Israel and Palestine: self and other, positive and negative; 2023
5 World opinion
FIRST DRAFT (14 pages)
Distributed … not united, not divided, not polarised
World opinion?
UN Security Council and General Assembly
United Nations and empire systems
UN and Palestine, 2012
The opinion space model
Voting patterns and distances in voting space
Opinion: one-sided, two-sided
Gaza Assistance vote, 23rd December 23 2023
The Red Sea
Houthi Attacks vote, 10th January 2024
Combining the voting patterns in the two issues
Illegal Israeli Actions vote, 26th October 2023
Condemnation: world opinion about Hamas and Israeli violences
Lists of countries: proposing and voting
World opinion?
What is world opinion? Is it the opinion of the people of the world? Is it the opinion of the states of the world? Is the opinion of a state the opinion of its people? Is it the opinion of its government?
This section takes a very restricted approach: it simply looks at world opinion in terms of votes cast at the United Nations. And we look at the voting on just three occasions:
The UN Security Council vote in 2023 about aid to Gaza;
the UN Security Council vote in 2024 about Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea;
The UN General Assembly vote in 2023 about Israel’s actions in Gaza.
In all three cases the resolution passed easily. Usually those who did not vote ‘For’ chose to ‘Abstain’ rather than vote ‘Against’. Very few members did not vote. What did not pass were the amendments to the resolutions. Voting for these was more varied and it is this variation which shall reveal to us the distances between nations in opinion space. An explanation of this opinion space model will follow. Before that though there are a couple sections relating to the UN and the history of its composition.
Table UN votes for the resolutions
. For Abstn Agnst did not vote Total
Gaza assistance 13 2 0 0 15
Houthi attacks 11 4 0 0 15
Israeli action 120 45 14 14 193
UN Security Council and General Assembly
The UN General Assembly has 193 members. This does not include Palestine – see below.
The UN Security Council has 15 members. Five are permanent and ten are not. The ten members each serve for a period of two years and are in two sets of five: five are newly member in the current year; and five were newly members in the previous year.
UN Security Council: https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/
UNSC News (general): https://press.un.org/en/content/security-council
Permanent members (5): USA, Russia, France, UK, China.
Non-permanent members (10):
Dec 2023: Albania-, Brazil-, Ecuador, Gabon-, Ghana-, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates-.
(‘-‘ is for countries who are in their last year)
Jan 2024: Algeria*, Ecuador, Guyana*, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, R Korea*, Sierra Leone*, Slovenia*, Switzerland.
(‘*‘ is for countries who are in their first year)
https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/current-members
United Nations and empire systems
The Second World War was a war partly within Europa*, partly within Abrahamia* and partly against the Asian empire of Japan. It was also partly a war between the two Asian empires of Japan and China.
In 1945 Europa was at its zenith. The armies of the USA, UK and Russia occupied a large part of the world, controlling the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Initially the United Nations membership reflected the ascendancy of Europa.
Even today, four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council belong to Europa: USA, UK, France and Russia. Although there is conflict between the first three and Russia this is still a conflict within Europa.
The fifth permanent member has always been “China”, but this has changed in four stages: 1945-1948, 1948-1949, 1949-1971 and 1971 to the present:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations ;
UN and Palestine, 2012
This is simply a note on the status of Palestine in the United Nations.
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/479/74/PDF/N1247974.pdf?OpenElement
To accord an upgraded status to the Palestinian delegation:
Palestine: The UN … “Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice.”
— United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19, Point 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_67/19 Palestine Authority…
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestinian-Authority
The opinion space model
States can be represented as points in multidimensional opinion space. The distribution of these points in the space is of interest. It may that there is a modal group of states roughly “in the middle” with “extreme states” on either side – with the extreme states in opposition to one another. It may be that the extreme states include some of the major powers.
Issues correspond to subspaces. The preceding remarks may apply to the subspaces. Issue linkage gives rise to linkage in the distribution. Major powers are involved in more issues and so appear more often as extreme states.
Some issues involve negative binary relationships and so the two states involved are the opposing extreme states on this issue.
