Economic and Social Repercussions of the Israeli Occupation – ECOSOC Debate (E/2014/SR.45) (Excerpts)

/…

Economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan (A/69/81-E/2014/13; E/2014/L.26)

14. Mr. Lasso Mendoza (Observer for Ecuador), speaking as Chair of the Special Committee on Decolonization, introduced the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations (A/69/66). He said that, while numerous United Nations agencies had contributed information to the report, others, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), had not; he hoped that UNDP would provide that information in subsequent years. Small island Non-Self-Governing Territories faced particular vulnerabilities owing to natural disasters. Progress towards self-determination in such territories could not be addressed in isolation from action on climate change, and those vulnerabilities should be addressed in the post-2015 development agenda.
15. Mr. Alami (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA)), accompanying his statement with a digital slide presentation, introduced the note by the Secretary General conveying a report on the economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab Population in the occupied Syrian Golan (A/69/81-E/2014/13). He said that although 2014 had been declared the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Palestinians continued to suffer from policies that amounted to racial segregation and apartheid, a situation that had been condemned by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Restrictions on construction in Area C made it virtually impossible for Palestinians to meet their housing needs. In East Jerusalem, Palestinian land was confiscated, homes destroyed, and basic freedoms curtailed. Israel continued to pursue a policy of excessive and disproportionate use of force and arbitrary detention. Amnesty International had declared that a number of wilful killings of Palestinians in the West Bank in 2013 amounted to war crimes. Israel continued to detain and mistreat thousands of prisoners, including over a hundred children. Forced displacement as a result of home demolition continued, with some Palestinians being forced to destroy their own homes in order to avoid demolition fees imposed by the Israeli authorities.
16. Israeli settlement policies amounted to the illegal transfer by an occupying Power of its population into occupied territories. Israeli settlers received a disproportionate share of water and other Palestinian national resources, and they continued to engage in racist violence and acts of vandalism, with a vast majority of cases failing to produce indictments. Israel had yet to comply with the July 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice obligating it to dismantle its separation wall. Restrictions on mobility in both the West Bank and Gaza were discriminatory, humiliating and economically damaging. The blockade and military operations had severely damaged sanitation infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. The slowdown in the growth of the Palestinian economy in 2013 and the accompanying increases in poverty and unemployment were directly attributable to restrictions imposed under the occupation. Over half of Gaza households were food insecure. The economic situation and construction permit restrictions had also resulted in a shortage of schools.
17. Although Security Council resolution 497 (1981) had declared the Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan null and void, Israel continued to occupy and settle the Golan and apply discriminatory policies towards its Syrian residents, in particular concerning the allocation of water for agricultural use. Israel also continued to exploit other natural resources of the Golan, while neglecting to protect its inhabitants from landmines. The ultimate goal of peace could be achieved only through an end to the illegal occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory and the restoration of Palestinian and Syrian rights in accordance with United Nations resolutions and international law.
18. Mr. Mansour (Observer for the State of Palestine) said that to speak of “obstacles” or “challenges” to sustainable development faced by people under foreign occupation was an understatement when it came to the Palestinian people. The Israeli occupation was illegal, inhumane and racist, and involved widespread extrajudicial execution, property theft, home destruction, population displacement, mass imprisonment, and resource exploitation. Continued failure by the international community to uphold international law and implement relevant United Nations resolutions would lead to the recurrence of crises such as the recent Israeli military aggression in the Gaza Strip. In the previous week alone, over two hundred Palestinians had been killed, including women, children, the elderly and the disabled. Schools, health centres, mosques, sanitation networks and vital infrastructure had been destroyed, exacerbating the poverty, unemployment and food insecurity that already existed as a result of the Israeli blockade. In the West Bank, military raids, home demolition, and incarceration of civilians, including elected officials, continued unabated, while Israeli settlers continued to direct terrorist violence against civilians, destroy orchards, and vandalize religious sites with impunity. Such actions constituted gross violations of all the core international human rights instruments.
19. The alarming statistics included in the report reflected only the most recent year of what was almost a half century of deliberate fragmentation, destabilization, and weakening of the economic and social fabric of Palestinian society. International assistance was urgently needed to offset the impact of the occupation. One initiative that he wished to highlight was the project to build a desalinization facility for the Gaza Strip.
20. Sustainable development for the Palestinian people required an end to the occupation and the establishment of an independent State of Palestine on the basis of the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel. He called on the States members of the Council to support the draft resolution, which would be an important contribution to upholding international law and the economic and social rights of the Palestinian people.
21. Mr. Patriota (Brazil) said that his Government was greatly distressed about the deteriorating situation between Israelis and Palestinians and its severe economic and social impact on the Palestinian population. He urged Israel to halt its military campaign and allow unimpeded humanitarian assistance. While his delegation deplored the launching of rockets from Gaza into Israel, the unjustifiable response on the part of the Israelis would only further escalate the conflict. As the occupying Power, Israel had a responsibility to ensure that the rights of the Palestinian people under international law were respected.
22. At the Council’s current session, in the course of its first-ever voluntary national presentation during the annual ministerial review, the State of Palestine had demonstrated that, despite the obstacles posed by the occupation, it had managed to safeguard achievements in ensuring social protection for vulnerable groups. The international community needed to redouble its efforts to end the illegal occupation so that Palestinians could exercise their right to development. He called for the urgent resumption of negotiations within the framework of a two-State solution.
23. Mr. Jawhara (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that the Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan and Occupied Palestinian Territory exemplified the obstacles that occupation posed to development. The report currently before the Council had given only a glimpse of the full extent of the economic, social and humanitarian suffering of the inhabitants of the occupied Syrian Golan, because the Israeli occupation authorities had prevented representatives of the United Nations and other international organizations from going there. Those authorities continued to follow a policy of killing, terrorism and displacement, and to violate Security Council resolution 497 (1981), which declared the imposition of Israeli laws in the Syrian Golan to be null and void. He also expressed his delegation’s strong condemnation of the brutal aggression being carried out against the citizens of Gaza.
24. In the Golan, the occupation authorities were diverting natural resources for the exclusive use of settlers, and Israel continued to bury nuclear, chemical and industrial waste. Israeli settlers had destroyed thousands of acres of rare forest, and uprooted fruit-bearing trees essential to the livelihoods of the inhabitants, while at the same time preventing farmers from getting their products to market. Most recently, the occupation authorities had established energy projects in the occupied Syrian Golan, and issued licenses to European and American companies for oil extraction. The Israelis were also destroying the remains of the Golan’s ancient cultural heritage, and aiding and abetting terrorists in attacks in both the Golan and the rest of the Syrian Arab Republic.
25. Meanwhile, dozens of resolutions passed by the United Nations condemning the practices of the Israeli occupation had gone unimplemented because of the cover provided by certain influential States, and in particular one State that was constantly proclaiming its fervent support for human rights. The Council should play its role in defending the economic and social rights of peoples under occupation by condemning the ongoing violation of those rights by the Israeli occupation.

