Ynet News (English), on Gaza, 6 November 2026

8.7out of 10Severe

Palestinians push as EU struggles to agree

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.6 findings

As Israel navigates the process of forming its next government, the Palestinians are preparing to advance a series of at the United Nations . The proposals are expected to come before the UN General Assembly for approval throughout November. The Palestinian delegation is seeking to advance resolutions critical of Israel, with particular emphasis on the consequences of the war that began on October 7, 2023.

Among the proposals are resolutions addressing assistance to Palestinian refugees, protection of their property and livelihoods, and condemnation of Israeli settlements in , including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights. The resolutions are also expected to include a formal condemnation of plans to advance construction tenders in the E1 area, a strategically sensitive corridor east of Jerusalem in the West Bank.

In addition, the Palestinians are seeking, for the first time, a formal UN declaration refusing to recognize , alongside a demand for a policy of "differentiation" between the West Bank and . The draft resolutions are currently the subject of negotiations over their final wording between the Palestinian delegation and European Union member states. Particularly intensive talks took place this week with EU representatives.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article presents the demand for non-recognition of the occupation and for differentiation as a new Palestinian initiative against Israel. It never says the ICJ's July 2024 advisory opinion held the occupation unlawful and the settlements illegal, the basis on which states are asked not to recognise it. Ynet reported on that opinion a day earlier. Without it a reader believes the demands are a Palestinian political attack, not a call to apply an international court's finding.

How we know

Despite significant Palestinian pressure, a week of internal consultations and marathon diplomatic discussions among the bloc's 27 member states failed to produce a consensus on any of the proposed resolutions. Nevertheless, diplomatic officials believe the Palestinians are unlikely to abandon the initiative. Despite the differences between EU member states and the lack of broad European agreement, the Palestinian delegation may still decide to bring the resolutions to a vote without a consensus or widespread European backing.

Meanwhile, Israel's UN mission and Ambassador Danny Danon are working behind the scenes to soften the language of the resolutions and reduce the number of countries expected to support them. "They are trying to exploit the situation to challenge us from the UN podium," Danon said. "The Israeli delegation is working closely with our allies to ."

Read the original article on ynetnews.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (6)

Ynet tells its reader that settlements sit in territories merely "described as occupied" and calls the West Bank part of "the rest of Israel", hedging the ICJ's 2024 finding that the occupation is unlawful and the settlements illegal. It labels the resolutions "anti-Israel" in its own voice and quotes only Israel's ambassador Danny Danon, who has the last word.

  1. Hedges the documented record

    Severe

    “territories described as occupied”

    Why this matters
    The words "described as occupied" turn the legal status of East Jerusalem and the other territories into a matter of description by unnamed others.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes that whether these territories are occupied is an open question, a label used by one side.
    The context
    The ICJ's July 2024 advisory opinion holds Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem unlawful and the settlements illegal. Ynet reported on that opinion the day before. The article never says the settlements are illegal.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Among the proposals are resolutions condemning Israeli settlements in occupied territory, including East Jerusalem, which the ICJ found in 2024 to be illegal under international law.

  2. Uses the occupation's words

    Serious

    “the rest of Israel”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice Ynet writes "the rest of Israel", which treats the West Bank as one part of Israel.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the West Bank is Israeli territory and that the Palestinians want it treated differently from the rest of the country.
    The context
    The West Bank is occupied territory, not part of Israel. The ICJ's 2024 advisory opinion holds the occupation unlawful. Ynet's own earlier report names that opinion.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “Israel's presence in the West Bank”

    Why this matters
    Ynet calls the occupation Israel's "presence", a neutral word for a military occupation.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the Palestinians are asking the UN to refuse to recognise a mere presence, which makes the demand look extreme.
    The context
    The demand concerns an occupation the ICJ has found unlawful. Refusing to recognise it follows from that finding.

    How we know

    • On the recordThe ICJ's July 2024 advisory opinion holds Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem unlawful and the settlements illegal under international law.icj-cij.org (opens in a new tab)

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The Palestinians are seeking, for the first time, a formal UN declaration refusing to recognise Israel's occupation of the West Bank, which the ICJ found unlawful in 2024, and a policy of differentiation between Israel and the occupied West Bank.

  3. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “aimed at challenging the country's international standing”

    Why this matters
    Ynet states in its own voice what the resolutions are "aimed at", with no attribution.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes it is established that the resolutions are meant to damage Israel's standing, not to address refugees, property and illegal settlements.
    The context
    This is Danny Danon's account, given later as a quote. The resolutions described in S4 to S6 concern refugee aid, property and settlements the ICJ found illegal.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“They are trying to exploit the situation to challenge us from the UN podium”
    • Elsewhere in the article“assistance to Palestinian refugees, protection of their property and livelihoods”

    Show it in the article

  4. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “anti-Israel UN resolutions”

    Why this matters
    The headline labels the resolutions "anti-Israel" in Ynet's own voice.
    The impression it gives
    A reader of the headline believes the resolutions are hostile to Israel as such.
    The context
    The body describes resolutions on refugee aid, property and condemnation of settlements, which the ICJ has found illegal.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“assistance to Palestinian refugees, protection of their property and livelihoods”

    Show it in the article

    “anti-Israel resolutions”

    Why this matters
    The opening sentence repeats the "anti-Israel" label before the reader learns what the resolutions say.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes the verdict as settled before reading the contents.
    The context
    Ynet's own neutral description in S3, "resolutions critical of Israel", shows a plainer wording was available.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“resolutions critical of Israel”

    Show it in the article

  5. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “confront this diplomatic attack”

    Why this matters
    Ynet ends on Danon calling the resolutions a "diplomatic attack", after quoting only him.
    The impression it gives
    A reader hears only Israel's account of what the resolutions are and why they are being brought.
    The context
    The Palestinian delegation, whose resolutions the article is about, is never quoted or given a chance to say what it seeks.

    Show it in the article

  6. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article presents the demand for non-recognition of the occupation and for differentiation as a new Palestinian initiative against Israel. It never says the ICJ's July 2024 advisory opinion held the occupation unlawful and the settlements illegal, the basis on which states are asked not to recognise it. Ynet reported on that opinion a day earlier. Without it a reader believes the demands are a Palestinian political attack, not a call to apply an international court's finding.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Ynet News (English)

  1. 5 NovTony Blair meets Herzog in Israel as US pushes to revive stalled Gaza reconstruction plan6.0
  2. 5 Nov‘Troubling résumés’: Meet the newly elected judges at The Hague and their ties to Israel6.0
  3. 4 NovOctober 7: New details reveal five red-hot Hamas warnings Israel missed0.0
  4. 2 Nov'Inside, I was still at war': Nova survivor's descent into addiction and road to recovery0.0
  5. 2 NovTrump's Gaza plan stalls as Israel's political deadlock deepens8.7

Everything we scored from Ynet News (English)