The world lacks unity because there are states in the extremes. The world is not divided in two because there are more than two groups. The world is not polarised because the modal group is in the middle. The foundational concept is that of a distribution in multidimensional space.
These abstract notions are illustrated with the analysis of three votes in relation to Israel and Palestine and the Houthis.
A model of selves and others
Each state is a self and all the other states are that state’s others. The set of states is a set of selves and others. So the above readily gives an abstract model of a set of selves and others giving a distribution in multidimensional space, in general.
Voting patterns and distances in voting space
For any vote in the UN there are four options: For, Against, Abstain and did not vote. Here we shall refer to Yes and No rather than For and Against, labelling them Y and N; labelling Abstain A; and labelling did not vote ‘dnv’.
The options can be thought of as points in a one-dimensional space. The distance between Y and N is 2; and A is at a distance of 1 from Y and 1 from N. (Here ‘did not vote’ can be thought of as in the same location as Abstain.)
N A Y
Typically a draft resolution is proposed and then amendments to the draft are proposed. Voting takes place on the amendments and on the main draft. Consider the case where there is one main draft and one amendment. There will be a pair of votes, giving rise to two dimensions. There are nine possible combinations (ignoring ‘did not vote’).
Note: the first letter refers to the main vote; and the second letter refers to the amendment vote.
NY AY YY
NA AA YA
NN AN YN
Consider the following five possibilities (in bold in the matrix above):
.(1) NY. No to main; and Yes to the amendment.
,(2) AY. Abstain to the main; and Yes to the amendment.
.(3) YY. Yes to both.
.(4) YA. Yes to the main; and Abstain to the amendment.
.(5) YN. Yes to the main; and No to the amendment.
These can be represented in a one-dimensional space:
NY AY YY YA YN
The combined distance between NY and YN is 4 – because the distance between the first components is 2, between N and Y; and between the second components is 2, between Y and N. The other distances can be calculated in similar fashion.
The matrix of distances is:
NY AY YY YA YN
NY 0 1 2 3 4
AY 0 1 2 3
AA 0 1 2
YA 0 1
YN 0
Opinion: one-sided, two-sided
In the above matrix, there is a distinction between the two-side opinion YY, Yes to both the resolution and to the amendment, and the other one-sided opinions.
.(1) NY. Strongly one-sided for the amendment.
,(2) AY. Fairly one-sided for the amendment.
.(3) YY. Two-sided.
.(4) YA. Fairly one-sided for the main resolution.
.(5) YN. Strongly one-sided for the main resolution.
Gaza Assistance vote, 23rd December 2023
Resolution: Gaza assistance
Amendment: also ceasefire
mode is both – two-sided
Last December the 15-member UN Security Council passed a resolution about assistance to Gaza, with 13 countries in favour including the UK, with none against, and with only USA and Russia abstaining.
A Russian-backed amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire gained 10 votes, with 4 abstentions and one against (USA).
“The Security Council today requested the Secretary-General to appoint a Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator for the Gaza Strip as it demanded the parties to the conflict to allow, facilitate and enable the immediate, safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance at scale directly to Palestinian civilians throughout that territory.” (4)
.(1) “UN to boost Gaza aid after US abstains.” The Times, 23 December 2023, 44.
.(2) Times of Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/security-council-passes-resolution-calling-for-steps-to-immediately-increase-gaza-aid/
.(3) Al-Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/22/un-security-council-passes-resolution-on-increased-gaza-aid-delivery
.(4) https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15546.doc.htm . 2720 (2023)
The table below gives the votes cast for the main resolution and for the amendment. Note that there were no votes against the main resolution and only one against the amendment.
Table Gaza Assistance vote, UNSC resolution 2720 (2023)
. For Abstn Against dnv total
Main 13 2 0 0 15
ceasefire 10 4 1 0 15
2= US, Russia; 4= Albania, Japan, Switzerland, UK; 1= USA.
dnv: did not vote
The voting patterns were AY, YY, YA and AN, indicated in bold in the matrix below.
Note: the first letter refers to the main vote; and the second letter refers to the amendment vote.
