While the resolution is deeply flawed in its overall framing, several constructive changes—driven by Pakistan and the O.I.C.—signal a shift worth recognizing.
April 11, 2025, New York, NY – Despite remaining deeply biased against Israel, the American Jewish Congress welcomes Pakistan’s role in removing the most extreme provisions of a resolution passed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, and in ensuring language that condemns the October 7 attacks on Israeli civilians and calls for the release of hostages. The resolution was tabled on behalf of the Saudi Arabia-dominated Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which represents 57 Muslim-majority nations—making the shift in language even more significant and noteworthy.
But make no mistake: The resolution as adopted continues to suffer from serious deficiencies, including the absence of any reference to Hamas and its atrocities, including killing elderly Israeli citizens and abducting babies, as well as language that could inadvertently legitimize terrorism. Nonetheless, the changes introduced by Pakistan and the OIC represent a meaningful departure from past patterns and deserve acknowledgement.
The adopted resolution includes several notable shifts in tone and substance that merit acknowledgment:
- A formal condemnation of the October 7 terror attacks against Israeli civilians
- Explicit criticism of rocket attacks into Israel targeting civilian population centers and indirect references to armed groups violating international law
- Removal of a clause that would have created a UN mechanism to prosecute Israeli officials—replaced with a non-binding suggestion to the UN General Assembly
- It references international standards on the treatment of prisoners, women detainees, and the withholding of bodies—all indirect but unmistakable criticism of Hamas
These elements represent a significant shift in language for a resolution sponsored by the OIC and may reflect shifting dynamics across the region. Several member states of the OIC are strong and robust partners of Israel, like Albania, Morocco, Azerbaijan, and the United Arab Emirates.
Particularly noteworthy is Pakistan’s role in removing the most egregious clause from the original draft, which would have called for a standing UN mechanism to prosecute individuals from “all parties” for human rights violations—a provision that, given the resolution’s anti-Israel slant, would have effectively targeted Israeli officials. The final version instead merely suggests that the General Assembly consider such a step—an important distinction, given that UNGA resolutions are non-binding.
We acknowledge this adjustment as a constructive gesture by Pakistan and the OIC, one that reflects the evolving diplomatic landscape in the Middle East. Muslim-majority nations such as Azerbaijan, Morocco, and the U.A.E. are strengthening ties with Israel, and Indonesia is reportedly considering elevating its own engagement. These regional changes coincide with expectations of a second wave of Abraham Accords signatories under President Donald J. Trump’s administration.
Like Israel, Pakistan has waged its own battle against terror groups, including groups ideologically aligned with Hamas, like Al-Qaeda. Given that experience, Pakistan’s decision to include such language seems like a natural extension of its broader stance against terrorism. This bodes well for future conversations on normalization and could contribute to a broader effort to improve Pakistan–U.S. relations—especially in the context of counterterrorism and regional stability.
At the same time, we must be clear: the resolution remains deeply flawed. It fails to either name or even allude to Hamas, despite the group’s central role in launching the current war, committing atrocities on October 7, and continuing to hold innocent civilians hostage. It overlooks Israel’s legitimate security concerns and disregards the entrenched presence of violent armed factions in Gaza. Most troubling is the following clause that, without clear qualification, could give terror groups like Hamas a justification for their terrorism: “Reaffirming the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation in accordance with international law.”
Terror groups like Hamas do not need encouragement or ambiguity. International resolutions must make an unambiguous distinction between legitimate national movements and indiscriminate violence targeting civilians.
Still, the changes introduced by Pakistan, and the emerging moderation in an OIC resolution on Israel, are noteworthy. We urge them to consider going a step further to condemn the atrocities that Hamas committed inside Israel and in Gaza and call for the immediate release of the hostages in future resolutions. The American Jewish Congress remains committed to advancing peace, mutual recognition, and respect for the rule of law.
