GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS SIX RESOLUTIONS AS IT CONCLUDES DEBATE ON MIDDLE EAST SITUATION AND QUESTION OF PALESTINE

3 November 2002
GA/10111

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS SIX RESOLUTIONS AS IT CONCLUDES DEBATE ON MIDDLE EAST SITUATION AND QUESTION OF PALESTINE

03/12/2002
Press Release
GA/10111


Fifty-seventh General Assembly

Plenary

66th Meeting (AM)


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS SIX RESOLUTIONS AS IT CONCLUDES DEBATE

ON MIDDLE EAST SITUATION AND QUESTION OF PALESTINE


Speakers Call for Return to Peace

Negotiations and Israeli Withdrawal from Syrian Golan


Following a three-day discussion of the Palestinian question and the situation in the Middle East, the General Assembly adopted six resolutions this morning, all by recorded vote, and called for, among other things, increased efforts to ensure the resumption of the peace process and the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Syrian Golan.


It adopted a resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine by a vote of 160 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 3 abstentions (Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu).  By that text, the Assembly called on the concerned parties, the Quartet and other interested parties to exert all efforts and initiatives necessary to halt the deterioration of the situation and to reverse all measures taken on the ground since 28 September 2000, and to ensure the successful and speedy resumption of the peace process and the conclusion of a final peaceful settlement.  (See Annex IV for voting details.)


Adopting a resolution on the Syrian Golan by a vote of 109 in favour to     4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 57 abstentions, the Assembly demanded, once more, that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, in implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions.  It determined, once more, that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan and its de facto annexation constituted a stumbling block in the way of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region.  (Annex VI.)


By the terms of a resolution on Jerusalem, the Assembly deplored the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to that city in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980), and called once more on those States to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with the United Nations Charter.  It adopted that text by a vote of 154 in favour to 5 against (Costa Rica, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 6 abstentions (Albania, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu).  (Annex V.)


The Assembly adopted, by 109 votes in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 56 abstentions, a resolution requesting the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of


the Palestinian People to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, to support the Middle East peace process and to mobilize international support for and assistance to the Palestinian people.  (Annex I.)


In a further action, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights with the necessary resources and to ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work, in consultation with the Committee.  It adopted that text by a vote of    108 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 56 abstentions.  (Annex II.)


By a vote of 159 in favour to 5 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, United States), the Assembly also adopted a resolution on the Department of Public Information's special information programme on the question of Palestine.  By that action, it requested the Department, in coordination with the Committee, to continue that programme for the biennium  2002-2003.  (Annex III.)


Making statements before the voting were the representatives of Malaysia, India, Nepal, United States, Australia, Cyprus, Lebanon, Canada, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Israel.


The representatives of Canada, Denmark (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), United States, Argentina and Syria spoke in explanation of vote.


Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the representatives of Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Israel.


The Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday 4 December, to take up a number of reports of its Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) and to consider several other items on its agenda. 


Background


The General Assembly met this morning to conclude its consideration of the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East.  (For further background information, see Press Releases GA/10109 of 29 November and GA/10110 of 2 December 2002).  It was also expected to take action on a number of draft resolutions.


The Question of Palestine


A draft on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/57/L.34) would have the Assembly request the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, to support the Middle East peace process and to mobilize international support for and assistance to the Palestinian people.  It would have the Assembly authorize the Committee to make such adjustments in its approved programme of work as it might consider appropriate and necessary in the light of developments, and to report thereon to the Assembly at its next session and thereafter.


By the terms of a draft on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/57/L.35), the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources and to ensure that it continues to carry out its programme of work, in consultation with the Committee, including and in particular, the organization of meetings in various regions with the participation of all sectors of the international community; the further development and expansion of the documents collection of the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine; the preparation and widest possible dissemination of publications and information materials on various aspects of the question of Palestine; and the provision of the annual training programme for staff of the Palestinian Authority.