NY AY YY
NA AA YA
NN AN YN
The four patterns can be ordered in such a way as to minimise the distance between adjacent patterns. The matrix of distances is:
AY YY YA AN
AY 0 1 2 2
YY 0 1 3
YA 0 2
AN 0
The table below gives the distribution of voting patterns. The mode is YY. Note that the mode YY is also the median (in relation to the ordering of the patterns).
Table The number of votes for each pattern
. AN YA YY AY total
1 4 9 1 15
. USA UK+ mode Russia
The countries voting for these patterns were:
AY: Russia
YY: France, China, Brazil, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Malta, Mozambique, United Arab Emirates.
YA: Albania, Japan, Switzerland, UK
AN: USA
Only two of the nine modal states are in Europa (2/9). All but one of the non-modal states is in Europa (5/6).
In accordance with the model proposed earlier there is a modal group “in the middle”. On either side are two “extreme states”, opposed to one another: Russia and the USA, both major powers, both permanent members of the Security Council.
The Red Sea
January 9th, 2024: Naval interception by the United States and United Kingdom of a barrage of missiles and drones fired from Houthi-controlled territory into the Red Sea.
January 10th, 2024: Houthi Attacks vote at UN – see below.
January 11th, 2024: Air strikes on Yemen.
Following strikes on Houthi sites in Yemen launched by the United States and United Kingdom on 11 January — a day after the Security Council adopted a resolution demanding that the Houthis cease attacking merchant and commercial vessels — a senior United Nations official today warned the 15-nation organ of the consequences of further escalation and urged restraint by all concerned parties.”
https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15565.doc.htm
Houthi Attacks vote, 10th January 2024
Resolution: condemns Houthis
Amendment (third): also condemns Gaza suffering
mode is one-sided for Resolution
“Adopting Resolution 2722 (2024) by Recorded Vote, Security Council Demands Houthis Immediately Stop Attacks on Merchant, Commercial Vessels in Red Sea
United States, United Kingdom Reject Three Amendments By Russian Federation, including One Linking Attacks to Gaza Conflict.
Following naval interception by the United States and United Kingdom of a barrage of missiles and drones fired from Houthi-controlled territory into the Red Sea on 9 January, the Security Council today adopted a resolution demanding that the Houthis immediately cease all attacks on merchant and commercial vessels.
The first would have added a new preambular paragraph underscoring that the text’s provisions should not be seen to create precedent or new norms of international law. The second would have replaced language regarding the defence of vessels with that taking note of Member States’ rights in accordance with international law. Both were rejected by a vote of 4 in favour (Algeria, China, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone) to 2 against (United Kingdom, United States), with 9 abstentions.
The third — rejected along similar lines, except for Guyana voting in favour instead of abstaining — would have added language relating to the conflict in the Gaza Strip. …
The Council then adopted resolution 2722 (2024) (to be issued as document S/RES/2722(2024)) by a vote of 11 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (Algeria, China, Mozambique, Russian Federation).”
UNSC resolution 2722 (2024)
The table below gives the votes cast for the main resolution and for the three amendments. Note that there were no votes against the main resolution and only two votes against each of the amendments
Table Houthi Attacks UNSC resolution 2722 (2024)
. For Abstn Against dnv total
Main 11 4 0 0 15
precedent 4 9 2 0
state rights 4 9 2 0
link to Gaza 5 8 2 0
The voting patterns were YN3, YA3, A4, YA2Y, Y4, and AY3. The patterns, main and amendments, are indicated in bold in the matrix below.
Note: the first letter refers to the main vote; and the second letter refers to the first amendment vote, etc.
NY AYYY YYYY
YAAY
NA AAAA YAAA
NN AN YNNN
The four patterns can be ordered in such a way as to minimise the distance between adjacent patterns. The matrix of distances is:
. AY3 Y4 YA2Y A4 YA3 YN3
AY3 0 1 3 3 4 7
Y4 0 2 4 3 6
YA2Y 0 2 1 4
A4 0 1 4
YA3 0 3
YN3 0
The table below gives the distribution of voting patterns. The mode is YA3. Note that the mode YA3 is also the median (given the ordering of the patterns).
