GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTES OVERWHELMINGLY TO ACCORD PALESTINE ‘NON-MEMBER OBSERVER STATE’ STATUS IN UNITED NATIONS
Sixty-seventh General Assembly
General Assembly Plenary
44th & 45th Meetings (PM & Night)
Objective to ‘Breath New Life’ into Peace Process, Says Palestinian
President;
Israel’s Delegate Counters, Without Direct Negotiations, Peace Remains
‘Out of Reach’
Voting by an overwhelming majority — 138 in favour to 9 against
(Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41
abstentions — the General Assembly today accorded Palestine non-Member
Observer State status in the United Nations.
“The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly: enough
of aggression, settlements and occupation,” said Mahmoud Abbas,
President of the Palestinian Authority, as he called on the 193-member
body to “issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of
Palestine”. Indeed, following Israel’s latest aggression against the
Gaza Strip, the international community now faced “the last chance”
to save the long elusive two-State solution, he said, adding: “the
window of opportunity is narrowing and time is quickly running out”.
Palestine came before the Assembly because it believed in peace, and
because its people were in desperate need of it, he said, speaking
ahead of the vote. Its endeavour to seek a change in status at the
United Nations did not aim to terminate what remained of the long
stagnant peace negotiations; instead, he said, it was aimed at trying
to “breathe new life” into the process. Support for the resolution
would also send a promising message to millions of Palestinians
“that justice is possible and that there is a reason to be hopeful”,
he stressed.
The text upgraded Palestine’s status without prejudice to the acquired
rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in
the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people,
in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice. The
Palestinian Liberation Organization was recognized as an observer
entity in 1974. By other terms of the resolution — the adoption
of which coincided with the observance of the International Day of
Solidarity with the Palestinian People and with the Assembly’s annual
debate on the Question of Palestine — Member States echoed the “urgent
need for the resumption and acceleration” of the peace negotiations.
Israel’s representative, also taking the floor before the vote,
emphasized that the “one-sided” resolution did not advance peace,
but instead pushed the process backward. “There is only one route
to Palestinian statehood. There are no shortcuts. No quick fixes,”
he said. The route to peace ran through direct negotiations between
Jerusalem and Ramallah. ” Israel is prepared to live in peace with
a Palestinian State, but for peace to endure, Israel’s security must
be protected,” he added.
He said that certain vital interests of his country, including
recognition of the Jewish State and an agreement to end the conflict
with Israel once and for all, did not appear in the text. Indeed,
the only way to achieve peace was through agreements that had been
reached by the parties and not through United Nations resolutions.
He added that, as long as President Abbas preferred symbolism over
reality, as long as he preferred to travel to New York rather than
travel to Jerusalem for genuine dialogue, any hope of peace would be
out of reach.
“There can be no substitute for negotiations”, agreed United Nations
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who also addressed the Assembly
following the resolution’s adoption. The decision to accord Palestine
non-Member Observer State status was the prerogative of Member States,
he said of the action, reiterating his belief that the Palestinians had
a legitimate right to an independent State, and that Israel had the
right to live in peace and security. “I call on all those concerned
to act responsibly” and intensify efforts towards reconciliation and
towards a just and lasting peace, he said.
General Assembly President Vuk JeremiÄ~G said that in today’s
interconnected world, “what happens between the River Jordan and the
shores of the Mediterranean has become the key to the security and
well-being of [all] mankind.” Notwithstanding the efforts of some of
the most courageous statesmen of the twentieth century, a negotiated
comprehensive settlement that would enable Israel and Palestine
to live side by side in peace and security had yet to materialize
“[a]nd so we still witness […] enmity, estrangement, and mistrust —
as parents continue to bury their children”.
He appealed to both sides to work for peace; to negotiate in good
faith; and ultimately, to succeed in reaching a historic settlement. “I
have no doubt that history will judge this day to have been fraught
with significance — but whether it will come to be looked upon as a
step in the right direction on the road to peace will depend on how
we bear ourselves in its wake,” he declared.
Among speakers who expressed their support for the resolution was
Ahmet Davutoglu, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey, who said
that, for 65 years, the whole world had shut its eyes to the plight
of the Palestinian people. During that time, no resolution towards
a Palestinian State had been honoured. “The reality of Palestine”,
he said, “is a bleeding wound in the conscience of all humanity.”
Further, he said, “our vision for justice, international order and
human rights will not be achieved until the moment we […] see the
flag of the State of Palestine side by side with ours, as a full
Member of the United Nations.” The granting of non-Member Observer
State status could act as a “booster” creating the long-needed momentum
towards a negotiated, comprehensive solution.
Calling today’s vote a “first step”, he urged all United Nations
Members to fulfil their long overdue responsibility towards the
Palestinians.
“The eyes of all the children of Palestine are directed towards us”,
said the representative of Sudan, who introduced the resolution. He
called on all States to contribute today “to make history” and to “pave
the way for the future” by casting their votes in favour. Doing so
would be a victory both for the value of truth and for the Palestinian
people themselves, he said.
However, other delegates, explaining their votes against the
resolution, agreed with Israel’s representative that the text would
do nothing to advance positive relations between the two parties
to the conflict. In that vein, the representative of the United
States said that her delegation had voted against the “unfortunate
and counterproductive” resolution as it placed further obstacles in
the path to peace.
The United States felt strongly that today’s “grand pronouncements
would soon fade” and that the Palestinian people would wake up tomorrow
“and find out that little about their lives had changed”, save that
the prospects of peace had receded. Therefore, the United States
called on both parties to renew direct negotiations, and continued
to urge all parties to avoid all provocative actions in the region,
in New York or elsewhere.
Also speaking prior to this morning’s action were the foreign ministers
of Indonesia and Canada.
Speaking in explanation of their votes following action were delegates
from France, Singapore, United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Serbia, Honduras, Denmark, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Austria,
Australia, New Zealand, Czech Republic, Finland, Norway, United
Republic of Tanzania, South Sudan, Netherlands, Japan, Costa Rica,
Guatemala, Spain, Mexico, Georgia, Jamaica, Russian Federation,
Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Romania, Portugal and Mauritius.
Other speakers in the debate on the Question of Palestine were the
representatives of Egypt, Iran (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement),
Djibouti (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference),
China, Kuwait, Nigeria, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Brazil,
Cuba, Venezuela, Malaysia, Syria, Morocco, Tunisia and Namibia.
The Head of the Delegation of the European Union also addressed
the meeting.
The General Assembly will next convene on Friday, 30 November, at 11
a.m. to continue and conclude its debate on the question of Palestine
and to take up the situation in the Middle East.
Background
The General Assembly met this afternoon to take up the question of
Palestine. It had before it two reports for consideration.
The report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights
of the Palestinian People (document A/67/35) states that the reporting
period, 7 October 2011 to 6 October 2012, was characterized by the
deadlocked political process and the deteriorating socio-economic
situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem. According to the report, there has been no breakthrough in
efforts towards resuming direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, owing
to Israel’s consistent refusal to freeze its settlement activity and
adhere to the long-standing terms of reference of the peace process.
The report states that the Committee continued to work for the
realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,
including their right to self-determination, and a negotiated
settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in all its aspects,
resulting in an end to the occupation and the independence of a
sovereign, viable, contiguous and democratic Palestinian State based on
1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a just solution
for the Palestine refugees based on General Assembly resolution 194
(III).
A durable settlement of the conflict is a prerequisite for a
just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Thus, the report notes
that the international community should maintain its focus on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, uphold its legal obligations in that
regard, and present bold initiatives to break the current deadlock.
With Palestinian membership in the Organization pending before the
Security Council, the Committee believes that progress on Palestinian
status at the United Nations will generate a new dynamic in the peace
process and help safeguard the two-State solution.
According to the report, the Committee was also concerned by the
ongoing violence and gross violations of humanitarian and human rights
law, and reiterated its condemnation of all attacks against civilians,
including rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, air strikes on populated
areas, and settler violence, and calls upon the Security Council and
the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to act
urgently to guarantee the protection of civilians.
The Palestinian Authority advanced its State-building programme, the
report notes, but a serious budget deficit, as well as restrictions
and obstacles imposed by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including East Jerusalem, prevented the normal movement of persons
and goods, economic activity and sustained growth. The Committee calls
upon donors to meet their prior commitments and to provide emergency
aid to buttress the two-State solution. Progress towards that goal
also requires all Palestinian factions to unite behind the legitimate
leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas. The Committee urges the speedy
implementation, in good faith, of national reconciliation agreements.
