A/69/PV.61 General Assembly

Before the Assembly takes action on the draft resolutions one by one, I should like to remind members that they will have an opportunity to explain their votes on all four draft resolutions before and after action is taken on all of those resolutions. Before giving the floor to the speakers in explanation of vote before the voting, I would like to remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU). The EU wishes to thank the Palestinian delegation for the successful outcome of our negotiations on a number of draft resolutions on which the General Assembly will be taking action. Based on those negotiations, the EU would like to confirm its consolidated voting pattern on these draft resolutions. At this time, we would like to put it on record that with regard to all resolutions adopted during the Assembly’s sixty-ninth session, the EU and its member States consider that whenever the term *1465053* 14-65053 (E) “Palestinian Government” is mentioned, this refers to the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, the use of the term “Palestine” in any of those resolutions cannot be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine, and is used without prejudice to the individual positions of the member States on the issue and thus to the question of the validity of an accession to the conventions and treaties mentioned therein. Finally, the European Union as a whole has not expressed a legal qualification with regard to the term “forced displacement” used in a number of draft resolutions submitted under items 36 and 51.

In a few minutes, the Assembly will vote on a series of draft resolutions that exist only to defame and delegitimize Israel. As it does every year, Israel will vote against the draft resolutions because they are as outdated as they are outrageous. Countless countries face dire economic conditions at home, but manage to find the resources for United Nations bodies that fund anti-Israeli incitement and the defamation and delegitimization of Israel. The international community has found the funding to create a United Nations website called United Nations Platform for Palestine (unpfp. un.org). The site calls for the boycotting of Israel and Israeli products. Every year, the United Nations spends over $6 million on the Division for Palestinian Rights, the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Department of Public Information’s special information programme on the question of Palestine. Every year, my delegation asks what each of these institutions do, and we have yet to receive a response. The Assembly declared 2014 to be the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. As the year draws to a close, I have to ask what was achieved. Did the Year of Solidarity motivate the Palestinian Authority to finally hold elections? Not at all. Did the Year of Solidarity inspire the Palestinian Authority to prepare their people for peace? Not in the least. Did the Year of Solidarity bring us closer to peace? Far from it. All those who claim to stand for peace should ask what they are voting for — solidarity with perpetuating conflicts, solidarity with the culture of hatred and incitement, solidarity with unilateral actions instead of direct negotiations? I will conclude by saying the following — there is no moral clarity in this vote for solidarity. To my colleagues, I say the following — when they vote today, they should vote for reason and responsibility. They should consider the draft texts before them and then ask themselves: will they continue the tradition of rubberstamping resolutions, or will they take a stand and seek lasting solutions? I call on the Assembly to vote against these resolutions.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote. The Assembly will now take decisions on draft resolutions A/69/L.21, A/69/L.22, A/69/L.23 and A/69/L.24. We turn first to draft resolution A/69/L.21, entitled “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution, and in addition to those delegations listed in the document, the following countries have become sponsors of draft resolution A/69/L.21: the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana, the Niger and Viet Nam.

A recorded vote has been requested. [Subsequently, the delegations of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and the Sudan informed the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.]

We turn next to draft resolution A/69/L.22, entitled “Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed on the draft document, the following countries have become sponsors of A/69/L.22: the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana and the Niger.

A recorded vote has been requested. [Subsequently, the delegations of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and the Sudan informed the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.]

We now turn to draft resolution A/69/L.23, entitled “Special information programme on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed on the document, the following countries have become sponsors of A/69/L.23: Belarus, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana and the Niger.

A recorded vote has been requested.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/69/L.24, entitled “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed in the draft document, the following countries have become sponsors of A/69/L.24: Belarus, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana, Kyrgyzstan and the Niger.

A recorded vote has been requested.

Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of vote, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Like everyone in the Assembly Hall, we are deeply concerned about the volatile situation in the Middle East. The United States has made an enormous effort, especially over the past year and a half, to work with the parties in trying to pave the road towards achieving a negotiated final-status agreement allowing two States to live side by side in peace and security. In that context, the United States remains profoundly troubled by the repetitive and disproportionate number of one-sided General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel — a total of 18 this year. That grossly one-sided approach damages the prospects for peace by undermining trust between parties and undermining the kind of international support critical to achieving peace. All parties to the conflict have direct responsibilities for ending it, and we are disappointed that Members of the United Nations continually single out Israel without acknowledging the responsibilities and difficult steps that must be taken on all sides. Those unbalanced, one-sided resolutions set back our collective efforts to advance a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East, and they damage the institutional credibility of the United Nations. Of these annual resolutions which unfairly single out one country and consistently lack balance, three are particularly troubling to the United States: those concerning the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. Those resolutions renew mandates for United Nations bodies established decades ago, wasting valuable resources and reinforcing the perception of systematic United Nations bias against Israel. All Member States should evaluate the effectiveness of supporting and funding those bodies. I do want to add that our continued opposition to the text on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem and the occupied Golan, which will come up for a vote in the Assembly next month, should not be understood to mean that we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms Israeli settlements in territories occupied in 1967. Settlements are illegitimate; they damage Israel’s security and the hopes for peace. Continued settlement activity is contrary to Israel’s stated goal of negotiating a permanent-status agreement with the Palestinians and is inconsistent with Israel’s international commitments. During the past year, we have been deeply concerned by Israel’s advancement of plans for thousands of additional housing units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. We have made clear that such action only draws condemnation from the international community, poisons the atmosphere — not only with the Palestinians, but also with the very Arab Governments with which the Israeli Government says it wants to build relations — and undermines the prospect for a peaceful negotiated agreement with the Palestinians. Both sides took unhelpful steps that undercut the most recent round of final-status negotiations. The scale and timing of Israel’s settlement activities contributed significantly to the erosion of trust between the parities. The United States is in full agreement about the urgent need to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians based on the two-State solution and an agreement that establishes a viable, independent and contiguous State of Palestine once for all. We have invested a tremendous amount of effort and resources in pursuit of that shared goal, and we firmly believe that the parties need to resolve the conflict through direct negotiations. If the parties are willing and ready to take that step, we are prepared to support them and to continue our efforts to advance the cause of peace. In closing, while the United States, unequivocally rejects Israeli settlements in territories occupied in 1967, that does not justify the repetitive, disproportionate and one-sided General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel, which do not advance our collective efforts to promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

I speak in explanation of vote after the adoption of resolutions 69/20, 69/21, 69/22 and 69/23. Singapore voted in favour of resolution 69/20 on the understanding that the reference in paragraph 2 to “the achievement... of the two-State solution on the basis of the pre-1967 borders” should be interpreted in the same manner as set out in paragraph 1 of resolution 69/23, namely, “the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders”.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 36.

Before the Assembly takes action on the draft resolutions one by one, members are reminded that they will have an opportunity to explain their vote on the two draft resolutions before and after action is taken on both. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolutions A/69/L.25, entitled “Jerusalem”, and A/69/L.26, entitled “The Syrian Golan”. We turn first to draft resolution A/69/L.25. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed in the draft document, the following countries have become sponsors of A/69/L.25: the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam and the Niger.

A recorded vote has been requested. [Subsequently, the delegation of China informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.]

We now turn to draft resolution A/69/L.26. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations already listed in the draft document, the following countries have become sponsors of A/69/L.26: the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam and the Niger.

A recorded vote has been requested.