Table The number of votes for each pattern
AY3 Y4 YA2Y A4 YA3 YN3 total
. 3 1 1 1 7 2 15
. Russia, mode USA,
. China+ France UK
The countries voting for these patterns were:
AY3: Russia, China, Algeria;
Y4: Sierra Leone;
YA2Y: Guyana;
A4: Mozambique;
YA3: France, Ecuador, Japan, Malta, R Korea, Slovenia, Switzerland;
YN3: USA, UK.
Four of the seven modal states are in Europa (4/7). Three of the eight non-modal states is in Europa (3/8).
In accordance with the model proposed earlier there is a modal group “in the middle”. The modal group includes France, a permanent member of the Security Council. On either side are two pairs of “extreme states”, opposed to one another: Russia & China and the USA and UK, all major powers, all permanent members of the Security Council.
Combining the voting patterns in the two issues
We have now looked at two separate issues, namely Gaza assistance and Houthi attacks. Let us now consider the combination of the voting patterns on these two issues.
First consider just the five permanent members. There are five distinct combinations. The combinations can be ordered in such a way as to minimise the distance between adjacent patterns. Russia is just a distance of 1 away from China;
USA is just a distance of 2 away from UK. France is in the middle, a distance of 4 from each of China and UK.
Note that France (which is in both modal groups) is also the median (given the ordering of the combinations) in both issues.
. Russia China France UK USA
. AY mode mode YA AN mode is YY
AY3 AY3 mode YN3 YN3 mode is YA3
.distance 1 4 4 2
The matrix of distances is:
Table The matrix of distances
. Russia China France UK USA
. AY mode mode YA AN mode is YY
AY3 AY3 mode YN3 YN3 mode is YA3
Russia 0 1 5 9 9
China 0 4 5 10
France 0 4 6
UK 0 2
USA 0
This analysis can be extended to include the non-permanent members. There are 20 different members in 2023 and 2024. There are 13 different combinations. The distances between adjacent combinations (treating ‘-‘ as abstentions):
1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 4, 0, 0, 0, 2, 1, 3, 2
The countries voting for these patterns were:
AY, AY3: Russia
YY, AY3: China
-, AY3: Algeria;
-, Y4: Sierra Leone;
-, YA2Y: Guyana;
YY, A4: Mozambique;
YY, -: Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, United Arab Emirates mode, median I
YY, YA3: France, Ecuador, Malta median II
-, YA3: R Korea, Slovenia
YA, -: Albania
YA, YA3: Japan, Switzerland;
YA, YN3: UK
AN, YN3: USA
The table below gives the distribution of voting patterns. The mode is YY, -. Note that the mode YA3 is also the median I (given the ordering of the patterns) – adjacent to YY, YA3, which is median II.
Table The number of votes for each pattern
Russia China UAE France Japan UK; USA
1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 1 2 1; 1
None of the four modal states are in Europa (0/4). Half of the non-modal states are in Europa (8/16).
In accordance with the model proposed earlier there is a modal group “in the middle”. At either extreme are two “extreme states”, opposed to one another: Russia and the USA, both major powers, both permanent members of the Security Council.
Illegal Israeli Actions vote, 26th October 2023
Resolution: condemns Israel mainly
Amendment: also condemns Hamas
Bimodal: two one-sided modes
On 26th October 2023 the General Assembly of the United Nations considered a draft resolution concerning the “Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Canada proposed an amendment, proposing the addition of a paragraph condemning the Hamas attack on October 7th. The Canada amendment failed to gather sufficient support and the main resolution was passed. The UK subsequently produced a paper about why they had abstained from the main motion.
“In the end, the amendment failed, unable to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes in the General Assembly. The vote saw 88 members in favour, and 55 against, with 23 abstentions. The resolution itself passed by a margin of 120-14.”
