The United Nations has passed numerous resolutions on the Israel-Palestine issue, but since October 7 voting by UN members in New York has been observed particularly closely. While Lithuania is seen as a staunch supporter of Israel – and the United States – its voting record is more nuanced. To the surprise of some local politicians.
Lithuania’s voting on issues related to Israel show that it many cases it supports pro-human rights positions or follow a common EU line, but at the same time toes the line of not angering the United States and Israel, says Ernestas Verdeja, an international law expert and associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame.
Scandalous abstention
In late October, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution tabled by Jordan calling for an immediate “durable and sustained humanitarian truce” between Israel and Hamas. The resolution called on Israel to cease its offensive in the Gaza Strip.
It also demanded a sustained provision of vital goods and services to civilians in Gaza. Muslim countries then called for a vote in favour of a resolution to help civilians. The US ambassador objected that the resolution did not mention Hamas’ atrocities or hostages the groups was holding.
“This provides cover for and reinforces the brutality of Hamas,” said US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield.
So an amendment was proposed clearly identifying and condemning Hamas’ actions and demanding the release of Israeli hostages in the Gaza Strip. However, the amendment was not adopted with only 88 countries supporting it, 55 voting against and 23 abstaining.
The resolution itself was adopted, with 120 countries voting in favour, 45 abstaining and only 14 members opposing it. Among those who voted against were Israel itself and its close allies: the USA, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Croatia.
Eight EU countries – Belgium, France, Ireland, Spain, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia – supported the resolution calling on Israel to end hostilities. As many as 15 EU countries abstained in the vote, including Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland.
The resolution and Lithuania’s vote ruffled some staunch Israel supporters in the country. That same evening, conservative MP Laurynas Kasčiūnas, who chairs the parliamentary Committee on National Security and Defence, called the resolution “shameful” on Facebook, but did not comment on Lithuania’s position.
Justina Rudzinskaitė, assistant permanent representative of the Lithuanian mission to the UN, said in a commentary sent to LRT.lt that the decision to abstain was taken in view of “the overall context” and the political direction Lithuania was advocating.
“In this context, the decisions taken in all international organisations, the texts of the resolutions and Lithuania’s position are assessed, including on the United Nations resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” the reply states.
Commenting on the outcome of the vote, international law expert Verdaja stressed that countries decide to support, abstain or oppose a resolution not only because of its text, but also because of various other factors.
“The most frequent abstentions, especially among European countries, were due to the fact that they felt the resolution was too critical of Israel, which the United States sees as a strategic partner in the Middle East, and not sufficiently critical of Hamas,” he told LRT.lt.
Spectrum of positions
Lithuanian politicians have repeatedly expressed their support for Israel and condemned the attacks carried out by Hamas on October 7. Lithuania has also sometimes backed Israel at the United Nations, for example, in a May 2017 vote at the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), when it voted against a resolution condemning Israel’s actions in Jerusalem and Gaza.
“We are convinced that the protection of the world’s cultural heritage in the Palestinian Territories and Jerusalem requires the involvement of all stakeholders. We are in favour of balanced action avoiding politicisation. Attempts to use the UNESCO format to deal with political issues could discredit the organisation,” Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman Rasa Jakilaitienė told BNS at the time.
However, looking at Lithuania’s votes in the UN General Assembly in recent years on resolutions of importance to Israel, it is clear that Vilnius and Tel Aviv, as well as Washington, have diverging positions.
For example, the 2022 resolution on “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan”. It condemns “settlement activities by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as violations of international humanitarian law”.
The resolution was supported by 141 countries, 21 abstained, 7 opposed and 24 did not vote at all. Among those opposed were Israel, the USA, Nauru, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Hungary, and Canada. At the time, Lithuania was among the supporters of the resolution, along with many other EU countries. Similar results can be seen in other UN General Assembly resolutions on Israeli activities in the Golan.
Lithuania also abstained in the vote on the resolution on the “Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Violating the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories”. It called for the Special Committee to further investigate Israeli policies and actions in the occupied parts of Palestine, including East Jerusalem, and to investigate alleged violations of the Geneva Convention.
As many as 73 countries abstained, while Israel, together with its closest ally the US, voted against the resolution, as did 16 other countries.
The Lithuanian mission to the UN assured LRT.lt that the decision on how to vote on the resolutions is taken in the light of the government’s foreign policy objectives and that “in order to achieve the desired results in international organisations, including the UN, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is guided by the 18th Programme of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, the Strategic Plan of the Areas of Government of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania for the period 2023–2025, the EU’s jointly-agreed priorities for action in international organisations and international commitments”.
“Since the beginning of its membership in the United Nations, Lithuania has consistently contributed to world and regional peace, security and stability. We are committed to strengthening human rights and democracy, and to finding sustainable solutions to global and regional problems,” Rudzinskaitė said in her reply.
Do resolutions really matter?
UN resolutions can be adopted by the Security Council or the General Assembly. The UN Security Council is mandated by the UN Charter to maintain international peace and security, and the resolutions it adopts can play an important role in mobilising international resources and political will to address security and human rights crises.
“UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding, although enforcement can be difficult on a case-by-case basis,” stressed law expert Verdaja.
Here, a resolution can be vetoed by any of the five permanent members – the UK, the US, China, France, and Russia - which makes it difficult to pass any resolutions that crosses the interests of any of these members. For example, the UN Security Council did not adopt a resolution proposed by Russia on the war between Israel and Hamas. The US and the United Kingdom were among those who did not support the resolution, pointing out that, like the resolution adopted by the General Assembly, it failed to condemn the attacks by Hamas.
Meanwhile, General Assembly resolutions are important statements of position by member countries. UN Watch points out that the US supports Israel in almost 90 percent of the votes. While Washington may express criticism of the Israeli government, especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, its support at the UN has never wavered.
However politically significant the UN General Assembly resolutions may be, they are not legally binding and are rarely followed by concrete action.
“In reality, the combination of UNGA resolutions and sustained forms of pressure – diplomatic, economic and even military – can have a greater impact, but it depends on the case,” stresses Verdaja.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