Among numerous other actions urged in the report, the Committee also
calls on the international community to take serious and concrete
action to compel Israel to stop its illegal settlement activities
and to genuinely commit to ending its 45-year military occupation
and to making peace,and calls upon the Security Council to undertake
a mission to the region to examine the situation first-hand.
The report of the Secretary-General on the peaceful settlement
of the question of Palestine (documents A/67/364-S/2012/701 and
A/67/364/Add.1), covering the period September 2011 to August 2012,
contains replies received from the parties concerned to the notes
verbales sent by the Secretary-General, as well as his observations
on the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on
international efforts to move the peace process forward.
It states that there has been little progress towards the peaceful
settlement of the issue during the reporting period, and that
confidence between the parties and in the political process continued
to erode despite efforts by the United Nations, the Quartet and
individual Member States. The unwillingness of the parties to engage
in direct talks was due to a lack of trust and disagreement over the
conditions that would allow them to do so.
The report also notes that the Palestinians had submitted an
application for membership in the United Nations and acquired
membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) and that Israel continued to accelerate
settlement activities in the West Bank. The situation on the ground
remained challenging, in particular for the population living under
closure in Gaza, while Israel, for its part, continued to face the
threat of rocket fire. The situation on the ground presented a growing
cause for concern over the viability of the two-State solution.
At the same time, the report states, the Palestinians continued to
implement an ambitious State-building programme. They also briefly
had resumed their efforts towards reuniting the West Bank and Gaza,
albeit with limited success at reconciliation.
The report urges Israel to cease all settlement activity in the
occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and to take concrete
steps to further ease the numerous restrictions in place both in the
West Bank and Gaza. It also strongly encourages all Palestinians
on the path of non-violence and unity in line with past Palestine
Liberation Organization commitments.
In conclusion, the report states that the Secretary-General will
continue to ensure that the United Nations works towards the
establishment of an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable
Palestinian State living side by side in peace with a secure Israel
in the framework of a comprehensive regional settlement consistent
with relevant Security Council resolutions, and in accordance with
the Quartet road map, the Arab Peace Initiative and the principle of
land for peace.
Status of Palestine at United Nations
DAFF-ALLA ELHAG ALI OSMAN ( Sudan), introducing the draft resolution
on “status of Palestine in the United Nations” (document A/67/L.28),
said the text aimed at taking a historic decision granting Palestine
the status of non-Member Observer State. Its preamble reaffirmed
the unacceptability of the acquisition of territory by force, and
reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
including to an independent State of Palestine. Several paragraphs
of the text reaffirmed relevant resolutions of the Security Council
and the General Assembly concerning the peaceful settlement of the
Question of Palestine, which mentioned, among other things, that Israel
must withdraw from the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem.
Other references were made to the inalienable rights of the Palestinian
people, starting with the right to self-determination and that to an
independent State, as well as the need for an equitable settlement
for the refugees of Palestine and the complete cessation of Israeli
settlement activities in the Occupied Territory, including East
Jerusalem. It recalled a General Assembly resolution which took note
of the 1988 proclamation of a State of Palestine. Those paragraphs
also reaffirmed the right of all States in the region to live in peace
within safe and internationally recognized borders, and the right of
those States to live side by side in peace and security.
Independence and freedom were enshrined in the United Nations Charter,
he continued, emphasizing that today’s occasion was a chance to
reaffirm those principles. Sixty-five years ago the United Nations had
decided on the separation of two States, and one had waited until now,
until this historic date. “The eyes of all the children of Palestine
are directed towards us”, he said, adding that the resolution before
the Assembly today was an additional milestone along the path to
establishing the international will to realize real peace. He called
on all States to contribute today “to make history” and to “pave the
way for the future” by voting in favour of the resolution. Doing so
would be a victory both for the value of truth and for the Palestinian
people themselves, he said.
MAHMOUD ABBAS, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestinian
Liberation Organization and President of the Palestinian Authority,
said that Palestine came before the Assembly at a time when it was
“still tending to its wounds” from the latest Israeli aggression in
the Gaza Strip, which had wiped out entire families, murdering men,
women and children along with their dreams, their hopes, their futures
and their longing to live an ordinary life in freedom and peace. It
came before the Assembly because it believed in peace, and because
its people were in desperate need of it.
The international community now faced “the last chance to save the
two-State solution,” he stressed in that regard. Indeed, the recent
Israeli aggression had confirmed, once again, the urgent and pressing
need to end the Israeli occupation and for the Palestinian people to
gain their freedom and independence.
During the dark days of its past — which included one of the most
dreadful campaigns of ethnic cleansing and dispossession in modern
history — the Palestinian people had looked to the United Nations
as a beacon of hope. It had appealed for an end to injustice, for
the achievement of peace and for the realization of its rights,
“and our people still believe in this and continue to wait”.
Over the last months, the world had heard the “incessant flood” of
Israeli threats to Palestine’s peaceful, political and diplomatic
endeavour to acquire non-Member Observer status in the United
Nations. Some of those threats had been carried out in a “horrific and
barbaric manner” in the Gaza Strip just days ago. The conviction that
Israel was above the law and that it had immunity was bolstered by the
failure by some to condemn and demand the cessation of its violations
and crimes, and by the position that “equates the victim and the
executioner”. “The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly:
enough of aggression, settlements and occupation,” he affirmed.
He went on to say that Palestine did not seek to delegitimize a State
established years ago, but rather to affirm the legitimacy of the State
that must now achieve its independence. Nor was Palestine’s endeavour
aimed at terminating what remains of the negotiation process —
“which has lost its objectivity and credibility”. Instead, it was
aimed at trying to breathe new life into the negotiations.
“We will not give up, we will not tire, and our determination
will not wane”, he emphasized, adding that the Palestinian people
would not relinquish their inalienable rights, as defined by United
Nations resolutions, including the right to defend themselves against
aggression and occupation. They would continue their popular, peaceful
resistance and their “epic steadfastness”, and they would continue to
build on their land. “We will accept no less than the independence
of the state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital”, on
all the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, he stressed.
However, he warned, “the window of opportunity is narrowing and time is
quickly running out”. Indeed, “the rope of patience is shortening and
hope is withering”. It was time for action and time to move forward,
he said, calling for support from those present in the Assembly
today. That support would send a promising message to millions of
Palestinians “that justice is possible and that there is a reason
to be hopeful”. It would show that the world would not accept the
continuation of the occupation.
In its endeavour to acquire non-Member State status today, Palestine
reaffirmed that it would always adhere to and respect the Charter
and resolutions of the United Nations and international law, uphold
equality, guarantee civil liberties, uphold the rule of law, promote
democracy and pluralism and uphold and protect the rights of women.
Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly
had adopted resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned the land of
Palestine into two States and had become “the birth certificate for
Israel”. It now had a moral and historic duty, as well as a practical
one, to “salvage the chances for peace”. In that regard, he asked the
Assembly to “issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State
of Palestine” on an urgent basis.
RON PROSOR ( Israel) said he represented the world’s one and only
Jewish State; built in the Jewish people’s ancient homeland, with
its eternal capital Jerusalem as its “beating heart”. He declared:
“We are a nation with deep roots in the past and bright hopes for
the future. We are a nation that values idealism, but acts with
pragmatism. Israel is a nation that never hesitated to defend itself,
but will always extend its hand for peace.”
The Bible stated “seek peace and pursue it”. It had been the goal of
the Israeli people and every Israeli leader since the re-established
of Israel 64 years ago. This week marked the thirty-fifth anniversary
of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s historic visit to Jerusalem. In
a speech just before that visit, that official had famously stood in
the Egyptian Parliament and stated that he would go to the “ends of
the Earth” to make peace with Israel.
Israel’s then-Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, had welcomed President
Sadat to Israel and paved the way for peace. This morning, Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had said of the resolution the General
Assembly was about to act upon: “Israel is prepared to live in peace
with a Palestinian State, but for peace to endure, Israel’s security
must be protected. The Palestinians must recognize the Jewish State
and they must be prepared to end the conflict with Israel once and
for all.”
None of those vital interests appeared in the resolution, he said,
and as such, Israel could not accept it. The only way to achieve peace
was through agreements that had been reached by the parties and not
through United Nations resolutions that had completely ignored Israel’s
vital security and national interests. And because the resolution was
so one-sided, it did not advance peace, but pushed it backwards. No
decision by the United Nations could break the 4,000-year-old bond
between the people of Israel and the land of Israel. The people of
Israel waited for a Palestinian leader that was willing to follow in
the path of President Sadat. For as long as President Abbas preferred
symbolism over reality, as long as he preferred to travel to New York
for United Nations resolutions, rather than travel to Jerusalem for
genuine dialogue, any hope of peace would be out of reach.