Draft resolution E/2014/L.27: Support to Non-Self-Governing Territories by the specialized agencies
and international institutions associated with the
United Nations

26. Mr. Lasso Mendoza (Observer for Ecuador) introduced the draft resolution.
27. Mr. Gustafik (Secretary of the Council) said that the Plurinational State of Bolivia had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution.
28. The President said that the draft resolution had no programme budget implications.
29. A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya, Mauritius, New Zealand, Panama, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan.

Against:

None.

Abstaining:

Albania, Austria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Congo, Croatia, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.

30. Draft resolution E/2014/L.27 was adopted by 26 votes to none, with 21 abstentions.
31. Ms. Derderian (United States of America) said that, as in the past, her delegation had abstained from voting on the draft resolution because, while it agreed in principle that United Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies could usefully provide support to territories that were not members of the Organization so long as the domestic laws and policies of the territory’s administering Power allowed such support, it was the responsibility of the administering Power to accept or reject such support and to determine its nature. Under the Constitution of the United States of America, the federal Government had sole responsibility for the conduct of the State’s foreign relations, including those of its territories. Her delegation was concerned that the proposed language of the draft resolution infringed upon the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States.
32. The President said that if there was no objection, he would take it that the Council wished to take note of the report of the Secretary-General on assistance to the Palestinian people (A/69/84-E/2014/75).
33. It was so decided.

Draft resolution E/2014/L.26: Economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan

34. Ms. Sabja (Plurinational State of Bolivia), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that there had been a correction to the text agreed upon in negotiations. The eighth preambular paragraph should read: “Taking note, in that regard, of the accession by Palestine, on 1 April 2014, to several human rights treaties and the core humanitarian law conventions”.
35. Mr. Gustafik (Secretary of the Council) said that Turkey had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution.
36. The President said that the draft resolution had no programme budget implications.
37. Mr. Perricone (Italy), speaking on behalf of the European Union in explanation of vote before the voting, said that the European Union wished to put on record that its States members considered the phrase “Palestinian Government” to refer to the Palestinian Authority; that the use of the term “Palestine” could not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and was without prejudice to the positions of the individual States members of the European Union on that issue, and hence on the validity of the accession to the conventions and treaties mentioned therein; and that the States members of the European Union understood that action was being taken on the text as orally corrected.
38. A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya, Mauritius, New Zealand, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, South Africa, Sweden, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Against:

Canada, United States of America.