A text on the Special information programme on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat (document A/57/L.36) would have the Assembly request the Department of Public Information (DPI), in coordination with the Committee, to continue -- with the necessary flexibility as may be required by developments affecting the question of Palestine -- its special information programme for the biennium 2002-2003.  Among other things, that would include the dissemination of information on all the activities of the United Nations system relating to the question of Palestine, including reports on the work carried out by the relevant United Nations agencies, and organizing and promoting fact-finding news missions for journalists to the area, including the territory under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority and the occupied territory.


By a draft resolution on the Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/57/L.37), the Assembly would urge Member States to expedite the provision of economic, humanitarian and technical assistance to the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority during this critical period, to help alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, rebuild the Palestinian economy and infrastructure and support the restructuring and reform of Palestinian institutions.  It would also call on the concerned parties, the Quartet and other interested parties to exert all efforts and initiatives necessary to halt the

deterioration of the situation and to reverse all measures taken on the ground since 28 September 2000, and to ensure the successful and speedy resumption of the peace process and the conclusion of a final peaceful settlement.


The Situation in the Middle East


A draft on Jerusalem (document A/57/L.44) would have the Assembly deplore the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980), and call once more on those States to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with the United Nations Charter.  Also, the Assembly would stress that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of the City of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure the freedom of religion and of conscience of its inhabitants, as well as permanent, free and unhindered access to holy places by the people of all religions and nationalities.


The Assembly would, by the terms of a draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/57/L.45), demand, once more, that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, in implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions.  It would determine, once more, that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan and its de facto annexation constitute a stumbling block in the way of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region.  In addition, the Assembly would call on Israel to resume talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks, and to respect the commitments and undertakings reached during previous talks. 


HASMY AGAM (Malaysia) said it was a matter of profound regret and concern that after 30 years of consideration by the General Assembly, the situation in the Middle East continued to be debated without a solution in sight.  At the core of the regional tension remained the unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict, stemming from Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem.


Noting that the consequences for the Palestinians had been particularly debilitating and tragic, he said they involved the blatant and persistent violation of their human rights, characterized by arbitrary arrests and detentions, ill-treatment and torture, among many other  forms of unjustified collective punishment.  The extent of that inhuman treatment had been well documented in United Nations and other independent reports as well as recounted so often by the Palestinian and other concerned delegations in the General Assembly and the Security Council that it had ceased to shock any one.


Malaysia was equally concerned with the situation of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan and deplored the fact that they continued to suffer under the occupation, he said.  Like their Palestinian brethren, they had to experience many deprivations and other forms of humiliation, and indignities of life under occupation.  The settlements in the occupied Syrian Golan remained a major obstacle to the resumption of the Syrian-Israeli peace process, which had been suspended since 1996, he continued, urging Israel to demonstrate the sincerity of its professed desire for peace by taking concrete and serious steps to comply with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories occupied in 1967.


Continuing, he said that amid the unsettled and precarious situation in the Middle East, Malaysia was particularly concerned at the widely reported preparations for war against Iraq, even as the weapons inspectors were just resuming their work and had yet to submit their findings to the Security Council, which by virtue of resolution 1441 (2002) was the final authority to decide on the appropriate next steps to deal with any outcome of the inspection.  A war against Iraq would have serious implications on the international situation, particularly on global efforts to combat terrorism, which would be seriously impaired.  It would be tragic for the region if the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were to be sidelined in pursuit of some short-term political objective vis-à-vis Iraq, he added.


VIJAY K. NAMBIAR (India) said that among the reasons for the present state of affairs was that Israel had failed to understand the limitations of a uni-dimensional policy based on a military approach without a concomitant political approach.  Israeli policy had resulted in economic deprivation, dislocation of normal life, loss of freedom and demoralization of the Palestinian population.  The result had been continued acts of violence and retribution against Israeli forces and civilians.


Noting that the closures of Palestinian areas had given rise to a grave humanitarian situation in the Palestinian areas, he called upon Israel to take immediate steps to lift the closures and blockade and to ease the economic hardship of Palestinians in the occupied territories.  Israel should also freeze its settlement construction as a first step to dismantling settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.  At the same time, terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians must end, he said, adding that all acts of violence should be abjured in absolute terms.  There was no moral justification for terrorism on any grounds.