He said that President Abbas had described today’s proceedings as
“historic”. But the only thing historic about that official’s speech
was how much it had ignored history. The truth was that 65 years ago
today, the United Nations had voted to partition the British Mandate
into two States: a Jewish State and an Arab State — two States for
two peoples. Israel had accepted that plan. The Palestinians and Arab
nations had rejected it and launched a “war of annihilation” to throw
“the Jews into the sea”.
The truth was that from 1948 until 1967, the West Bank had been ruled
by Jordon, and Gaza had been ruled by Egypt. The Arab States had not
lifted a finger to create a Palestinian State. Instead, they had sought
Israel’s destruction, and had been joined by newly formed Palestinian
terrorist organizations. The truth was that to advance peace, Israel
had dismantled entire communities and uprooted thousands of people
from their homes in the Gaza Strip in 2005.
Rather than use that opportunity to build a peaceful future, the
Palestinians had turned Gaza into an “Iranian terror base”, from
which thousands of rockets had been fired into Israeli cities.
Last week, Gaza had been turned into a launching pad for rockets into
Israeli cities, a haven for global terrorists and a munitions dump
for Iranian weapons.
Three months ago, Israel’s Prime Minister had stood in the Assembly
Hall and extended his hand in peace to President Abbas, reiterating
that his goal was to create a solution of two-States for two-peoples —
where a demilitarized Palestinian State would recognize Israel as a
Jewish State. This afternoon, “I did not hear you use the phrase ‘two
States for two peoples’ and, in fact, I have never heard you say that
phrase because the Palestinian leadership has never recognized that
Israel is the nation-State of the Jewish people,” he said, adding:
“President Abbas, instead of revising history, it is time that you
started making history by making peace with Israel.”
The resolution would not confer statehood on the Palestinian Authority,
which clearly failed to meet the relevant criteria. The text would
not enable the Palestinian Authority to join international treaties,
organizations, or conferences as a State. The resolution could not
serve as an acceptable term of reference for peace negotiations
with Israel. “Let me tell you what his resolution does do,” he
said, explaining that he believed it violated a fundamental binding
commitment. It sent a message that the international community was
willing to turn a blind eye to peace agreements. “Why continue to
make painful sacrifices for peace, in exchange for pieces of paper
that the other side will not honour?” he asked.
“There is only one route to Palestinian statehood. And that route
does not run through this chamber in New York,” he said, adding
that that route ran through direct negotiations between Jerusalem
and Ramallah. “There are no shortcuts. No quick fixes. No instant
solutions,” he said, recalling that United States President Barack
Obama had said in 2010: “Peace cannot be imposed from the outside.” In
closing, he said, “65 years ago the Palestinians could have chosen to
live side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. They could have
chosen to accept the solution of two States for two peoples. They
rejected it then, and they are rejecting it again today.” The United
Nations had been founded to advance the cause of peace. Today, the
Palestinians were turning their back on peace. “Don’t let history
record that today the world body helped them along on their march
of folly.”
MARTY NATALEGAWA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, said
the time had come for the international community to set things right.
“No longer can the world turn a blind eye to the long sufferings
of the Palestinian people, the denial of their basic human rights
and fundamental freedoms, the obstruction of their rights to
self-determination and to independence,” he said. An independent
State of Palestine with equal rights and responsibilities to those
of other States would contribute to the attainment of a just, lasting
and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
The recent cycle of indiscriminate violence and disproportionate use
of force in the Gaza Strip served as a serious reminder of the need
for an earnest resumption and acceleration of the peace process,
he said. Conditions conducive for that progress were ending illegal
settlement activities, lifting the blockade of Gaza and enhancing
its intra-Palestinian dialogue at this historic moment. By according
non-Member Observer State status to Palestine, “we are signalling
the primacy of diplomacy and rejection of violence”, he said.
JOHN BAIRD, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada, spoke in
opposition to the resolution before the Assembly, saying that it had
undermined the core foundations of the decades-long commitment by
the international community and the parties themselves to a two-State
solution. Also speaking in opposition to unilateral actions by either
side, he said Canada’s support for a negotiated settlement was rooted
in the history of the United Nations and the sustained international
effort to resolve the matter. Tracing the history of that sustained
effort, from 1947 with the passage of Assembly resolution 181 to
2008, with the passage of Security Council resolution 1850 (2008),
he said the path to peace had rested in direct negotiations between
the two parties.
He said the successive Security Council resolutions and various
international commitments and understandings over nearly seven decades
had formed the building blocks of a collaborative peace process
that remained unfinished, and the resolution would not advance the
cause of peace, spur a return to negotiations or better the lives
of the Palestinian people. Conversely, such a unilateral step would
harden positions and raise unrealistic expectations. Any two-State
solution must be negotiated and mutually agreed upon by both sides,
he reiterated, calling on both sides to return to the negotiating
table without preconditions.
AHMET DAVUTOÄ~^LU, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey, said
that for 65 years, the whole world had shut its eyes to the plight
of the Palestinian people and for 65 years, no resolution towards
a Palestinian State had been honoured. “The reality of Palestine”,
he said, “is a bleeding wound in the conscience of all humanity,”
one that he had witnessed on his recent visit to Gaza. He called
on all to support a just, peaceful and harmonious future by coming
together to “stand behind the Palestinian bid to become a non-Member
Observer State”. The denial of the right of Palestinians to a State
had no justification on moral, political or legal grounds.
Further, he said that “Our vision for justice, international order and
human rights will not be achieved until the moment we […] see the
flag of the State of Palestine side by side with ours, as a full Member
of the United Nations.” He said that that was a humanitarian and moral
obligation, while the political and historical context saw the peace
process “on ice” and daily deviation from the internationally accepted
solution prescribing an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as
its capital within its 1967 borders. The granting of non-Member State
Observer status could be a “booster” creating the long-needed momentum
towards a negotiated, comprehensive solution. Calling today’s vote a
“first step”, he urged all United Nations Members to fulfil their
long overdue responsibility towards the Palestinians.
VUK JEREMIÄ~F, President of the General Assembly, said that today’s
meeting had begun by hearing from representatives of two great nations,
President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine and Ambassador Ron Prosor of the
State of Israel. “They are each the children of Abraham,” he continued,
“one a descendant of Ishmael, the other of Isaac.” Both were from
a land that had almost continuously been tormented by conflict for
many centuries, with countless victims on all sides.
Strife had not abated during the 67 years of United Nations
existence, despite the fact that the Organization had been created
to “‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war'”, he
said. Notwithstanding the efforts of some of the most courageous
statesmen of the twentieth century, a negotiated comprehensive
settlement that would enable Israel and Palestine to live side by side
in peace and security had yet to materialize “[a]nd so we still witness
[…] enmity, estrangement, and mistrust — as parents continue to
bury their children”.
“In today’s […] interconnected world, what happens between the
River Jordan and the shores of the Mediterranean has become the key
to the security and well-being of [all] mankind,” he went on. “I
have no doubt that history will judge this day to have been fraught
with significance — but whether it will come to be looked upon as a
step in the right direction on the road to peace will depend on how
we bear ourselves in its wake.”
In closing, he appealed to “my dear friends from Palestine and Israel
[…] to work for peace; to negotiate in good faith; and ultimately,
to succeed in reaching a historical settlement.”
That was a common and solemn duty to the whole world, but “first and
foremost to the proud men and women who live in a land that is holy
to so many of us”. In asking delegates to cast their votes, he said,
“I am sure each of you will do so with a veritable feeling in your
heart that your choice is serving the cause of a righteous peace.”
Following those statements, by a vote of 138 in favour to 9 against (
Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States) with 41 abstentions,
the Assembly then adopted resolution A/67/L.28 (Annex).
Immediately after the vote, BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the
United Nations, said that the decision to accord Palestine non-Member
Observer State status was the prerogative of Member States. His
position on the matter had been consistent, that the Palestinians
had a legitimate right to an independent State, and that Israel had
the right to live in peace and security. “There is no substitute for
negotiations” to that end, he said, stressing the urgency of the need
to resume meaningful negotiations. Due impetus must be given to those
goals, he said, urging the parties to renew their commitment to a
negotiated peace. “I call on all those concerned to act responsibly”
and intensify efforts towards reconciliation and towards a just and
lasting peace.