Note: the General Assembly has 193 members.
https://www.un.org/en/ga/sessions/emergency10th.shtml
Table Raw numbers: the votes
. For Abstn Against Did not vote Total
Main 120 45 14 14 193 97 for absolute majority
Canada 88 23 55 27 193 128 for two-thirds
https://twitter.com/UN_News_Centre/status/1717992371906839005/photo/2
https://twitter.com/UN_News_Centre/status/1717991362010792164
The main draft resolution, 26 October 2023
“Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
[As this title implies the main concern of the resolution is to condemn Israeli “illegal” actions, although the following few sentences seem (inter alia) to refer to the Hamas attack on 7 October.]
… Expressing grave concern at the latest escalation of violence since the 7 October 2023 attack and …
… Condemning all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including all acts of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,
… 7. Calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all civilians who are being illegally held captive, demanding their safety, well-being and humane treatment in compliance with international law;”
Canada amendment
“Canada:* amendment to draft resolution A/ES-10/L.25 Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations
After operative paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph: Unequivocally rejects and condemns the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting on 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages, demands the safety, well-being and humane treatment of the hostages in compliance with international law, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release;”
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/canada-amendment-to-draft-resolution-a-es-10-l-25/
Why the UK abstained
Condemnation: world opinion about Hamas and Israeli violences
The main resolution, the Canada amendment and the UK paper all refer to condemnation. Either it is one-sided condemnation of either Hamas or Israel, or it is two-sided condemnation of both. The three documents are conceptually sophisticated but for what comes later I think it is helpful to summarise the situation as follows.
There are 193 countries at the UN. They can be put into groups according to their voting on the main resolution and on the Canada amendment. Each vote has four options: for, abstain, against, or do not vote. There are sixteen possible combined options. So sixteen possible groups of countries. These sixteen options/groups are identified in the following.
Israel condemns Hamas violence. Hamas condemns Israeli violence. Supporters of Israel condemn only Hamas violence (1). Supporters of Hamas condemn only Israeli violence (2). There are those who condemn both Hamas violence and Israeli violence (3). Two groups abstain on one violence and condemn the other: either abstain on Hamas violence (4); or abstain on Israeli violence (5). No-one abstains on both cases of violence (6).
Three possible groups are some combination of abstain, and against condemnation of violence: against condemnation of Hamas and abstain on Israel (7); against condemnation of Israel and abstain on Hamas (8); against condemnation of both (9).
Seven possible groups do not vote on one or both motions: vote on neither (10); condemn Israel (11); condemn Hamas (12); abstain on Israel (13); abstain on Hamas (14); … (15); … (16).
The number of countries in each of these groups is:
14, 51, 34; 39, 21, 0; 4, 0, 0; 11, 14, 1, 2, 2, 0, 0.
So there is no consensus. Nor are there two blocs of opinion. Instead there are seven groups/options with ten or more countries. There are another four groups/options with just a few countries. So overall, eleven different groups, eleven different opinions. So it is helpful to think of a distribution of opinion.
Almost all the 193 countries voted either ‘for’ the main resolution or ‘for’ the Canada amendment or ‘for’ both. Only 19 did not – and of those 11 did not vote for either.
Of the 120 countries who voted ‘for’ the main resolution, 51 voted ‘against’ the Canada amendment (Iran), 34 voted ‘for’ Canada (France), 21 abstained and 14 did not vote (Afghanistan).
Of the 88 countries who voted ‘for’ the Canada amendment, 34 also voted ‘for’ the main resolution (as already noted) (France), 39 abstained on the main (UK), 14 voted ‘against’ (US and Israel); and 1 did not vote.
Four countries voted ‘for’ the main resolution and abstained on the Canada amendment: Ethiopia A, Iraq A, Serbia A, Tunisia A,
The table below gives the votes cast for the main resolution and for the amendment. Note that there were no votes against the main resolution and only one against the amendment.
Table Raw numbers: the votes
. For Abstn Against Did not vote Total
Main 120 45 14 14 193 97 for absolute majority
Canada 88 23 55 27 193 128 for two-thirds
Table “Illegal Israeli action”: the resolution and amendment voting pattern.