The continued deterioration and ongoing cycle of violence highlighted the need for a political solution, he said.  Preoccupation with elections on both sides was not sufficient reason to lose momentum in developing a political framework for peace.  India believed in the vision of Israel and Palestine living side by side within secure and peaceful borders.  Further progress in Israeli-Lebanese and Israeli-Syrian relations was also needed, he added.


MURARI RAJ SHARMA (Nepal) said that in the recent intifada, more than   2,000 people had died, the majority of them Palestinians.  The Palestinian economy and infrastructures had been totally ruined.  He strongly condemned terrorism and supported action against it, and denounced violence against civilians.  Those atrocities must cease for the healing process to begin and peace to prevail.  There was no shortcut to peace in the Middle East.  Neither was there a military solution to the complex problems besetting the region.  Israel had the right to live in peace within secure borders.  At the same time, the Palestinians had the right to establish an independent and viable State.  For that, both sides would have to make painful compromises. 


He said attacks against the Palestinian leadership, the occupation of Palestinian territories and the expansion of Jewish settlements would not ensure peace for Israel.  Those measures only fomented hostilities among the Palestinians.  Israel must lift its siege, withdraw from occupied and reoccupied areas and stop using excessive force against the Palestinians.  It must also immediately open political negotiations with the Palestinian Authority without preconditions, giving hope to the Palestinians for a State, sooner rather than later.  In the same vein, attacks against Israeli civilians would only hurt the Palestinian cause.  The Palestinian Authority must curb extremist elements and the international community must help it to do so.  He supported the efforts of the Quartet, the Arab initiative and other efforts to bring about a peaceful solution. 


JOHN NEGROPONTE (United States) said the United States Government had repeatedly urged both sides to take immediate steps to ease the situation and to refrain from words and actions that inflamed tensions and complicated efforts to find peaceful solutions.  The goal of the United States was to end all violence and terror in the region and lay out a path to end the occupation.  In working towards that goal, it was closely engaged with the Israelis and Palestinians, regional leaders, its Quartet partners and the International Task Force on Reform.  The United States believed a negotiated final settlement could be achieved in three years. 


The centrepiece of current efforts, he said, was a “road map” designed to help promote practical efforts to achieve four objectives:  implement the strategy of promoting Palestinian institutional and security reform; ease the humanitarian situation inside Palestinian areas; end violence and terror and restore security cooperation; and restore a political dialogue that would realize President George W. Bush’s vision of a final settlement based on two States living side by side in peace and security.  The road map would clearly lay out obligations and responsibilities on all sides and progress from one phase to another would be performance-based. 


He said he would welcome a resolution that reflected a balanced and pragmatic approach consistent with that of the Quartet.  Unfortunately, it appeared that the Assembly would be considering texts that put the body in the position of attempting to prejudge the settlement of the question of Jerusalem and other final status issues.  To achieve a lasting peace, those issues must be decided through negotiations between the parties, consistent with past agreements, he stressed.


BASSIM BLAZEY (Australia) said that, having supported a new and robust resolution on unconditional weapons inspections in Iraq, Australia held that Security Council resolution 1441 set out a process for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction peacefully.  The Government of Iraq was expected to give a full declaration of its holding of these weapons, to give United Nations weapons inspectors full access and to provide for continuing monitoring and verification to prove it had given them up permanently.


Turning to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said Australia was committed to the vision of two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders.  Australia wholeheartedly supported Israel’s territorial integrity and its right to live in peace, as well as the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  A Palestinian State was an inevitable part of a peaceful settlement.


He spoke of the "continued senseless violence and destruction".  The targeting of Israeli civilians by Palestinian suicide bombers was abhorrent and did the Palestinian cause no good.  Furthermore, he urged Israel to avoid the disproportionate or reckless use of force, which resulted in the killing of innocent civilians.  In anticipation of the Quartet’s road map, neither side should alienate through violence those willing and ready to negotiate a settlement. 

SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus) said the Palestinian issue constituted the core of the Middle East conflict, without whose settlement there could be no comprehensive and lasting solution to the problem.  He said that while maintaining its position on the inadmissibility of foreign occupation and the acquisition of territory by war, Cyprus supported the right of every State in the region, including Israel, to live in peace and security.


