It sounds like a cold number, but behind it is a large wave of psychological and political dynamics in the international community. In particular, who is insisting on his own views and does not want to see the name of Palestine justified by these nine votes? What impact will their positions have on the international political landscape? Listen to me slowly.
On the 10th of New York time, this special session of the United Nations General Assembly can be said to be held in full view. At the heart of the resolution was a judgement on whether Palestine was eligible for membership in the Charter of the United Nations, and the result was clear: the majority of countries chose to support it. This is not only an endorsement of Palestine, but also an expectation of the current Middle East peace process.
But at the other end of the vote was a firm opposition of 9 votes. The attitude of the United States and Israel is understandable among these negative votes, after all, the two countries' positions on the Palestinian issue have a long and rock-solid history. But the opposition of the other seven countries is quite significant. The three medium-sized countries of Argentina, the Czech Republic and Hungary, especially the latter two, are all members of the EU, but they have chosen a different path on this issue than the mainstream opinion of the EU.
The Czech Republic and Hungary have always had a diplomatic tradition of being pro-American and pro-Israel, and the Czech Republic can even be said to be Israel's hardcore friend in Europe. And the situation in Hungary is more complicated, and it is no secret in international politics that Prime Minister Viktor Orban has close ties with Israel's Netanyahu. Coupled with the guilt of history, Hungary's position on the Middle East issue seems to be reasonable.
The situation in Argentina is even more dramatic. The newly appointed far-right president, Milley, quickly adjusted the country's foreign policy after taking office. Historically, Argentina has maintained close relations with both Israel and Arab countries, but Milley's visit to Israel and his promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem was undoubtedly a major turning point. He also characterized Hamas as a terrorist organization, apparently moving closer to Israel.
As for the other four countries, including Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea and Nauru, these Pacific island nations have little influence on the international stage, but they generally maintain a high degree of foreign policy alignment with the United States. This kind of "following the crowd" statement also reflects the influence of the United States in these countries.
Israel's reaction to the vote was particularly striking. Their UN ambassador, Erdan, went so far as to take out a portable electric shredder at the meeting site to shred the cover of the UN Charter, which is an extreme expression of strong dissatisfaction and protest against the resolution. He even bluntly stated that this resolution is opening the door of the United Nations to "modern Nazis". Such a fierce and emotional protest is also very rare in the history of the United Nations.
The opposition of these countries is not unreasonable, but it also raises the question: in international politics, can small countries choose only under the influence of large powers? This is clearly a topic worth pondering. The positions of these countries, although they may seem insignificant in number, have their weight in each vote and represent a voice, an opinion that may be different from the mainstream but no less important.
And the whole voting process, although it is not legally enforceable, has far-reaching symbolic significance. It is not only an international recognition of Palestine, but also a challenge to Israel's long-standing policy of occupation. The vote could also have an impact on the Council's future decision-making and prompt the Council to reconsider the application of Palestine for membership from a more favourable perspective.
In such an international context, each country's choices are not arbitrary, and they all have deep historical, cultural and political considerations behind them. These considerations are intertwined on the international stage, creating a complex map of international relations.
epilogue
On a stage like the United Nations, every vote is more than a simple game of numbers. It reflects the intricacies of relations and positions among States. In particular, the current vote on Palestine has caused waves in the international community. Whether for or against, each country's decision is a step in the big game of international politics. Behind these decisions are thoughtful considerations of national interests, historical sentiments, and future strategies. Every interaction on the international stage is shaping the future of the world. We can only hope that these decisions will eventually lead us to a more peaceful and reasonable world.