Speaking in explanation of vote following action, the representative
of the United States said that, for decades, her Government had
worked to achieve an end to the long and tragic conflict between
Israel and the Palestinians. Only through direct negotiations could
the parties achieve the peace that they both deserved, she stressed,
calling for “two States for two people”. That remained the goal,
and the United States would, therefore, measure any proposed action
against that “clear yardstick”. Indeed, it was necessary to ask if a
measure would bring the parties closer to peace or push them further
apart. Today’s “unfortunate and counterproductive” resolution placed
further obstacles in the path to peace; therefore, the United States
had voted against it.
Backers of the text said that they sought a Palestinian State at
peace with Israel — and “so do we”, she stressed. But the only
way to do so, and to resolve all status issues, was the crucial,
if painful, work of negotiations between parties. The United States
agreed strongly that today’s “grand pronouncements would soon fade”
and that the Palestinian people would wake up tomorrow “and find out
that little about their lives had changed”, save that the prospects
of peace had receded. Therefore, the United States called on both
parties to renew direct negotiations, and continued to urge all
parties to avoid all provocative actions in the region, in New York
or elsewhere. It would also continue to oppose all unilateral actions
that circumvented or prejudged outcomes that could only be negotiated,
including Palestinian statehood.
“Progress cannot be made by pressing a green button”, she stressed;
for that reason, the vote today could not be misconstrued as
constituting United Nations membership, nor establishing a Palestinian
State. Indeed, it ignored virtually all other core questions such
as security. President Obama had been clear in stating a realistic
basis for negotiations, and the United States would continue to base
its efforts on that approach. “There are no shortcuts” to peace,
she stressed. Long after the votes had been cast and the speeches
forgotten, “it is the Palestinians and Israelis who must still talk
to each other and listen to each other”, and live side by side in
the land that they shared.
The representative of France, speaking after the vote, said that,
by voting to recognize Palestine as a non-Member Observer State,
France had voted in favour of a two-State solution, Israel and
Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, within
secure, internationally recognized borders. Since President Francois
Mitterand’s appearance before the Knesset in 1982 and his call for
the creation of a Palestinian State, France had promoted such a
solution. It was in line with that heritage that President Francois
Hollande supported international recognition of a Palestinian State.
The current meeting was a new stage towards the two-State solution, he
continued. Only a few days after a new explosion of violence between
Israel and Gaza, France had to give its full support to partners for
peace, while those of armed struggle sought to win the day. He called
upon the international community and the Arab world to contribute
to prospects for peace, which included ending attacks on Israel and
immediately returning to the negotiating table.
The representative of Singapore said that his delegation supported
the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland and had, in the
past, supported relevant Assembly resolutions. However, his country
had abstained from today’s vote because only a negotiated settlement,
consistent with Security Council resolution 242 (1967), could provide
the basis for a viable, long-term solution. Both sides had legitimate
rights and shared responsibilities and must be prepared to make
compromises to achieve the larger good of a lasting peace. Because
of those interlinked rights and responsibilities, no unilateral move
could result in a just and durable outcome.
Palestine’s attempt to upgrade its status to non-Member Observer
State, he continued, should be viewed in the context of its efforts
last year for full United Nations membership. However, as facts on
the ground had remained unchanged, its aspirations had not helped.
He expressed the hope that the two parties would resume
negotiations. Joining the international community in welcoming an
end to the attacks on Gaza and southern Israel, he expressed regret
for the loss of life on both sides.
The representative of the United Kingdom said he was gravely concerned
about the action the Assembly had taken, saying that “the window for
a negotiated solution was rapidly closing”.
Israel and Palestine must return to credible negotiations to save
a two-State solution. The Palestinian leadership should, without
precondition, return to the table.
Further, he said, United Nations entities should not take immediate
action based on today’s resolution, which in turn would make a
negotiated solution impossible. In that regard, his delegation
had abstained in voting on the resolution. Although Palestine had
just became a non-Member Observer State, that would not change the
situation on the ground. All possible efforts should be made in the
coming weeks to restart peace negotiations.
The delegate of Germany said his nation firmed believed in “two States
for two peoples” and shared the goal of a Palestinian State. However,
such status must be achieved only through direct negotiations. There
was doubt that today’s action would be helpful for the peace process at
this point in time. “It might lead to further hardening of positions
instead of improving chances of a two-State solution through direct
negotiations,” he said.
He explicitly welcomed that today’s resolution called for a two-State
solution and, hence, recognized the right of Israel to exist in
peace. However, Israel’s legitimate security concern had to be
addressed in a credible manner.
The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation’s decision
to vote in favour of the resolution had been motivated by the desire to
“unblock the current stalemate” and to re-launch the peace process. He
called, in that regard, for a solution with two States — Israel
and Palestine — living side by side in peace and security. He also
recalled relevant Assembly resolutions, including a relevant 1988
text. He also recalled past references to the nature of Jerusalem as
the “capital of two States”.
Today’s resolution was the “keystone” supporting a two-State solution
“whose prospects are fading”. The upgrade of status also endowed the
Palestinians with obligations, including the obligation to refrain
from the use of the threat of force and others. Bilateral recognition,
however, depended on future negotiations.
The representative of Belgium said that true progress would be
achieved when the Palestinians were able to enjoy, on the ground,
a State with institutions, officials and infrastructure necessary to
function smoothly. He agreed with the goal of a two-State solution,
with a future State of Palestine that was democratic, viable and
durable. The two-State solution was the only possible one, he stressed,
and all efforts should be directed to that end. The resolution was
not recognition of a State in full terms, he added.
In Belgium’s view, there was no alternative to negotiations, difficult
as they may be. Priority should be placed on a swift resumption of
peace talks. Israel and the Palestinian Authority must both refrain
from any unilateral act that would compromise the credibility of the
peace process, and “the peace process must move faster”. Calling for
a swift resumption of the peace talks, he said that the parties must
be brought to the same table.
The representative of Bulgaria said that his delegation had abstained
because it was felt that the resolution would neither change the
reality on the ground nor speed up the peace process. He called for
an immediate resumption of peace negotiations without precondition.
Bulgaria had consistently supported Palestine’s sovereignty and its
people’s right of self-determination. In that regard, his country had
bilateral diplomatic relations with both Israel and Palestine. Given
the impact of the resolution adopted today on an early resumption of
negotiations, he said he was sceptical that the text would advance the
peace process. Any unilateral act was detrimental to the peace process.
FEODOR STARÄ~LEVIÄ~F (Serbia) said that, for the 132 United Nations
Members that had so far recognized the State of Palestine, granting it
the status of non-Member Observer State was a sign that their support
for the Palestinian cause had brought results and strengthened the
Palestinian right to self-determination. Serbia, and Yugoslavia before,
had exhibited unwavering support for the Palestinian struggle towards
independence, based on its own sense of justice. Serbia had diplomatic
relations and maintained good and friendly cooperation with Israel
as well.
Fully conscious of Israel’s legitimate security concerns, he said
Serbia had an interest in promoting a solution that would bring about
statehood for Palestine and security and peace for both Israel and
Palestine. Neither a nation that was a victim of the Holocaust, nor
one that was still questing for its statehood deserved to live in
the same precarious situation for more than 60 years. Both peoples
were weary of conflict and should not be made to wait any longer
for it to end. He, therefore, called for peace negotiations to be
urgently resumed and accelerated so that a peace agreement based on
the relevant Security Council resolutions, the Madrid principles,
the Quartet Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative could be reached.
The representative of Honduras, voting in favour of the resolution,
did so to support the fundamental rights of human beings and of
nations large and small. Honduras supported a two-State solution,
Israel and Palestine. The vote in favour would contribute to a just
peace and justice for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. There was
a need for a comprehensive and negotiated solution to resolve all
outstanding issues.
She understood that peace could not be imposed from outside, but must
be found between the two States involved. A true peace could only be
found through mutual recognition of the rights of both peoples.
Israel and Palestine must go back to the table and negotiate
all outstanding issues, with the support of the international
community. Today’s vote should not be seen as a vote for one
and against the other, but as a way to open new paths to direct
understanding and to get closer to the ultimate aim of the resolution,
which was peace.
Denmark’s representative said that 65 years ago, his delegation had
voted for the establishment of two States in the former mandate
of Palestine, and had voted in favour of today’s resolution as
reaffirmation of its commitment to a two-State solution. Denmark had
consistently supported Israel’s right to self-defence in accordance
with international law and had also supported the Palestinians’ right
to statehood and the strengthening of the Palestinian authority. In
that regard, he called on all Palestinians to support President Abbas
in his efforts to promote intra-Palestinian reconciliation.