He said Cyprus believed that initiatives for the achievement of peace and stability should be based on international law.  It was important that solutions to regional problems were perceived as fair, and accepted as such by the populations concerned.  Prolonged occupation brought frustration, which led to acts of desperation.  He called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from re-occupied areas, the lifting of the severe restrictions imposed on the Palestinian population, the lifting of the blockade on the occupied territories and an end to extra-judicial killings, among others.


He said he welcomed the Arab Peace Initiative and supported all international efforts, including those of the Middle East Quartet and the creation of a road map outlining the steps towards Palestinian statehood.  He also agreed with the view that the inability of the international community to end the unacceptable situation in the Middle East undermined the credibility of the system of collective security.  A solution to the conflict would lead to a greater sense of safety and justice, both at the regional and the international levels.


HOUSSAM ASAAD DIAB (Lebanon) said that despite the endorsement of the right to self-determination by the League of Nations, that right had been denied to the Palestinian people and, since 1948, Israel had occupied Arab territories and established illegal settlements.  Israel had ignored Security Council resolutions, which emphasized the illegality of such procedures, and flouted the international community in attempting to change the demographic features of Jerusalem/Al-Quds.  Moreover, Israel had encouraged extremist settlers and provided them with weapons to terrorize the Arab population and force them to flee.


The world today had been convinced that the establishment of a State of Palestine was a necessary basis for settling the Middle East conflict, he added.  Security Council resolution 1397 (2002), the Arab Peace Initiative and the principle of land-for-peace had received wide acceptance as a means to reach a just and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  The Arab leaders had unanimously taken up the peace initiative at Beirut, calling for Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders, the achievement of a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees and the establishment of an independent Palestinian State.


Israel had waged expansionist, colonialist policies aimed at putting an end to the Palestinian people, he said.  That should force the international community to do more than just deplore and condemn.  Reminding the General Assembly that his country still suffered from Israeli aggressiveness, he said Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese territories, including Lebanese airspace, seas and waters, as well as the Shaba’a farms, in accordance with resolution 425 (1978).


PAUL HEINBECKER (Canada) said that the crisis in the Middle East ground tragically on, while nearly every day innocent lives were lost and hope dimmed.  Humanitarian conditions worsened and peace receded.  None of the region’s peoples could live in peace until they all lived in peace, he stressed.


Everyone knew what must be done, he added.  Terrorism must end; violence, incitement to hatred and settlement activity must cease.  Only then could confidence be rebuilt.  The parties on their own could not achieve peace, but others could not do it for them.  Everyone needed to work together, in support of the Quartet’s road map.  Canada stood ready to assist the parties to achieve the shared vision of two viable States living side by side in peace and, ultimately, prosperity.


BADER MOHAMMAD AL-AWADI (Kuwait), condemning all acts of violence, called on the Israeli Government to end its aggression, closures and expansion policy, which caused frustration and violence.  All Israeli practices, beginning with the continued occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands, were violations of international law and Israeli injustices had expanded to international civil servants working in the Palestinian territories.  He condemned the murder of Iain Hook and the aggression by Israeli forces against the supplies of the World Food Programme (WFP). 


Security must be ensured for all civilians in the Middle East, he said.  Kuwait had responded to all appeals to help the Palestinian people, and the Kuwaiti Red Crescent, despite difficulties, was working to ensure that humanitarian assistance made its way to those in need.  He called on the Security Council to fulfil its tasks with regard to the Charter and impose its will on Israel to ensure compliance with its resolutions and protect all civilians.


Expressing support for the efforts of the Quartet and the Arab League, he stressed that if peace was to be established, there must be agreement that the Israeli occupation of lands since June 1967 was the crux of the problem.  He called on Israel to withdraw from the Syrian Golan, the occupation of which was a major handicap to building lasting peace in the region, and called on Israel to resume negotiations on the Syrian-Lebanese tracks.  Israel must respect the sovereignty of Lebanon and stop exploiting that country’s resources, he added.