Before giving the floor to the speakers in explanation of vote, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the delegations of Argentina and Brazil to explain our votes, as we have done in previous years, on the resolution on the Syrian Golan (resolution 69/25), just adopted by the General Assembly. Brazil and Argentina voted in favour of the resolution because we believe that its essential character is linked to the illegality of the acquisition of territory by force. Paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the use or threat of use of force against the territory or integrity of a State. At the same time, I want to clarify the position of our delegations with respect to paragraph 6 of the resolution. Our vote does not prejudge the content of that paragraph, particularly the reference to “the line of 4 June 1967”. Brazil and Argentina believe that it is important to make progress in the search for a solution to the Syrian-Israeli track of the Middle East conflict so as to put an end to the occupation of the Golan Heights. Therefore, on behalf of the Governments of Brazil and Argentina, I once again stress the importance of resuming negotiations in order to find a definitive solution to the situation in the Syrian Golan, in accordance with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and the principle of land for peace.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of vote. I call on the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic for a statement.

I call on the observer of the Observer State of Palestine for a statement.

Allow me at the beginning to express our gratitude to the five members that sponsored our resolutions, those that introduced them and all the countries that voted in favour. We believe that this sends a very strong message from the General Assembly and from the vast majority of Member States in favour of justice, peace and the two- State solution. In that connection, we have the highest respect for the judgement of all countries in the exercise of their sovereign right to make decisions that advance the cause of justice and peace. We respect the decisions of all countries, even those that did not vote in favour of the resolutions. I believe that those that disrespectfully attack other countries or that have even gone so far as to say that members of the General Assembly vote like sheep have no respect for the spirit of multilateralism, democracy or the collective judgment of the international community. We are delighted to stand in the camp of history and respect for international law and for the decisions of the General Assembly. We hope that those who think that these resolutions do not serve their narrow view of the way things in our region should proceed will change their minds. We believe that this strong message from the General Assembly upholds international law. We are in the business of upholding international law, and that is the essence of what the United Nations stands for, as reflected in its Charter. We are very happy that yet again this year the General Assembly has strongly supported all our resolutions, which address the fine details of the national rights of the Palestinian people, including our right to self-determination and the independence of our State. We are fully committed to seeing two States living side by side in peace and tranquillity. If we wish to fulfil the consensus desire of all members for a two-State solution, that would require the State that is occupying the land of another to withdraw from it so that our State can become independent, enabling us to realize our common goal of a two-State solution. Those who say that the issue is not two States are not, in that sense, telling the truth. The issue is in essence the two-State solution and ending the occupation in order to achieve that goal. We are committed to it despite the tremendous pain we are enduring, particularly in the Gaza Strip and in other parts of the occupied territory, especially East Jerusalem. Despite our pain, we will not lose sight of the goal of achieving a two-State solution. Together with the Assembly, we will continue moving in that direction until we see  — soon, we hope  — the end of the occupation and the independence of our State, the State of Palestine, in all the territory that Israel occupied on 4 June 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a just solution to the refugee question on the basis of resolution 194 (III). We will continue to work together. The Assembly has inspired our people with the strong message it has sent today, and we will continue to march together in the direction of peace until we have two States living side by side in peace and security, with a viable, contiguous and democratic State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel.

