The UN General Assembly has adopted a Palestinian-drafted, non-binding resolution demanding Israel end "its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" within 12 months.

There were 124 votes in favour and 14 against, including Israel, along with 43 abstentions. As a non-member observer state, Palestine could not vote.

The resolution is based on a July advisory opinion from the UN's highest court that said Israel was occupying the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip against international law.

The Palestinian ambassador called the vote a turning point “in our struggle for freedom and justice”. But his Israeli counterpart denounced it as “diplomatic terrorism”.

Although the General Assembly’s resolutions are not binding, they carry symbolic and political weight given they reflect the positions of all 193 member states of the UN.

It comes after almost a year of war in Gaza, which began when Hamas gunmen attacked Israel on 7 October, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 others as hostages.

More than 41,110 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.

There has also been a spike in violence in the West Bank over the same period, in which the UN says more than 680 Palestinians and 22 Israelis have been killed.

The advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) - which was also not legally binding - said a 15-judge panel had found that "Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful” and that the country was “under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence... as rapidly as possible”.

The court also said Israel should “evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and “make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned”.

Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967. The court said the settlements “have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law”, which Israel has consistently disputed.

Israel's prime minister said at the time that the court had made a "decision of lies" and insisted that “the Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land”.

Wednesday’s General Assembly resolution welcomed the ICJ’s declaration.

It demands that Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory... and do so no later than 12 months”, and “comply without delay with all its legal obligations under international law”.

The West Bank-based Palestinian Authority’s foreign ministry described its passing as a “pivotal and historic moment for the Palestinian cause and international law”.

It emphasised that the support of almost two thirds of UN member states reflected “a global consensus that the occupation must end and its crimes must cease”, and that it “reaffirmed the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination”.

Israel’s foreign ministry called the resolution “a distorted decision that is disconnected from reality, encourages terrorism and harms the chances for peace”, adding: “This is what cynical international politics looks like.”

It said the resolution “bolsters and strengthens the Hamas terrorist organisation” and “sends a message that terrorism pays off and yields international resolutions”. It also accused the Palestinian Authority of “conducting a campaign whose goal is not to resolve the conflict but to harm Israel” and vowed to respond.

The US, which voted against the resolution, warned beforehand that the text was “one-sided” and “selectively interprets the substance of the ICJ’s opinion”.

“There is no path forward or hope offered through this resolution today. Its adoption will not save Palestinian lives, bring the hostages home, end Israeli settlements, or reinvigorate the peace process,” Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said.

The UK’s ambassador, Barbara Woodward, explained that it had abstained “not because we do not support the central findings of the ICJ's advisory opinion, but rather because the resolution does not provide sufficient clarity to effectively advance our shared aim of a peace premised on a negotiated two-state solution”.