SALAH ALI HASAN HELAL AL-MALKI (Bahrain), condemning any act of terrorism, regardless of its motives, against civilians, said that the use of violence against the Palestinian people engendered reprisals, which would cease if Israel changed its policies.  In that regard, Israel was called upon to lift the siege it had imposed on the Palestinians, to freeze settlements and to rejoin the negotiating table as proof of its sincerity.  To uphold the legitimacy of the United Nations, its resolutions, such as 194, 242 and 338, must be implemented without double standards.  Bahrain called on Members States to shoulder their responsibility to make Israel respect the relevant resolutions and respond earnestly to Arab overtures.


Urging Israel to respect Syria’s right to regain the occupied Syrian Golan, he called for its withdrawal to the pre-1967 boundaries.  Israel should end the economic exploitation of the land and population in the land as well as policies aimed at undermining the local Arab culture.  It should also refrain from building settlements and end efforts to expunge the inhabitants of the Golan.  Expressing support for Lebanon in regaining the Shaba’a farms and for the full implementation of resolution 425 (1978), he said Israel should cease to control the natural wealth and water resources of Lebanon in accordance with the relevant international instruments and laws.


In conclusion, he said that in spite of the Israeli rejection of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, and despite the current Israeli Government’s focus on violence, in spite of its continued stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction and its impunity, it was hoped that an Israeli Government would take office, which would listen to common sense and renounce those policies.  That would make it possible to establish peace and prosperity and to improve the lives of all the region’s inhabitants.


NASSIR ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER (Qatar) said that, every day in the occupied territories, regrettable tragedies were being inflicted on the Palestinians.  The international community must impose adequate pressure on the Israeli Government to curb its violence and end its occupation.  Without that, the Middle East would continue the spiral of violence and counter-violence at the expense of the Palestinian people. 


He said he looked with hope for the coming of a just and lasting peace that would respect the dignity of the Palestinian people.  Qatar supported the Arab Peace Initiative as the basis of a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the core of which was the question of Palestine.  The Quartet was capable of taking up its role to find a settlement acceptable to all parties, he said, adding that it was up to Israeli leaders to choose the path of peace. 


AARON JACOB (Israel) said that while much of the history of the Middle East in the last century was characterized by war and terrorism, there was an alternative path -– the path of dialogue and reconciliation.  Only a negotiated settlement could bring peace to the region, and opportunity and prosperity to its peoples.


He spoke of the peace process which had seen Israel concluding treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and withdrawing its forces from southern Lebanon.  However, the Government of Lebanon had encouraged cross-border acts of terrorism, rather than exercise effective control over the area, which had become a haven for Hezbollah terrorists.  He said Lebanon had taken no steps to confront that organization as was required under Security Council resolution 425.


He asserted that Syria was also a major supporter of Hezbollah’s terrorist activities.  The organization was allowed to maintain training facilities in Syrian-controlled territory.  Syria had assisted it in acquiring weaponry.  In addition, Syria -– even though now a member of the Security Council -- was accommodating towards several other groups hostile to Israel.  Iran, too, was a significant supporter of Hezbollah, and was its major patron.  Iran, he said, maintained a policy of complete and total rejection of Israel’s right to exist, and had missiles that targeted its cities.


He said of particular concern to Israel was the disarmament of Iraq, which had shown ill-intent to Israel and other neighbouring States, and its determination to acquire non-conventional weapons, in defiance of Security Council resolutions.  Saddam Hussein had actively supported terrorist attacks against Israel.  For those reasons, Israel fully supported the disarming of Iraq and hoped that efforts designed to do so would be brought swiftly to a successful conclusion.  The international community must continue to pressure Iraq, in order to guarantee its compliance with international law and to ensure that it did not possess the capability to threaten regional security.


He said that for the struggle against terrorism to succeed there had to be consistent condemnation of acts, such as those in Mombasa and Bali, which took the lives of innocent civilians.  Israel wanted peace with its neighbours and was committed to negotiating fair and lasting solutions to all outstanding disputes in the region.


Action on Texts


Turning to the draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/57/L.34), the Assembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 56 abstentions.


It then took up the draft on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/57/L.35), adopting it by a recorded vote of 108 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 56 abstentions.


Taking up the draft on the special information programme on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat (document A/57/L.36), the Assembly adopted that text by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 5 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, United States), with no abstentions.