Welcoming last week’s ceasefire agreement, he said that the sudden
escalation of conflict in Gaza highlighted the urgent necessity for
a comprehensive solution to the conflict and called on both sides to
immediately resume direct bilateral negotiations without conditions
on all final status issues, respecting previous agreements and
understandings. He further appealed to the parties to refrain from any
steps which could negatively affect the situation. The time to heed
the call in resolution 181, adopted 65 years ago, was long overdue,
he said. He further noted that Denmark’s vote today was not formal
bilateral recognition of a sovereign Palestinian State.
The representative of Italy said that his country was strongly
committed to peace as a fundamental interest of the European Union
and the region. Italy’s position was grounded in the commitment that
peace must be based on the idea of two States living on agreed borders
and in peace and security. He strongly supported the European Union’s
call to parties to ensure meaningful negotiations and to refrain from
actions that undermined the credibility of the peace process. His
delegation had supported the resolution, he said, but underlined the
firm conviction that Palestine’s new status should not be applied
retroactively.
Furthermore, it in no way should prejudice the necessity for a
negotiated settlement.
The representative of Greece said that his positive vote today had
been guided by a longstanding principle that the Middle East solution
should be based on two States, living in peace and security, side by
side with the State of Israel. An important provision was operative
paragraph 5. The inalienable right to statehood should be fulfilled
through negotiation between the two parties. Voting in favour of the
resolution, he said, had contributed to the peace process. In that
regard, he urged the Palestinian side to refrain from unilateral steps
and the Israeli side to refrain from action on the ground that could
jeopardize the two-State solution.
The delegate of Hungary said his country abstained after having given
consideration to all factors that would affect peace and stability
in the region. Today’s action would not have a positive impact on
the prospect of resumption of the Middle East peace process. The
settlement must be based on a two-State solution, with Israel and
Palestine living side by side in peace and security. Hungary supported
all efforts towards direct negotiations in the coming months.
Taking the floor next, Austria’s speaker stressed his country’s full
support for the resolution. It had voted in favour of the text as an
expression of its confidence in the serious efforts to be taken by
Palestinian leaders to build an efficient independent State. It was,
however, crucial for the two parties to return to the negotiation
table, he said, calling for unity towards a negotiated solution.
Australia’s representative said that its decision to abstain in the
vote balanced its support for the right of the Palestinian people to
have a State with its concern for the need for a negotiated two-State
solution. The resolution would confer the status of a non-Member
Observer State on Palestine, not that of a Member State.
He was concerned the resolution might make a negotiated solution more
difficult. He urged both parties to return to negotiations, and said
that it was important that neither side take actions now that would
jeopardize that goal.
The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation’s vote in
favour of the resolution was consistent with its long-held support
for the aspirations of the Palestinian people. At the same time,
he fully supported Israel’s right to exist in security, free from
Hamas rockets, alongside an independent Palestine living within
clearly defined borders. Noting that the resolution just adopted
conferred non-Member Observer State status, he said that the question
of recognition of a Palestinian State was a separate issue.
He further expressed the hope that with today’s decision both
sides would do whatever was needed to return to the negotiating
table. Whatever the significance of today’s vote, “we must now turn
to what happens tomorrow”, he said. It was regrettable that today’s
solution had to be achieved by a vote at the United Nations rather
than at the negotiating table, but that was the reality of the current
state of affairs.
The representative of the Czech Republic reiterated his country’s
support for direct negotiations leading to Palestinian statehood,
and he encouraged both parties to return to such talks. Costa Rica
had long called on all concerned parties to avoid steps that might
interfere with, or prejudice, that process. For that reason, the
Czech Republic had voted against the present resolution. It fully
supported aspirations for statehood in a fully negotiated solution,
and living side by side with Israel in “mutual recognition”.
The representative of Finland said his country had voted in favour of
the resolution with the aim of showing support to the “moderate forces”
that were committed to the peace process. Finland was committed
to a two-State solution, with both States living side by side in
peace and security. The world had witnessed that the Palestinian
Authority now had institutions of a “model State”, a fact which
deserved recognition. He called on all sides to engage in negotiations
immediately and without preconditions, and to refrain from actions that
could inhibit that process. However, he stressed, the Assembly’s vote
did not entail a formal recognition of a Palestinian State. Finland’s
national position on the matter would be considered at a later date.
The delegate of Norway said he voted in favour of the resolution
because Palestine was already involved in many institutions as a
functioning State. Granting non-Member Observer State status was
consistent with the efforts made so far. His country had supported
the partition plan in 1947 and it had supported Israel’s entry into
statehood in 1949. Palestinian people had the legitimate right to
self-determination.
It was time, he said, for Member States to recognize the serious
efforts made by Palestine to establish an independent State.
Conversely, such a status came with responsibility. Palestine should
make efforts to promote the rule of law and improve the human rights
situation. Norway was committed to a two-State solution.
However, only a negotiated solution could bring a lasting peace,
and he called on both sides to restart negotiations.
The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said that today’s
vote in favour of the draft resolution was an illustration of support
for the legitimate cause of the people of Palestine. The resolution
presented yet another opportunity for the international community to
recognize an independent State of Palestine as it had recognized the
State of Israel. “We are optimistic that the enhanced status granted
today by the Assembly to the State of Palestine will provide renewed
impetus to the parties to pursue vigorously all efforts to create
a conducive environment to the resumption of direct and meaningful
negotiations as called for by the Secretary-General in his report
before the Assembly,” he said.
The representative of South Sudan said that, in voting for
the resolution, his delegation had supported the right of
self-determination for the people of Palestine. That principle
accounted for the existence of many countries, he said, but it was
“always contentious”. South Sudan had achieved its independence from
Sudan after a struggle that had lasted half a century. It believed
that, in the context of a conflict between two identity groups, the
most practical and viable outcome was a negotiated solution. While
South Sudan had voted in favour of the resolution, it still encouraged
the parties to pursue a negotiated settlement.
The representative of the Netherlands, aligning with the statement
to be made by the European Union, said that his delegation strongly
support a peace agreement based on the borders of 1967, with a viable
independent State of Palestine and a secure State of Israel living side
by side in peace and security. “The current status quo is untenable,”
he said in that regard. The Netherlands supported Palestinian efforts
to achieve statehood, but would have preferred the resolution to
be postponed, as it could threaten negotiations at this time. For
that reason, the Netherlands had decided to abstain in the vote. It
stood ready to support negotiations, and would support both parties
bilaterally, taking into account Palestinian aspirations for statehood
and Israel’s need for security. He urged all parties to refrain
from actions that undermined the prospect of a two-State solution,
and particularly urged Israel to end its settlement activities.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation had long supported
the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. It supported
a two-State solution, and it had voted in favour of the resolution just
adopted. Following today’s action, however, Palestine bore a greater
responsibility, he said, urging Palestine to exert more earnest efforts
towards peace in the Middle East. He called on the parties to establish
relationships of mutual trust and to return to the negotiating table.
Japan, he continued, would undertake active cooperation to move
the process forward in cooperation with the United States and other
partners. “It’s not acceptable to use this resolution to act in such a
way that would hinder direct negotiations with Israel”, he stressed,
calling on Israel, for its part, to freeze settlement activities. He
called on Palestine to immediately resume direct negotiations in a
tangible way, and asked for prudence with respect to accession to
international organizations.
The representative of Costa Rica said that 65 years ago, the Assembly
had adopted resolution 181 creating a partition plan for the territory
of Palestine, held under British mandate. Costa Rica had voted in
favour of today’s resolution because it addressed the yearnings for
peace of both peoples and would further the two-State solution. In
addition, the text was in line with its recognition of a Palestinian
State in 2008. There must be two States living securely, side by side
within internationally recognized borders.
Costa Rica also believed in Israel’s right to exist in security
without fear of rockets being launched into its territory. He
fervently appealed to the authorities of Israel and Palestine
to restart negotiations based on the obligations they had already
acquired and in accordance with international law, and the decisions
of the Security Council and the General Assembly.
The representative of Guatemala said his delegation had abstained
in the vote on the resolution in spite of the fact that it embraced
the right of peoples to self-determination, and gave firm support
to the establishment of an independent and sovereign State for the
Palestinian people, living in peace, side-by-side, with Israel, behind
secure borders. The reason for the abstention was that Guatemala was
not prepared to grant the category of Observer State to that entity,
which it had not yet recognized as a State, subjecting the latter to
its conviction that the final status of the creation of the State
of Palestine must be the outcome of a direct negotiation between
the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Guatemala believed that that
formulation was the only path to ensure peace, security and stability
— not only between Israel and its immediate neighbours, but also
for the whole Middle East.
The representative of Spain said his delegation had voted in
favour of the resolution, describing the vote as an expression of
the international community’s firm and irreversible commitment to
peace. However, if there had been a progress in the peace process
based on the road map adopted by the Quartet, today’s vote could have
been avoided.