Several representatives have asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply. May I remind members that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second intervention and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I speak in exercise of the right of reply to certain statements that have been made during this debate. Israel is not what is wrong in the Middle East. Israel is what is right in the Middle East. So let us talk about the real problems in our region when we speak about the situation in the Middle East. The representative of Lebanon stood in this Hall yesterday (see A/69/PV.59) and accused Israel of violating Security Council resolutions, despite the fact that his State has allowed Hizbullah to take control of southern Lebanon and stockpile over 100,000 missiles and rockets in populated areas. One does not need to work for INTERPOL to make that discovery. A senior Hizbullah official, Naeem Kassem, boasted only two days ago that Hizbullah possesses Iranian-made missiles with pinpoint accuracy. That is in blatant violation of Security Council resolutions 1559 (2004), 1701 (2006), 1747 (2007) and 1929 (2010). I think we can agree that smuggling arms to terrorist organizations and violating Security Council arms embargoes is the real problem with the situation in the Middle East. The representative of Saudia Arabia (see A/69/ PV.59) used this forum to accuse my country of abusing human rights and violating freedom of religion, despite the fact that his kingdom executes anyone who dares to import the Christian Bible, bans non-Muslims from entering entire cities and has beheaded 70 people so far this year alone. I think we can agree that beheading people is the real problem in the Middle East. The representative of Pakistan arrogantly stood in the Assembly yesterday (see A/69/PV.59) and stated what Israel must do. Let us talk about what Pakistan also must do. Pakistan must fight the radical Islamist factions in Pakistan and in the Pakistani Government. Pakistan has become the world’s foremost terrorist and jihadi educational institution. I think we can agree that churning out thousands of violent radical Islamists is the real problem with the situation in the Middle East. Earlier today, the representative of Qatar had a great deal to say about Gaza (see A/69/PV.60). It seems that Qatar has conveniently forgotten that every rocket that flew out of Gaza and every terror tunnel could have borne a sign that read “Made possible by the Emir of Qatar”. I think we can agree that State sponsors of terrorism are the real problem with the situation in the Middle East. Today the representative of Libya delivered a series of accusations against Israel (see A/69/PV.60). As I listened to him, I had to wonder which one of the Governments and groups that control Libyan territory that representative represents. I think we can agree that failed States are the real problem with the situation in the Middle East. Finally, it is remarkable that the Syrian representative believes once again that he has any standing to lecture others in this Hall. Syria has become an expert in blaming others for its problems. The responsibility for the humanitarian crisis taking place in the Syrian Arab Republic and the murder of 220,000 Syrians lies solely with the Syrian Government. Blaming Israel for the evacuation of troops of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) from the area of separation is nothing more than revisionist history. The truth of the matter is that the Syrian army fled in the face of advancing Al-Nusra fighters, leaving UNDOF troops unprotected and at risk. Recognizing the danger, Israel opened its gates and provided UNDOF safe harbour. I think that we can agree that the Al-Assads’ brutal terror regime in Syria is the real problem with the situation in the Middle East.

I would like to reply to the reference just made to my country by the representative of the Israeli regime. In the name of clarifying the real problems of the region, the representative of the Israeli regime has tried to divert attention from what is the real problem of the region, namely, the criminal policies and abhorrent atrocities of his regime. The illegal Israeli policies and practices against the Palestinian people, including, inter alia, the intensification of illegal Israeli activities, widespread violence against the Palestinians, the devastating blockade of the Gaza Strip, the illegal construction of the apartheid wall, the destructive impact of the socioeconomic conditions of the Palestinians in Jerusalem, the incidents of the mass imprisonment of Palestinians and administrative detentions, and the routine demolition of homes and the resulting displacement of Palestinians — and this is just the tip if the iceberg  — show that the regime is continuing and even intensifying its heinous crimes against the oppressed, defenceless Palestinian people. The real problem of the region is occupation. Today, my country voted in favour of the all resolutions under agenda items 35 and 36, on the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East, in order to show solidarity with the Palestinian people. Iran continues to emphasize the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and believes that the resolution of the Palestinian crisis is achievable only if those rights are fully restored. Due to lack of attention to the root causes of the problem, the conflict has remained unsolved for more than six decades. A durable peace will be possible only through the end of the occupation of the Palestinian territory by the Israeli regime and the return of all Palestinian refugees to their homeland.