The Assembly then adopted the draft on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/57/L.37) by a recorded vote 160 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 3 abstentions (Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu).


Explanations of Vote


DEBORAH PRICE (Canada) said she supported the resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine because of her country’s firm commitment to a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Stressing that there was no military solution, she said violence must end and negotiations must resume and both sides must take the necessary steps to end the suffering.  Condemning suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, she said the reference in operative paragraph 5 should not be seen as a constraint on Israel to defend itself and protect its citizens.  The exercise of that right, however, must be taken in conformity with international humanitarian law.


ELLEN MARGRETHE LØJ (Denmark), explaining her position on draft resolutions L.34 and L.35 on behalf of the European Union and associated States, strongly condemned the recent acts of terror and violence, which only served to derail the process towards reconciliation.  The peace process represented the only reasonable hope of ending a conflict that had already caused far too much suffering.


The European Union remained committed to working within the Quartet on a concrete, three-phased road map outlining the necessary steps towards a final Israeli-Palestinian settlement, she said.  Israelis and Palestinians should address the core issues dividing them, though sustaining negotiations.  Thus, the countries of the European Union continued to call on Israelis and Palestinians to work actively with the Quartet and other parties to achieve that objective and thereby to realize the vision of two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders.


She said the European Union regretted that the terms of reference of those two United Nations bodies dealing with the question of Palestine did not sufficiently reflect the spirit of the peace process.  For that reason the European Union had, as in the past, abstained on those two resolutions.


The Assembly then adopted, by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 5 against (Costa Rica, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 6 abstentions (Albania, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu), the text on Jerusalem (document A/57/L.44).


Finally, the Assembly adopted, by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to

4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States) with 57 abstentions, the draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/57/L.45).


Explanations of Vote


Mr. ERDMANN (United States), speaking in explanation of vote, said that by the resolution on Jerusalem, the General Assembly had sought to interpose on an issue, whose specific terms both sides had agreed to address in the final status negotiations.  The United States objected to that imposition.  Jerusalem was one of the final status issues to be negotiated directly by the parties and the Quartet and others should continue working for the resumption of a dialogue to make the discussion of that issue possible.  The United States fully supported the internationally recognized right of freedom of religion for all, he added.


MATEO ESTREMÉ (Argentina) said that he had voted in favour of the resolution on the Syrian Golan because his Government believed that its essential aspect related to the lawfulness of the territory's acquisition by force.  The Charter's prohibition of that was an imperative rule of international law.  However, to clarify Argentina’s position concerning operative paragraph 6 of that resolution, he said that it did not prejudge the lines before June 1967.


Ms. LØJ (Denmark), speaking on behalf of the European Union on the resolution concerning the Syrian Golan, said that a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement of the Middle East situation, including on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks, should be based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967),    338 (1973) and 1397 (2002), the Madrid terms of reference -- in particular the principle of land-for-peace -- and the implementation of all existing agreements between the parties.  The European Union would continue to work relentlessly with the regional parties and within the Quartet towards that goal.


Pointing out that a final peace settlement would not be complete without taking account of the Israel-Syria and Israel-Lebanon aspects, she added that negotiations should resume, as soon as possible, with the aim of reaching an agreement.  In that regard, the European Union welcomed the Arab Peace Initiative endorsed at the March Arab League Summit in Beirut, which offered the prospects of a comprehensive peace settlement for the whole Middle East Region.


She said the draft resolution on the Syrian Golan contained geographical references that could undermine the process of bilateral negotiations.  For that reason, as in previous years, the European Union had abstained from the vote.


NASSER AL-KIDWA, Observer for Palestine, said he was pleased with the results of the voting, which had expressed overwhelming support for the resolutions adopted, which were important, especially those of a political nature, such as the one on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine and the one on Jerusalem.


However, he said, he had been shocked to see the negative vote by the United States regarding Jerusalem, which represented an important negative change in that delegation’s voting pattern.  Such a vote was a slap in the face of all Arabs, all Muslim and Christian believers, who would want to see a different situation in that holy city.  It also undermined efforts to reach a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, including Jerusalem.  The United States delegation had not attempted to negotiate the text or indicate its difficulties with it as presented.