The distribution of voting: the options and the number of countries voting for each option
. main:
. dnv N A Y total
Amendment:
Y 1 14 39 34 88
A 2 0 0 21 23
N 0 0 4 51 55
dnv 11 0 2 14 27
total 14 14 45 120 193
The voting patterns were NY, AY, YY, YA and AN, indicated in bold in the matrix above and in the matrix below.
Note: the first letter refers to the main vote; and the second letter refers to the amendment vote.
NY AY YY
NA AA YA
NN AN YN
The five patterns can be ordered in such a way as to minimise the distance between adjacent patterns. The matrix of distances is:
NY AY YY YA YN
NY 0 1 2 3 4
AY 0 1 2 3
YY 0 1 2
YA 0 1
AN 0
The table below gives the distribution of voting patterns. The mode is YN. However the distribution is bimodal with a second smaller mode at AY. The median is YY (in relation to the ordering of the patterns).
Table The number of votes for each pattern
. YN YA YY AY NY total
51 21 34 39 14 15
. R C Arab Can Fr UK USA, Israel
According to the model proposed earlier there is a modal group “in the middle”. This is not the case here. What is the case though is that on either side of the middle are two “extreme states”, opposed to one another: Russia and the USA, both major powers, both permanent members of the Security Council.
Lists of countries: proposing and voting
NOTE: the following lists need checking.
Proposing
… The proposers included many Arab countries; and no European except for Russia. It did not include China.
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Türkiye, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, Zimbabwe and State of Palestine:* draft resolution
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/319/20/PDF/N2331920.pdf?OpenElement
Voting
1 Those voting for the main resolution
There were 120 countries voting for the main resolution. Some, 34, also voted for the Canada amendment, 34; some abstained, 21; most voted against the Canada amendment, 51; and 14 did not vote in relation to the Canada amendment.
…
A Voted for Canada amendment
Some Europe
Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil,
Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican, Ecuador, France, Ghana, Honduras,
Ireland, Kenya, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mexico,
Montenegro, Myanmar, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Portugal,
Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon, Spain, Switzerland, Timor.
…
B Abstained on Canada amendment
No Europe
Angola, Antigua, Bahamas, Botswana, Colombia, Cote D’Ivoire,
DR, El Salvador, Grenada, Guinea B, Lao, Lesotho, Mongolia,
Mozambique, Nepal, St Vincent, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad.
…
C Voted against Canada amendment
Arab … no Europe except Russia
Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei, Central Africa, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, DPK, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauretania, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi A, Senegal, Somalia, S Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan,
Turkiye, Uganda, UAR, URT, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
…
D Did not vote in relation to Canda amendment
No Europe
Afghanistan, Dominica, Equator Guin, Eritrea, Gabon, Madagascar, Mauritius, St Kitts, St Lucia, Sierra Leone, Uzbekistan, Vietnam.
2 Those abstaining on the main resolution
There were 45 countries abstaining on the main resolution.
…
A Most of those, 39, voted for the Canada amendment.
They included UK and many European countries
Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lativa, Lithuania, Monaco, Netherlands, North Mac, Poland, Rep of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine, UK.
Australia, Cabo Verde, Canada, Georgia, Haiti, India, Japan, Kiribati, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Rep of Korea, South Sudan, Tuvalu, Uruguay.
…
B [None abstained].
…
C Four went the opposite way and voted against Canada (Ethiopia, Iraq, Serbia, Tunisia).
No Europe.
…
D Just three did note vote in relation to Canada (Cameroon, Vanuatu, Zambia).
No Europe.
3 Those voting against the main resolution
There were 14 countries voting against the main resolution.
A They all voted for the Canada amendment.
They included
Three in Europe … Israel and the USA … Austria and Croatia … two countries in Latin America and five in the Pacific.
Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Fiji, Guatemala, Israel, Marshall I., Micronesia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tonga, USA.
4 Those not voting in relation to the main resolution
No Europe
There were 14 countries not voting for the main resolution.
…
A Just one (Seychelles) voted for the Canada amendment.
…
B Two (Jamaica and Togo) abstained.
…
D Of those, 11 countries did not vote in relation to the Canada amendment either.
Benin, Burkino Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Eswatini, Liberia, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome-P, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.