He went on to say that he was convinced a sovereign, independent
viable Palestine State was a key element to regional stability and
to the international community as a whole. There were many tools
agreed upon, such as the Quartet’s road map, to achieve the two-State
solution. In that context, he called on both sides to “urgently go
back to the negotiation table without any preconditions”.
Mexico ‘s speaker said he voted in favour of the resolution.
His delegation reiterated its support for two States living side by
side in peace and security. Today’s resolution would not significantly
change the condition on the ground, but would at least give vigorous
impetus to a long-sought yearning for a two-State solution. He called
for the resumption of the peace process, including issues of security
arrangement, and the status of Jerusalem.
The representative of Georgia, aligning with the upcoming statement
of the European Union, said that, as a country in close proximity
to the Middle East, Georgia was sympathetic to the aspirations
of the people of the region, including those of Palestinians for
statehood and those of Israelis for security. Ending the conflict
was of paramount importance and could only be based on a negotiated
settlement between the parties. The resolution adopted today could be
understood as conferring privileges and rights in line with those of
Non-Member Observer States; it did not imply an automatic right for
Palestine to join international organizations as a State.
The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation had voted in
favour of the resolution based on a firm commitment to a just and
lasting peace in the Middle East region. Such a peace could only be
brought about by a negotiated settlement, he stressed. Jamaica sought a
balanced approach to the issue, which recognized, among other things,
Israel’s right to exist. In its view, the granting of Non-Member
Observer State status was on the same level as the status afforded
to the Holy See delegation; it was not equivalent to membership in
the United Nations.
The representative of the Russian Federation said that it had voted
in favour of the resolution. In 1988, his delegation had decided
to recognize the declaration of Palestinian statehood. There had
been a Palestinian embassy operating in Moscow for some time. Today
was an important milestone in reinstating historic equality, he
continued. The primary issue hampering the legitimate aspirations
of the Palestinian people was that of foreign occupation. The step
taken today did not target Israel or isolate it, he said, emphasizing
the need for a “responsible and measured reaction” from Israel and
other parties. Any activities to “avenge” the resolution would be
categorically unacceptable, he stressed in that regard. In addition,
the upgrading of Palestinian status should lead to a resumption of
negotiations. The Russian Federation would continue to do its utmost
to foster such resumption of talks.
The representative of Papua New Guinea said that his Government
recognized both Israel and Palestine and would continue to do so.
Papua New Guinea had often abstained from votes on issues pertaining
to the parties. It was only those two parties who could resolve the
issues between them. He expressed regret over the recent loss of
life on both sides and was pleased to see that the Gaza ceasefire was
holding up. He said that his own country’s history of bloody conflict
had been ended through a negotiated peace process. That was the only
way such a conflict could be resolved, he said, and urged both Israel
and the Palestinians to go back to the negotiating table.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said his Government fully
understood the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, but
had abstained in the vote, owing to a lack of meaningful progress in
the political process. At the same time, he expressed sincere hope
for meaningful negotiations to begin in earnest. The Republic of
Korea was deeply saddened by the deaths caused by recent fighting
in Gaza. In that regard, his delegation welcomed the ceasefire,
which however, remained fragile, and he called for the resumption of
peace negotiations.
Romania’s speaker said his delegation had abstained in the vote
because it had consistently supported multilateralism and could not
concur with any form of unilateralism. The Palestinian’s objectives
were legitimate, but a two-State solution must be forged through
the resumption of peace negotiations. The only viable tool was the
Quartet-backed road map, which provided internationally recognized
borders, among other objectives.
The representative of Portugal said that his delegation had
long defended the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to
self-determination through the establishment of a sovereign State.
It had done so bilaterally and within the context of the European
Union, he said. Portugal supported the right of all States in the
region to live in peace and security, and endorsed the two-State
solution, based on negotiations. Portugal had voted in favour of
the resolution just adopted owing to its unwavering commitment to
dialogue on the part of the Palestinians and in light of progress
made in establishing functioning State institutions. He hoped that
the Assembly’s action would provide a much needed impetus to the
peace process and urged both parties to resume credible negotiations
without precondition and without delay.
The representative of Mauritius said that his country had always
supported the establishment of the long-overdue Palestinian State,
living side by side in peace and security with Israel. His country
maintained strong relations with the Palestinian Authority, and hoped
that the Palestinian’s long-standing aspirations for statehood would
be materialized soon. Mauritius firmly believed that the question of
Palestine could and must be resolved by dialogue. It was unfortunate
that there had been little headway in the peace process. Israeli
settlements remained an obstacle to that process, he stressed,
issuing his support for the full admission of Palestine as a Member
State of the United Nations, a bid for which had been presented
last year. He also called for the issue to retain primacy on the
international agenda.
Statements on Question of Palestine
MOOTAZ AHMADEIN KHALIL ( Egypt) congratulated the Palestinian people
for having obtained the status of Non-Member Observer State. The
adoption of the resolution by an enormous majority showed the
international community’s recognition of the right of Palestine to
have a Government and a territory with secure borders, in spite of
the occupation and the occupying Power’s continuing acquisition of
territory. The international community had affirmed that it was able
to take the “right decision” when political will was present. He
hoped that, in the near future, the Security Council would be able
to undertake its responsibility through a similar decision, making
Palestine a full Member State of the United Nations.
“It is clear that Israel is not serious when it comes to achieving
peace,” he continued. Indeed, Israel based its methods on a strategy
of negotiation “that leads nowhere”.
Egypt, therefore, reaffirmed the importance of returning to the
negotiating table on a stable basis and in agreement with the
resolutions of the General Assembly. Those negotiations needed clear
timelines, he said, adding that recent decisions leading to a cessation
of hostilities in Gaza showed that it was possible to achieves peace
“if all parties live up to their responsibilities”. Finally, he advised
all parties, particularly Israel and the major donor countries, to
not take unilateral measures or put pressure on the Palestinians to
deter them from claiming their rights.
Speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE (
Iran) condemned Israel’s prolonged military occupation and illegal
policies and practices, including its military raids and attacks
against the Palestinian civilian population. Today’s meeting had
occurred as Israel had escalated its military campaign against the
Palestinians. While the Movement welcomed the Gaza ceasefire agreement,
it had called on Israel to end its illegal blockade of the Strip and
open all crossing points, in accordance with is obligations under
international law, Security Council resolution 1860 2009 and all
other relevant United Nations resolutions.
He said that the Movement remained firm in its condemnation of Israel’s
illegal settlement policies and practices and stressed that all such
unlawful attempts to alter the status of the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including East Jerusalem, should not be recognized by the
international community. It stressed the need for intensified efforts
to compel Israel to cease its illegal polices and genuinely commit to
the peace process. It stressed the need for the international community
to remain united in its demand that Israel had to respect its legal
obligations as an occupying Power and cease all its violations,
he said.
Speaking in his national capacity, he congratulated the Palestinian
people on their historic achievement. For more than 60 years, the
question of Palestine had been one of the main challenges facing
the international community. The crisis in the region, which had
lasted for decades, had been one of the “unpleasant consequences”
of the occupation of Palestine by the Zionist regime. That regime had
persisted with its aggression and uncivilized behaviour, disregarding
the calls of the international community for it to cease such
actions. Iran believed that ignoring the legitimate demands of the
Palestinian people would hinder the steps towards a just solution to
the question.
THOMAS MAYR-HARTING, Head of the Delegation of the European Union,
said today’s decision to accord Non-Member Observer State status came
as the latest escalation in the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict
had caused the death of a large number of innocent civilians. “This
is a bitter reminder of the urgent necessity to move forward towards
the end of the conflict. Only a political solution to the conflict can
bring lasting security, peace and prosperity to the Palestinians and
Israelis,” he said. A comprehensive negotiated peace must and could be
achieved on the basis of a two-State solution with the State of Israel
and a sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine,
both living in agreed borders and enjoying peace and security.
The European Union had repeatedly expressed its support and wish for
Palestine to become a full member of the United Nations as part of a
solution to the conflict. It had also consistently worked to advance
the Palestinian Authority’s State-building efforts and would continue
to do so. Recalling the Berlin Declaration of March 1999, the European
Union reiterated its readiness to recognize a Palestinian State, when
appropriate. After today’s vote, it was important for all to work
towards a settlement of the conflict with renewed purpose and sense
of urgency. He called on all parties to pursue actions conducive to an
environment of confidence necessary to ensure meaningful negotiations
and to refrain from actions that undermined the credibility of the
process.