Regarding the claim that the texts prejudged the outcome of negotiations, he said they did not prejudge the outcome any more than international law would prejudge the outcome of any dispute.  They merely reiterated the principles of international law.  The parties could and should negotiate the details of the settlement.  The attempts to neutralize the United Nations were unfortunately aimed at allowing Israel to continue with its violations of international law and an attempt to leave the Palestinians under the mercy of the imbalance of power on the ground.


Two days ago, he recalled, after hearing the statement of the Israeli ambassador, he had felt reassured that his was a voice of optimism.  Unfortunately, that optimism had not lasted and only hours after that statement, the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister had both reprimanded the ambassador, stating that what he had said did not reflect the position of the Israeli Government -- that the Israeli Government had not accepted the vision of a two-State solution.  That had provided a clear manifestation of the crux of the problem -– the position of Israeli Governments, such as the current one.  Nevertheless, the delegation of Palestine would remain faithful to the peace process and would not lose hope, with the help of the international community.


FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) said that the adoption of the text on the Syrian Golan meant a lot to his delegation and for all those who wanted to bring an end to occupation.  The Assembly sent a clear message of the inadmissibility of the occupation of territory by force.  It also expressed concern about the fact that Israel had not withdrawn from the Syrian Golan, which had been under occupation for more than 32 years.


The voice of the international community must be heard and the occupying Power must listen to that voice, he stressed.  The solution could only come through the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories and the return of the rights of the people, particularly the Palestinians and Syrians expelled from their lands.  Syria would continue its efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.


Right of Reply


Mr. MEKDAD (Syria), exercising his right of reply, said that Israel’s statement had been full of lies and accusations.  The Israeli occupation of Arab territories was the main cause of all the tragedies witnessed in the region.  What Israel had not said was that it had brought terrorism to the Middle East and

practised it against the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and other Arabs.  Israel was shedding crocodile tears and trying to redirect attention away from its policies and practices.


The Israeli statement referred to Hezbollah, which was the only power that had been able to end the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, he noted.  As for Palestinian factions, those Palestinians residing in Syria were actually victims of Israeli terrorism and aggression.  Israel was always trying to blame others to justify its criminal acts and its violations of international norms.  Syria had clarified that the Palestinian presence in Syria was temporary until conditions were right for all Palestinians to return to their homeland.  Ending the Israeli occupation of Arab territories, halting the construction of settlements and a commitment to international legality were the only ways to safeguard peace, stability and security in the region, he emphasized.


Mr. DIAB (Lebanon), also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, recalled that Israel had said that, in implementing resolution 425 (1978), it had respected international legitimacy.  However, everyone knew that Israel had continued for 25 years.  It was the Lebanese resistance that had forced Israel to withdraw.  Furthermore, Israel was still in violation of the resolution through its daily breaches of Lebanese sovereignty by air, land and sea. 


Israel was the only occupying force in the world so considered by the Security Council, he said.  It was a strange irony that Israel claimed that Lebanon’s demand for the return of its territory destabilized peace and security in the region.  Were the repeated references to General Assembly and Security Council resolutions over the last two days not sufficient to make Israel understand that occupation was the source of instability for international peace and stability anywhere in the world, he asked. 


Furthermore, at the Security Council’s Counter-terrorism Committee, Lebanon had noted the need to differentiate between resistance and terrorism, he recalled.  Thus, he said regarding the Israeli representative’s accusation of Hezbollah, that group had struggled for 22 years to make Israel withdraw from Lebanon.  Israel could never understand how a small resistance group had managed to defeat the fourth-largest army in the world.


MAHDI HAMZEHEI (Iran) said that the Israeli representative’s assertions were meant to divert attention from the brutality, atrocities and violations committed against the Palestinian people.  The Israeli regime produced and stockpiled weapons of mass destruction and, despite numerous calls from the international community, refused to join international instruments and continued its nuclear programme.  Israel was the only non-party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in the Middle East.  Moreover, Israel did not enjoy better rapport in other disarmament fields and its nuclear programme and unsafeguarded facilities continued to threaten the region.