I thank you, Sir, for giving me the floor to respond to the claims and allegations made by the representative of the Israeli occupation forces. Having listened to all the condemnation of Israeli policies of aggression and having seen the great support for the resolutions we have just adopted, we believe that it is clear that the representative of the occupation authorities could not find a way to get out of their awkward and empty position other than to level baseless accusations and false claims against States Members of the United Nations, accusations that do not spare even countries that are historically supportive of the Israeli entity. Our statement and the statements of other Member States in this Hall today were not in the vein of lecturing as the representative of the occupation authorities claims. Those statements cited facts that are included in various United Nations reports and documents and have been set forth in statements by officials of the Organization. If the representative of Israel does not understand these facts, then he is in need of several lectures, not just one, on international law and the Charter of the United Nations. The representative of the Israeli occupation authorities should come out of his cocoon and see the facts of Israel’s violations of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including Israel’s policies on the occupation and annexation of other peoples’ territories by force. The Israeli occupation forces put forward the pretext of humanitarian assistance to justify providing assistance and treatment to members of terrorist groups near its borders. However, it goes without saying that humanitarian considerations should not include assistance to Al-Qaida terrorists who, after receiving treatment, are returned to the separation area, where they continue their terrorist acts that threaten both civilians and peacekeeping forces. Israel a country that treats the injured of Daesh in its hospitals, returns them to Syria or Iraq to pursue their terrorist and criminal activities, and then comes to this Hall and claims to be providing assistance on a purely humanitarian basis. What Israel is doing in the separation area can only be called assistance to terrorists. Such Israeli support to terrorist groups in the separation area has been documented in recent reports of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), which clearly indicate that Israel is treating the injured of these armed groups and that UNDOF has noted that Israel has delivered closed boxes to those groups across the separation area.

I too am exercising our right of reply in response to the comments just made by the representative of Israel. Pakistan is at the forefront of fighting terrorism. We are fighting violent extremism. The remarks made by the representative of Israel are therefore gratuitous. They are an attempt to divert the attention of the international community and the General Assembly from the real issue that we are discussing today. I think the representative of Israel forgot that what we are discussing today is the Middle East, not Pakistan.

I regret that I have to take the floor again. I will be brief. In response to the Iranian statement that we have just heard, I have to say that the statement by the Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah, Naeem Kassem, that I quoted just now was taken from Iranian media and is in line with other statements made earlier over the weekend by high-ranking officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who admitted that Iran has transferred arms to Hizbullah in Lebanon. I have to say that the Iranian representative will simply not be able to hide the truth behind his rhetoric. These are the facts about Iran. Iran is destabilizing the Middle East. Iran illegally transfers arms to its proxy terror organizations in the Middle East, whether it be Hamas or Hizbullah or many more. I also have to reply to the representative of Syria, who spoke about principles under the United Nations Charter and international law. I would just echo some of the numbers again. We are speaking about 220,000 civilian victims murdered by the Syrian regime; we are speaking about 7.6 million internally displaced persons; we are speaking about 3.2 million refugees in Syria, all as a result of the Syrian Government’s atrocities, and 220,000 who actually still live in hunger in areas besieged by the regime’s armed forces. I would therefore ask not to be preached to. Again, the reference to the principles under the Charter of the United Nations and humanitarian law voiced by the Syrian representative is simply absurd.

It seems that the representative of the occupation authorities cannot refrain from repeating those fictional figures of his. He was disturbed, it seems, by my references to the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law. That is no wonder, since it seems that Israel has never heard of those principles and doctrines; if it had, we would not be in the Hall discussing Israeli practices in the occupied Arab territories. The representative of the occupation authorities can only make false claims and fabrications. He is merely hiding a black record of crimes against humanity, war crimes and weapons used to kill Palestinians and Syrian under occupation, while standing against the will of the international community and the Charter and relevant United Nations resolutions. Policies of illegal settlement, siege, attacks and aggression are all that Israel has to offer and nothing else.

I am again taking the floor in exercise of the right of reply to the remarks made by the representative of the Israeli regime. It is regrettable that the representative of a regime that is the main sponsor of State terrorism criticizes others who give moral support to freedom fighters and those who fight against the foreign occupation of their homeland. It is obvious that making baseless allegations against my country cannot justify or assist that regime in hiding its long list of crimes and atrocities, which include but are not limited to occupation, aggression, militarism, State terrorism, masterminding the assassination of innocent Iranian nuclear scientists and crimes against humanity.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 35.