He urged both sides to seek constructive ways to overcome the current
obstacles for a resumption of direct negotiations without delay or
preconditions, and welcomed in that regard the positive statements
previously made by President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu,
urging them to maintain these commitments. Clear parameters defining
the basis for negotiations were key for a successful outcome,
together with avoiding unilateral measures and acts on the ground
which undermined the viability of the two-State solution.
The European Union reaffirmed it would not recognize any changes
to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem,
other than those agreed by the parties. It would work actively,
within the diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East peace process and
with international partners, in support of efforts to bring about
substantive negotiations in the coming months.
KADRA AHMED HASSAN ( Djibouti), on behalf of the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said that the international community had an
historic opportunity — and responsibility — to support Palestinians’
just cause for independence. Palestinians had been negotiating with
Israel in good faith to live in peace in security, a goal which had
not been achieved and did not appear to be within Palestinians’ grasp,
given Israel’s policy of “shifting the goal posts”. The prospects
for peace had been challenged by Israel’s settlement building,
apartheid wall, escalating acts of violence by settlers against
Palestinians and confiscation of Palestinian homes and lands. Such
international law violations had systematically undermined prospects
for a two-State solution.
She expressed the Group’s grave concern about the situation in East
Jerusalem, where Israel’s settlement campaign was most intense. She
called for an end to that construction, and condemned terrorist
activities by extremist settlers against Palestinian homes,
agricultural lands and holy sites. Further, Israel’s military
aggression and illegal blockade constituted a collective punishment
against 1.5 million Palestinians and a war crime. The international
community, especially the Security Council, needed to take measures
for a permanent cessation of Israeli aggression against Palestinians.
She said Palestinians’ accession to full membership to United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was an
international recognition of their rights. Similarly, the positive
assessment by the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary
Fund (IMF) on the Palestinian Authority’s Implementation Plan for
building the institutions for a State was another strong sign of
their readiness for statehood. A permanent peace between Israel and
Palestinians was essential for both peoples. Palestinians’ improved
diplomatic status would bring Israelis and Palestinians a step closer
to achieving a sustainable solution on the basis of two States living
side by side in peace and security.
LI BAODONG ( China) said the resolution adopted today was another
positive step in Palestine’s progress towards statehood. Its adoption
was the result of long-term efforts by the Arab community.
He congratulated Palestine on becoming an Observer State of the United
Nation. His country had long supported the right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination and an independent State of their own,
with East Jerusalem as its capital. As early as 1988, China announced
its recognition of the State of Palestine and established diplomatic
relations with it.
Only when the question of Palestine was appropriately resolved, he
continued, could the two-State solution be achieved. He expressed
concern over the stalemate in that regard. Re-launching the peace
talks between Israel and Palestine was all the more important. The
international community must push Israel to return to the negotiating
table in good faith. Concluding, he said that China would continue to
play and active and constructive role to push for a just, comprehensive
settlement of the Palestinian question.
MANSOUR ALOTAIBI ( Kuwait) said today’s adoption of the resolution was
a landmark achievement at the crossroads of Palestinians’ struggle. It
was an extremely important stage in the lives of Palestinians,
especially in recognition of independent Palestinian State along
the 1967 borders. It sent a clear message of international support
of their rights, as it called for the resumption of talks in line
with the aims of the Madrid Conference, Arab Peace Initiative and
other measures to address refugee return, the status of Jerusalem,
settlements, security, water and other issues. He urged continuing
moral and political support to Palestinians until their State was
established with East Jerusalem as its capital.
He said Israel’s 14 November military aggression against Gaza had
resulted in huge losses in life and property. The United Nations’
inability to bring Israel to bear its obligations had encouraged that
country to continue its intransigence and apply hostile expansionist
policies. There was no better example of that than its military
campaign, a policy that flouted international norms and laws. Israel’s
blockade against Gaza, continued arrests of Palestinians and limits on
goods and persons were the main cause of instability in the region,
and he renewed the call to pressure Israel to end such hostile
practices. He urged Israel’s implementation of resolution 497 (1981)
and return to 1967 borders, reaffirming its occupation of Syrian land
was another obstacle to establishing peace in the Middle East.
U. JOY OGWU ( Nigeria) noted the dawn may be closing on the two-State
solution. Continued settlement-building by Israel threatened that
objective. That impasse must be broken. Self-determination was the
sole embodiment of the just, conscious expression of people to their
dignity. To deny that right was to deny all other rights.
She supported the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to
self-determination and statehood. Nigeria had recognized the State
of Palestine and it had established diplomatic relations with it.
Nigeria voted in favour of the admission of Palestine into UNESCO as
a full Member State. She underscored the right of the Palestinians to
live in freedom. It was fitting that today the international community
had given Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United
Nations. “It was not only timely, it was right and it was just,”
she said, pledging Nigeria’s commitment to work towards Palestine’s
admission to the United Nations as a full Member State.
ZAHEER LAHER ( South Africa) said that while his Government supported
full membership of Palestine, it was satisfying that the United Nations
had cemented that ” Palestine is indeed a State”. He was certain that
Palestinians would prevail in the quest for a viable State of their own
and he urged the international community to avoid retributive actions
that could stifle the existence of such a State. The Middle East
peace process had been an agenda item for 65 years and he regretted
there had been no significant movement in the long, drawn-out process
towards a solution. The prospect for negotiations grew dimmer by the
day amid Israel’s settlement building and restricting of Palestinians’
movement, among other measures. Settlements continued to threaten
feasibility of a contiguous Palestinian State.
He went on to say that events in Gaza were a reminder of the fragile
security situation, expressing pleasure that the ceasefire was
holding. He welcomed mediation by Egypt, the League of Arab States
and the Secretary-General that had led to the restoration of calm.
He wondered where the Quartet had been during the crisis. Its
silence showed its legitimacy should be addressed, perhaps by
disbanding it. He was also disappointed the Security Council did
not act at an appropriate time. He called for redoubled efforts for
the implementation of a viable two-State solution, providing for a
Palestinian State living alongside Israel based on the 1967 borders,
with East Jerusalem as its capital. The blockade of Gaza had resulted
in delays in the provision of humanitarian assistance and he called on
Israel to end it. Conflict between Israel and Palestine had impacted
regional stability. In closing, he recalled that resolution 181 had
been a promissory note guaranteeing the creation of two States. Today’s
text was a further fulfilment of that promise.
AHMED AL-JARMAN ( United Arab Emirates) congratulated Palestine
for being accorded non-Member Observer State status. The historic
recognition was an important step towards the settlement of the
Palestinian question and the consolidation of the right of the
Palestinians to self-determination. “It represents a historical
opportunity to overcome the present political crisis that has resulted
from Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian lands, and
should also be an exit out of the no-peace situation in the Middle
East,” he said.
He went on to say that he hoped that an international move towards
the formal acceptance to full membership would follow, since the
Palestinian State now enjoyed the recognition of the overwhelming
majority of Member States. He strongly condemned all hostile policies
by Israel, emphasizing security for Israel and permanent cessation
of violence in the region could not be achieved without imposing a
just solution based on principles of international law.
He also expressed deep concern over the current deadlock in peace
negotiations, whose credibility was at stake due to breaches by the
Israeli Government of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people
and terms of the peace process.
The international community should use influence on Israel, he said,
to compel it to immediately stop all its unilateral policies which
resulted in the freezing of peace negotiations. The United Arab
Emirates would continue its political support and development aid
to the Palestinian Authority, led by President Abbas. Israel must
immediately end all its aggressive policies against the Palestinian
people, and fully withdraw from all Palestinian and Arab territories,
occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan
Heights and the remaining occupied Lebanese territories.
MARIA LUIZA RIBIERO VIOTTI ( Brazil) firmly supported Palestinians’
legitimate aspiration for a sovereign, independent democratic and
viable Palestinian State on the basis of 1967 borders, living in
peace and security alongside Israel. To this day, the question of
Palestine was among the most important threats to international
peace and security, and, as the Brazilian President had stated in
September, only a free, sovereign Palestine could fulfil Israel’s
legitimate desires for peace with its neighbours. The establishment of
a Palestinian State had become more urgent in light of the expansion
of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including
East Jerusalem.
Establishing such a State was also the right response to the violence
that had shortened the lives of innocent civilians, she said, citing
the recent violence in Gaza as a reminder of the high human and
political costs of a paralysed peace process. She called on all actors
to fully commit to non-violence, dialogue and effective negotiations,
as well as a lifting of the Gaza blockade.
