On 5 November 2009, after nearly two days of debate, the General Assembly voted by a large majority to endorse the report of the Human Rights Council on the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (the Goldstone report). The Assembly also called on the Secretary-General to transmit the report  to the Security Council, as recommended by the Goldstone report.

On 5 November 2009, after nearly two days of debate, the General Assembly voted by a large majority to endorse the report of the Human Rights Council on the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (the Goldstone report). The Assembly also called on the Secretary-General to transmit the report  to the Security Council, as recommended by the Goldstone report. States in favour of the resolution numbered 114, while 18 voted against it and 44 abstained.  The vote reflected the extent to which this highly politicised issue continues to divide States: the EU was split three ways, and although most members of the African Group and Latin American States supported the resolution, some of their number abstained. The US, Israel, Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany and the Netherlands were among the States that voted against the resolution.

The procedural resolution (64/10) was introduced by Egypt on behalf of the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement.  It called on both Israel and ‘the Palestinian side’ to launch ‘independent, credible’ investigations into the ‘serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law’ committed by both parties to the conflict, as documented in the 567 page Goldstone report. It also stipulated that the investigations should be concluded within three months, conform to international standards, and seek to ensure ‘accountability and justice’. Prompt follow-up to these investigations was provided by a request that the Secretary-General report to the General Assembly at the end of the three month period on progress and suggest what further action the UN (including the Security Council) may need to take. 
 
The adoption of the resolution marks a new chapter in the UN human rights system. It is the first instance where the Human Rights Council has referred a matter onto both the General Assembly and the Security Council. Further, the resolution that links up these most powerful organs of the UN does so in a manner that incorporates critical elements of a human rights-based approach, including the principle of non-discrimination; time-bound actions; and independent investigation, monitoring and evaluation.  Although this is a welcome precedent, it remains to be seen if it can be applied to other situations where there is a need for the international community to protect civilians from armed conflict and end impunity. It also remains to be seen if and how the Security Council might follow-up on the situation, given that the Middle East is already one of its long-standing agenda items, and several States are of the view that any follow-up to the Goldstone report should be a matter exclusively for the Human Rights Council.*

As was the case when the Council debated the Goldstone report, Member States of the General Assembly expressed a variety of views on the report and the way forward. Remaining consistent in its condemnation of the Goldstone report and the Human Rights Council, Israel warned the General Assembly that its consideration of the report, which was ‘conceived in hate and executed in sin’, only damaged efforts to revitalize regional negotiations and denied Israel its right to self-defence. Strong concerns about the content of the Goldstone report and how it was handled in the Council were also a factor in the decision of other States to oppose the resolution (Australia, Canada, Netherlands, US) or abstain from the vote (Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Russian Federation). Some States were not comfortable ‘endorsing’ the Goldstone report, but overcame their reservations to vote in favour of the resolution (Guatemala, India, Ireland, Mexico).

Although the resolution was balanced in its treatment of Israel and Palestinian authorities, the same could not be said of many of the statements governments made during the debate. Egypt set the tone when introducing the resolution by emphasising the military aggression and war crimes committed by Israel, but omitting any reference to violations of international law by the Palestinian side. A series of Arab, African, Islamic and some Latin American States led a sustained attack on Israel.** Others took a more even-handed approach,*** calling on both parties to the conflict, with the support of the international community, to conduct independent investigations and resume peace talks.

In explanation of its vote against the resolution, the US acknowledged that it was more balanced in its treatment of the parties to the conflict than the Council resolution had been, but it was not able to endorse the ‘deeply flawed’ and ‘biased’ Goldstone report. Other unhelpful elements of the resolution were, in its view, the referral of the report to the Security Council and the recommendation to convene a conference of the parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nonetheless, the US ‘strongly supported’ independent investigation of alleged violations of international law by both parties to the conflict, and expressed its deep concern for the suffering experienced by both Israeli and Palestinian civilians. It advised the General Assembly that it ‘should do nothing to hinder peace’  and urged Israel and the Palestinians to resume peace talks with a view to establishing a viable two-State solution.

*Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, US. India and the Russian Federation opposed the Goldstone report being referred to the Security Council.

** Syria (on behalf of the OIC), Sudan, Iran, Libya, Bahrain, UAE, Morocco, Lebanon, Oman, Algeria, Indonesia, Jordan, Qatar, Djibouti, South Africa, Tunisia, Kuwait, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Malaysia, Pakistan, League of Arab States. Similarly critical comments about Israel were made by Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Venezuela.
*** Sweden (on behalf of the EU), Japan, Switzerland, Norway, Brazil, China, Iceland, Mexico, Maldives.

Background information:
- ISHR’s report on Human Rights Council's debate of 'Goldstone report' on 29 and 30 September 2009, during its 12th session
- ISHR’s report on the Human Rights Council's 12th special session on the OPT which endorsed the Goldstone report (15-16 October 2009)
- ISHR report on the Security Council debate on Middle East, which included discussion of the Goldstone report (14 October 2009)