Israel Explains ‘No’ Vote on UN Slavery Reparations Resolution

The Israeli Embassy in Accra has publicly explained its decision to vote against Ghana’s United Nations resolution on slavery reparations, stressing that its position was not a denial of the transatlantic slave trade but a concern over how the resolution was framed.

In a Facebook statement posted on March 27, two days after the vote, the embassy expressed regret that its concerns were not addressed during negotiations. It noted that revisions to the text could have led to broader international support.

At the centre of Israel’s objection was the resolution’s description of the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity.” According to the embassy, such wording creates a “hierarchy of atrocities,” implicitly ranking some historical crimes above others. For Israel, whose national identity is deeply shaped by the Holocaust, this raises significant moral and legal concerns.

Link to the post: https://www.facebook.com/share/18NKNGC7VA/

The statement emphasised that Israel fully recognises the scale and brutality of the transatlantic slave trade and does not seek to diminish its historical significance. Instead, it argued that assigning a superlative label to one atrocity risks undermining the recognition of other crimes against humanity, including genocide.

Similar concerns were raised by other Western countries. The United States described the resolution’s language as problematic, while the European Union, though choosing to abstain, also cited issues with wording that could imply a comparative ranking of global atrocities.

Despite these objections, the resolution passed with strong support. A total of 123 of the 193 UN member states voted in favour, while 52 abstained. Only three countries -the United States, Israel, and Argentina - voted against it.

Championed by Ghana and led by President John Dramani Mahama on behalf of the African Group, the resolution calls for dialogue on reparatory justice for the transatlantic slave trade. It urges measures such as formal apologies, compensation, and the return of cultural artefacts taken during the colonial era.

Although the resolution is non-binding and does not compel immediate action, it carries significant symbolic weight. It establishes a global record of how nations stand on the issue of historical accountability.

Israel’s decision to explain its vote directly to a Ghanaian audience highlights the sensitivity of the issue, particularly across Africa. By framing its opposition as a matter of principle rather than denial, the embassy signalled that its disagreement lay with the wording of the resolution, not its underlying intent.

The debate underscores ongoing global tensions over how history is remembered, defined, and addressed within international law.