CHAIM SHACHAM (Israel) said that Syria wanted the Assembly to see Israel as a leader of terrorism, but the fact was that Syria harboured, supported and encouraged some of the most vicious terrorist organizations in the world.  The commander of the group Palestinian Islamic Jihad did not run a public information office out of Syria, but an office responsible for public destruction.  Furthermore, Syria had employed terror against its own civilians, as it had in

destroying the town of Hama in 1982.  Syria’s consistent refusal to prevent its territory being used as a springboard for terrorist attacks against Israel was a source of instability in the region.


With respect to the Iranian representative’s statement, he said that it was also an example of one of the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism seeking to shift attention away from its own actions.  Iran was one of the primary supporters of Hezbollah, having supported countless actions against Israelis over the years.  It was not difficult for most delegates to see who the terrorists really were, he concluded. 


Mr. MEKDAD (Syria) said it was well known that the terrorist was he who committed aggression against the rights of others and violated the sanctity of the land and people of another country.  Was there anything worse than he who occupied the land of another, especially when that other sought only to live in peace and security, he asked.  Israel had perpetrated scores of terrorist actions over the years and had occupied Arab lands for more than 32 years.  Did worse terrorism exist?


As for the Israeli statement about the offices of some Palestinian organizations being located in Damascus, he said they did exist, but it should be noted that there were no Omani or Moroccan Arab offices in Damascus.  The Palestinian offices existed because the Palestinian people had been oppressed, tormented and targeted by terrorism all over the world. 


He said when he looked into the mirror, he saw Syria as an example in its adherence to the establishment of a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.  Syria had relentlessly cooperated against international terrorism.  What would Israel see in that mirror, he asked.  It would see occupation, murder, the destruction of houses and extrajudicial murders, he said.  Was it not sufficient that 99 per cent of the speakers addressing the Assembly had spoken of those issues for Israel to know the crimes it had committed? 


Mr. SHACHAM (Israel) expressed regret for the tenor of the last intervention by Syria, saying it was inappropriate for the Assembly.  The Assembly had witnessed the familiar tactic of blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator.  Although Israel wanted to achieve a just peace with its neighbour to the north, it was familiar with the Syrians.  Syria was a dictatorship, a trafficker in narcotics and a military occupier of a neighbouring State.  It sponsored terrorism, harboured terrorists, and brutally murdered its own citizens.  Any statement voiced by Syria should be considered in light of those facts, which were known by all.  Any Syrian interpretation of the word terrorism was inherently suspect. 


Mr. DIAB (Lebanon) said that the Israeli representative had claimed to speak diplomatically.  He who spoke diplomatically should act diplomatically by implementing resolutions of the United Nations.  The Assembly had not adopted resolutions against Syria or Lebanon, but against Israel, by an overwhelming majority.


(annexes follow)

ANNEX I


Vote on Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People


The draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/57/L.34) was adopted by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 4 against, with 56 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States.


Abstaining:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.


Absent:  Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Swaziland, Turkmenistan.


(END OF ANNEX I)


ANNEX II


      Vote on Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat


The draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/57/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 108 in favour to 4 against, with 56 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States.


Abstaining:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Swaziland, Turkmenistan.


(END OF ANNEX II)


ANNEX III


      Vote on special information programme on the question of Palestine


The draft resolution on the special information programme on the question of Palestine (document A/57/L.36) was adopted by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 5 against, with no abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, United States.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.


(END OF ANNEX III)


ANNEX IV


      Vote on Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine


The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/57/L.37) was adopted by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 4 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States.


Abstaining:  Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu.


Absent:  Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.


(END OF ANNEX IV)


ANNEX V


      Vote on Jerusalem


The draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A/57/L.44) was adopted by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 5 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Costa Rica, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States.


Abstaining:  Albania, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.


Absent:  Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mongolia, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.


(END OF ANNEX V)


ANNEX VI


      Vote on the Syrian Golan


The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/57/L.45) was adopted by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 4 against, with 57 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States.


Abstaining:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.


Absent:  Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mongolia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Swaziland, Turkmenistan.


* *** *

For information media. Not an official record.