Reiterating that the Security Council must carry out its duties,
she said an “inoperative Quartet and silent Security Council” did
not serve the interests of peace. Turning to the United Nations,
as President Abbas had done today, was consistent with Council and
Assembly resolutions. Given the obstacles to the immediate admission
of Palestine as a full United Nations Member, Brazil supported,
as an interim measure, that Palestine be accorded non-Member State
Observer status.
OSCAR LEÔN GONZÃ~ALEZ ( Cuba) lamented the absence of an effective
solution to end Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people and
its occupation of their land. He said that Israel continued to defy
the international community and United Nations resolutions. It also
continued to intensify settlement activity in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem. Israel’s acts of violence against Palestinian civilians had
increased. Palestinians lived in dire socio-economic circumstances. The
situation of women and children in the region was alarming. Those
were reasons enough to adopt political measures of condemnation. There
should also be binding Council decisions to punish the perpetrators.
He asked why the Council was so inactive in the face of overwhelming
evidence. He asked why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
had taken no action. Such silence had laid bear the hypocrisy of
several developed countries. During its recent siege of Gaza, Israel
had once again used it military and technical superiority to brutalize
the Palestinian population. He strongly condemned that aggression
and called on international community to take firmest support for
Palestine. He firmly supported an independent Palestinian State,
with East Jerusalem as its capital.
He supported today’s resolution and backed Palestine’s bid for full
membership in the Organization, as well.
JORGE VALERO BRICEÃ’O ( Venezuela) said Lebanese, Sephardic Jews and
others had made his country their home and the three monotheistic
religions existed there in peace. Some 1.5 million people in the Arab
immigration lived in Venezuela. His country was committed to liberty,
sovereignty, territorial integrity and respect for international law,
which was why his Government supported the Palestinian cause. He
hoped for a new era in which “swords would be beaten into plough
shares”. The Gaza Strip was the “largest open air prison in the world”,
he said, citing Noam Chomsky. The State of Israel had been proclaimed
unilaterally in 1948 and al-Nakba had begun for Palestinians.
He said inhumane policies were used to control Palestinians within
the colonized territory. Institutions had been created to undermine
Palestinian rights to their land and property. Some 4,500 Palestinians
were in Israeli prisons and he called for their release. The Israeli
political and military elite had implemented apartheid, carried out
ethnic cleansing, and used weapons banned by international law on
civilians. Israel must be held accountable for war crimes and crimes
against humanity committed against Palestinians and the Assembly could
not remain indifferent to Palestinians’ suffering. Today’s resolution
marked an important step on the road to recognizing Palestine as a
full United Nations Member State.
Mr. HASSAN ( Malaysia) said he was appalled that the global community
took one week to stop Israel’s brutal, aggressive attack two weeks
ago in Gaza, which killed 165 Palestinians and injured countless
others. On 19 November, Malaysia’s Parliament passed a resolution
condemning those attacks and stating its unwavering support for the
Palestinians. The Parliament also called on the Council to fulfil
its Charter responsibility and for Israel to be held accountable for
the crimes committed against the Palestinians. He expressed sincere
condolences to Palestinians who had died defending their homeland.
The report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights
of the Palestinian People illustrated that the situation in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory had not improved and Israel continued
to violate international law, including humanitarian and human
rights law. The occupying Power systematically continued to demolish
Palestinian homes, displace Palestinians and intensify settlement
building. In 2011, it had destroyed 110 homes. Israel clearly intended
to change the demographic reality on the ground. It had further
revoked the residency status of more than 14,000 Palestinians from
Jerusalem without reason or discourse. He was equally appalled by
the increasing number of settler violence incidents.
Israel’s blockade of Gaza had rendered 80 per cent of the population
there dependent on humanitarian aid, he said. Another 44 per cent
was food insecure; 39 per cent lived in poverty. He expressed
concern over the Committee’s findings. If Israel was committed to
a two-State solution, it must stop building settlements, dismantle
existing ones, lift the blockade of Gaza, and allow aid to reach
people. The international community must continue to support all
recommendations in the Committee’s report to achieve the Palestinian
people’s inalienable right to self-determination and a negotiated
settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that resulted in
creation of an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as
its capital. He paid respect and tribute to the Palestinian people’s
courage and strength in the face of immense hardship. He fully
supported Palestine’s application as a Member State and welcomed
adoption of today’s text enhancing its status to Observer State.
BASHAR JA’AFARI ( Syria) said today’s adoption was further proof of
the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause. “This is justice served,”
he said, noting Syria’s support of Palestinian rights for the creation
of a sovereign State with East Jerusalem as its capital, along borders
decided upon in 1967, as well as the return of Palestinians to their
homes and payment of reparations. He recalled resolution 20/73 in that
regard, which defined Israel’s United Nations membership, calling on
Israel to uphold its Charter obligations. Israel’s accession to the
United Nations was contingent on its commitment to the creation of
a Palestinian State and the return of refugees. But that commitment
had been left aside.
Israel continued its hostile practices, refusing peace and viewing
itself as a State above the law. Those protecting Israel had affirmed
Israeli authorities would be protected at the United Nations,
he said. Israel had applied an unjust settlement policy against
Palestinians. It was the Palestinians’ right to live in freedom
but that was impossible with Israel’s flouting of United Nations
resolutions and pressure by some States to hamper the Palestinians’
full enjoyment of their rights. The Palestinian cause was a just
one. Those that had voted against the resolution had failed the
Palestinian people, as well as the “Palestinian Gandhi”, President
Abbas. He asked how those States could be trusted when they talked
about upholding international law, sovereignty and the rule of
law. True justice required Palestine being accorded full Member status.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI ( Morocco) welcomed the adoption by the great
majority of Member States of the resolution providing Palestine the
status of non-Member Observer State. Further, Morocco considered that
negotiations were the only way to restore the legitimate rights of the
Palestinian people and the establishment of a sovereign State. Passage
of the resolution was a logical result of the stalemate in the peace
process. The time allocated to reach a peaceful settlement for a
two-State solution had expired. The resolution was supported by all
Palestinians and thus was a step towards Palestinian reconciliation.
Welcoming the ceasefire between Gaza and Israel, he commended the
efforts of the international parties who had helped to achieve it,
and expressed the hope that the international community would work to
prevent Israeli aggression and that there would be a new approach that
would lead to the opening of the crossings and ending the blockade
of Gaza. While condemning Israel’s continued settlement activity,
which further annexed Palestinian lands, he said that, nevertheless,
the path to peace should not be abandoned.
MOHAMED KHALED KHIARI ( Tunisia) reiterated his full support for
the “heroic struggle of the Palestinian people to put an end”
to the Israeli occupation. He noted that this was the Day of
international Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Tunisia had
supported an independent Palestine State with East Jerusalem as
its capital. Congratulating on the “historic decision” taken by
the General Assembly to grant Palestine non-Member Observer State
status, he said that status would help Palestine play its role as
a peace-loving nation internationally. However, he warned against
complacency and the silence of the international community, saying
that the Palestinian people continued to live under occupation.
Israeli settlers were trying to change the nature of Jerusalem by
removing Arabic characteristics. The absence of a firm position by the
international community could not continue. Given that the Palestinian
people could not endure the ongoing situation, the international
community was called on to take steps to break the stalemate in the
negotiations. Efforts needed to be made to create a new dynamism to
deal with the substantial issues. A two-State solution was essential.
JEROBEAM SHAANIKA ( Namibia) said his country had followed the issues
surrounding the confiscation of land and destruction of homes to make
room for new Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Thus, it was
puzzling how support for a resolution seeking Palestine’s recognition
by the United Nations could be considered counterproductive to the
two-State solution. Support for the resolution was meant to enhance
efforts leading to the creation of an independent, sovereign,
contiguous and viable Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as
its capital, and to coexist with Israel on the basis of the 1967
borders. Therefore, he did not consider voting for the resolution to
be counterproductive to the peace process, which had been suspended
for the past few years.
Namibia would continue to extend its unwavering support and solidarity
with the people of Palestine as long as they were denied their
right to self-determination, he said. His country fully supported
the aspiration of Palestine for what the resolution had sought to
achieve, and looked forward to the day when the State of Palestine
finally joined the family of sovereign and independent nations. The
United Nations Charter called on the international community “to
unite our strength to maintain international peace and security”;
it did not call for division through weakness and fear.
ANNEX
Vote on Status of Palestine at United Nations
The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations
(document A/67/L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour
to 9 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,
Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus,
Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central
African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica,
Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia,
Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,
Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy,
Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao
People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein,
Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines,
Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon
Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand,
Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan,
Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania,
Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States.
Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro,
Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea,
Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore,
Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo,
Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.
Absent: Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Ukraine.