Abstaining:

Congo, Panama.

39. Draft resolution E/2014/L.26, as orally corrected, was adopted by 44 votes to 2, with 2 abstentions.
40. Ms. Derderian (United States of America) said that, as in previous years, the draft resolution was one-sided and failed to take a constructive approach that would advance the prospects of peace. Her Government was deeply concerned about recent escalating tensions in the region and was involved in efforts to restore safety and security for civilians on both sides. The United States was the largest donor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and contributed significantly to other United Nations programmes providing assistance to the Palestinian people. It shared the concern of the international community over the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza and would continue to work with the Palestinian Authority, Israel and international partners to improve the lives of civilians. Her Government would continue to support efforts to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on a two-State solution that established a viable, independent and contiguous State of Palestine living in peace and security alongside a secure, Jewish and democratic State of Israel. Support for a two-State solution meant supporting both parties, treating them fairly and with respect, expressly acknowledging the positive steps taken by both of them and not singling out one of them for criticism. She urged all parties to work together to increase access and movement of goods and people through established border crossings, including exports out of Gaza, and to allow unimpeded access of humanitarian supplies. The Council should focus its energies on constructive steps towards shared goals. As a friend to both parties to the conflict, her country had no choice but to vote against the draft resolution.
41. Ms. Meitzad (Observer for Israel) said that the draft resolution had less to do with the living conditions of Palestinians and much more to do with singling out Israel. It made no mention of Hamas, a terrorist organization that repressed women, terrorized its own people and sought to kill Israeli civilians. In the previous few weeks, Hamas had again demonstrated its willingness to use civilians as human shields, to store weapons in schools and hospitals, to fire its rockets from densely populated areas and to target its own people’s supply lines. The same selective approach was also evident in the note drafted by ESCWA, which was continuing its practice of ignoring terrible events elsewhere in the region, notably in the Syrian Arab Republic. The representatives who had just voted in favour of the draft resolution should ask themselves what would actually happen to Arab citizens of Israel who might travel to the Syrian Arab Republic across an open border, as called for by its paragraph 14. Noting that the Palestinian unity Government included the very same Hamas organization that had just rejected the most recent ceasefire proposal, she wondered which part of that Government the Palestinian representative was speaking for.
42. Mr. Jawhara (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that the representative of the occupation authorities was trying to divert the attention of the international community away from the daily violations being committed against the citizens of the Golan and Occupied Palestinian Territory. Her allegations were odd, coming from a representative whose Government was responsible for the worst occupation known to human history, which continued to deprive the residents of the occupied Syrian Golan and Occupied Palestinian Territory of their hope for peace, their human rights, and their right to development. The representatives of that Government had no credibility when they spoke about the suffering of other peoples. Peace and security required Israel, the occupying Power, to withdraw immediately from occupied Arab territories, to comply with United Nations resolutions regarding the return of refugees, to cease its aggression against defenceless civilians, and to allow the Palestinian people and the residents of the occupied Syrian Golan to exercise their right to sustainable development like the other peoples of the world.
43. Ms. Rasheed (Observer for the State of Palestine) said that the adoption of the draft resolution sent a clear message to Israel that the international community expected it to cease its contempt for international law and comply with all its legal obligations. The resolution came at a time when the 1.8 million residents of Gaza, half of them children, who had already suffered for many years from the illegal Israeli blockade, were living a nightmare within a nightmare. Even as the Council met, Israeli warplanes continued to pound the Gaza Strip and the death toll continued to rise. Palestinians in the West Bank also continued to be subject to collective punishment and attacks by settler terrorists. She called for an immediate end to the State terrorism and war crimes being committed, and for the perpetrators to be held accountable.
44. She wished to clarify to the representative of the occupying Power that her delegation spoke on behalf of the Palestinian people, and would continue to do so before the Council and all other international bodies until the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in an independent State of Palestine was realized. The fact that an overwhelming number of the Council members had voted in favour of the resolution should answer any questions about whether it was one-sided. It was not the first time that an Israeli representative had alleged bias in United Nations reports that merely stated the objective facts on the ground. The reality was that the fundamental cause of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was the Israeli occupation, which was unleashing terror on the civilian population under its control. The international community must firmly reject the empty rhetoric of Israel and demand its compliance with international law.

/…