Economic and Social Repercussions of the Israeli Occupation – ECOSOC Debate (E/2015/SR.50) (Excerpts)

/…

Draft resolution E/2015/L.22: 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

30. Mr. Marobe (South Africa), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that it was based on the 2014 resolution, with updates to take into account the situation on the ground in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as well as in the occupied Syrian Golan, and issues emerging since the Council had last addressed the matter.
31. The President said that Turkey had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution.
32. Mr. Ja’afari (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that the ESCWA report had shown once again that Israel had completely disregarded the hundreds of United Nations resolutions on the topic. Israel had now placed the lives of Syrians in the occupied Syrian Golan in unprecedented danger by supporting terrorist groups active in the area of separation in order to force them to abandon their homes or side with the terrorists against the Syrian Government. The world was well aware of that support, which had been amply documented in numerous United Nations documents, such as the reports of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, not to mention accounts in the Israeli media. The Israeli occupation authorities were providing logistical support, financing and food to such groups as the Nusrah Front, some of whose fighters had received treatment in Israeli hospitals. Israel had recently supported a series of terrorist attacks on the Syrian town of Hadar, in which dozens of innocent civilians had been killed. He urged ESCWA to mention that support, and its socioeconomic impact, in its 2016 report to the Council.
33. The ESCWA report conveyed to some extent the tragic situation in the occupied Syrian Golan. Israel was systematically displacing Syrian citizens, recruiting Nusrah Front terrorists to intimidate them and destroy their homes. It deprived Syrian farmers of water, which was made abundantly and affordably available to extremist settlers. It forced the Syrian inhabitants to use Israeli identity cards, and continued to impose its own laws in violation of Security Council resolution 497 (1981). Without legal or moral justification, it had reimprisoned the Syrian Mandela, Sidqi al-Maqt, who had been freed in 2012 after 27 years behind bars. Extremist settlers had exploited and wasted natural resources, ruined farmland, uprooted trees and prevented Syrian farmers from selling their produce. Those and other racist policies were intended to force the Syrian inhabitants to leave or sever ties with their nation. Most recently, European and United States companies had been helping Israel explore for oil.
34. Palestinians and Syrians had suffered for decades under occupation because the so-called international community had failed to hold Israel, the occupying Power, accountable for its crimes. Whether in the occupied Syrian Golan or in the Syrian Arab Republic as a whole, the Syrian people needed immediate international action to confront Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the Nusrah Front and other terrorist groups, not to mention the State terrorism practised by Israel in the occupied Syrian Golan. There was consensus that the coming phase in international development should benefit all peoples of the world without exception. If the Palestinian people and the inhabitants of the occupied Syrian Golan were to attain peace, stability and sustainable development, the Israeli occupation must first be brought to an immediate end, and those responsible for perpetrating or ignoring its crimes must be held to account.
35. The President said that a recorded vote had been requested on the draft resolution, which had no programme budget implications.
36. A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Albania, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Brazil, China, Colombia, Congo, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, India, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nepal, Pakistan, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe.

Against:

Australia, United States.

Abstained:

Honduras, Panama.

37. Draft resolution E/2015/L.22 was adopted by 42 votes to 2, with 2 abstentions.
38. Ms. Derderian (United States of America) said that, as in previous years, the resolution was one-sided and failed to take a constructive approach that would advance the prospects of peace. The United States remained committed to supporting the Palestinian people in practical and effective ways. The United States was the largest bilateral 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 remained committed to achieving 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. As a friend to both parties to the conflict, her country had no choice but to vote against the draft resolution.
39. Ms. Carroll (United Kingdom), speaking on behalf of the European Union and its member States, said that the European Union wished to put on record that its member States considered the phrase “Palestinian Government” to refer to the Palestinian Authority and that, furthermore, 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 in the resolution.
40. Mr. Mikami (Japan) said that Japan had voted in favour of the resolution, which urged both parties to take serious steps towards the resumption of negotiations. Recalling the many lives lost on both sides during the 2014 hostilities, he called on all parties and the international community to intensify efforts to prevent a recurrence.
41. Ms. Meitzad (Observer for Israel) said that the resolution and the report of which it took note conveniently ignored unwelcome truths. The terrorist Hamas regime continued to prepare for war and to indoctrinate the children and youth of Gaza, while the Palestinian Authority declined to exercise its responsibilities. With the international community dragging its feet and the Palestinian Authority unwilling or unable to assert authority in Gaza, it was Israel that ensured the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the residents. Furthermore, Israel treated injured Syrian civilians at its field hospital in Gaza as well as other hospitals in Israel, a fact about which the resolution was silent.
42. The obsession of ESCWA with Israel and its indifference to terrible human rights violations and bloodshed elsewhere in the region undermined the credibility of the entire institution. Its report neither presented the United Nations position accurately and nor captured the complexity of the situation on the ground. One-sided reports, resolutions and statements only served those who had no desire to engage in honest and meaningful direct dialogue. The resolution did not enhance cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians or improve the lives of Palestinians; it simply perpetuated the status quo and had no place in the Council.
43. The President proposed that the Council should take note of the report of the Secretary-General on assistance to the Palestinian people (A/70/76-E/2015/57).
44. It was so decided.

The meeting rose at 1.10 p.m.