GA – 77th Session – 56th Plenary Meeting Verbatim Record – A/77/PV.56) (Resumption 1) (Excerpts)

/…

The President: May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 21?

It was so decided.

Agenda item 47 (continued)

Israeli practices and settlement activities affecting the rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories

Report of the Special Political and

Decolonization Committee (A/77/400)

The President: The General Assembly has before it draft resolution I, recommended by the Committee in its report. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of the draft resolution is contained in A/77/664. The text of the report, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/77/L.19, section D.

I shall now give the floor to those representatives who wish to speak in explanation of vote before the voting.

Mr. Lopes da Graça (Portugal): Portugal’s long-standing position on the occupied Palestinian territory, is well known. We remain strongly attached to the principles laid out in the Charter of the United Nations. International disputes can be settled only through peaceful means and on the basis of respect for international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Dialogue and cooperation among nations are crucial in that respect.

Portugal is convinced that the two-State solution is the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question. Any solution must be based on the coexistence, side by side, of Israel and Palestine, in peace and security. Portugal remains firmly committed to contributing to the Middle East peace process in an open and constructive manner. We believe it is urgent to set a political horizon to pave the way for the resumption of direct negotiations. We call on all parties to de-escalate the situation on the ground and to exercise maximum restraint, including with regard to political rhetoric.

Regarding the question of the holy sites, we recognize their special significance in both historical and religious terms. We reaffirm in that context the importance of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, conducted in the spirit of openness and cooperation.

Portugal voted in favour of this resolution in previous sessions of the General Assembly. Last month, in the Fourth Committee, we decided to continue to vote in favour of this year’s draft resolution because we believe that, as a whole, the resolution is right to stress the need to protect and respect the human rights of persons living in the occupied Palestinian territories, in accordance with international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions.

This year’s draft resolution includes a new operative paragraph seeking an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. There are reasonable procedural doubts about this option. It is arguable whether the terms of those requests were thoroughly discussed among the United Nations membership, and we believe that there should have been more in-depth consultations. Furthermore, there are questions about the technical formulation of the request, including whether the context of this draft resolution is the most appropriate place to include such a request. It is unclear how it can directly benefit the peace process.

We are also wary, as a matter of principle, of the possible risk of overjudicializing international relations. Nonetheless, Portugal recognizes the crucial role of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, which underpins the international rules-based order that we seek to preserve, and it is an organ that plays an integral role in the development of international law. In addition, as a matter of principle, Portugal supports efforts to ensure accountability for all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law wherever they occur. For the above reasons, Portugal will vote in favour of this resolution.

Mr. Staples (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom is committed to working with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to advance a peaceful two-State solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital. We are deeply concerned about instability in the West Bank and call on all sides to work together to urgently de-escalate the situation.

The United Kingdom will vote against the draft resolution entitled “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, because we do not feel that a referral to the International Court of Justice is helpful in bringing the parties back to dialogue.

It is also the position of the United Kingdom that it is inappropriate without the consent of both parties to ask the Court to give an advisory opinion on what is essentially a bilateral dispute. The proposal of requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the occupied Palestinian territories was a recommendation of a report of the Human Rights Council commission of inquiry on the situation in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, established in May 2021. We reiterate our regret at the establishment of that commission, which furthered the Human Rights Council’s disproportionate focus on Israel and failed to include a time limit on the mandate.

The draft resolution submitted also refers to the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount site in Jerusalem in purely Islamic terms. The United Kingdom has made clear for many years that we disagree with that approach. The United Kingdom recognizes that Jerusalem and the holy site at Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount hold particular significance for many groups around the globe, including the three Abrahamic faiths — Christianity, Islam and Judaism. We would like to see that significance adequately reflected in future draft resolutions. The United Kingdom is committed to preserving the religious status quo and truly values Jordan’s important role as custodian of the holy sites in Jerusalem.

The President: The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution I, entitled “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.

A recorded vote has been requested.

A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,

Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against:

Albania, Australia, Austria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czechia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Liberia, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Romania, Togo, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America

Abstaining:

Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Monaco, Montenegro, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu

Draft resolution I was adopted by 87 votes to 26, with 53 abstentions (resolution 77/247).

The President: I shall now give the floor to those representatives who wish to speak in explanation of vote after adoption.

Mr. Vorshilov (Mongolia): I take the floor to explain the position of my delegation in relation to the resolution entitled “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.

Mongolia voted in favour of the resolution, in line with its long-standing, consistent and principled position, which supports the negotiated two-State solution as the only just and lasting solution that envisions the coexistence of the civilian and independent State of Palestine and the State of Israel.

However, my delegation wishes to place on record its reservations on operative paragraph 18, which requests the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion on the questions set out in the in that paragraph. Indeed, it is our firm belief that both Israelis and Palestinians can achieve a durable just and comprehensive solution in line with international resolutions.

Mr. Bogaerts (Belgium): It is my honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Kingdom of Belgium, and I will keep it brief.

Belgium recalls that its position in favour of this resolution does not imply a change of its stance on the terminology concerning the Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif. While we welcome the language in the resolution that reaffirms the special significance of the holy sites and the importance of the city of Jerusalem for the three monotheistic religions, Belgium stresses the need for language on the holy sites of Jerusalem to reflect the importance and historical significance of the holy sites for the three monotheistic religions and to respect religious and cultural sensitivities. The future choice of language may affect Belgium’s support for this resolution according to the established voting pattern.

Mr. Feruță (Romania): My delegation voted against resolution 77/247, as we are not convinced that the request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice serves the overall aim of advancing a just, lasting and negotiated settlement of the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. I want to add that there should have been greater preparation in advance in order to ensure that all the implications were thoroughly assessed. We nonetheless fully acknowledge that the paragraphs dealing directly with and seeking an advisory opinion from the Court reflect Romania’s position on the relevance of international law, including international humanitarian law in this case, and our long-standing opposition to the prolonged occupation of the Palestinian territory and settlements within it.

However, in Romania’s view, any action by the General Assembly should indicate a predictable path towards a negotiated settlement. In this case, that implies that the request for an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice should include questions of clarification meant to assist the parties generally. Romania has always maintained a principled and balanced position regarding the Middle East peace process through its opposition to unilateral action. Our aim is to seek the best ways and means capable of realizing a two-State solution. That remains the only viable option for achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions and the Madrid and Oslo terms of reference.

Furthermore, Romania is in favour of all actions that advance confidence-building measures and a positive agenda aimed at fostering a resumption of direct, substantive and productive talks designed to achieve an inclusive political process. In our view, a request for an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, as it is outlined and proposed in the resolution, would not only not serve that purpose but would set it back. However, Romania does believe that there is a need for revitalized international action and collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues and for intensified efforts by the parties towards achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Mr. De Bono Sant Cassia (Malta): Malta’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is well known and long-standing. We subscribe to the principle that all parties should have recourse to judicial organs, including in their advisory capacities, while at the same time we want to emphasize that the specific proposal contained in resolution 77/247 would have benefited from further discussion and consultations with the wider United Nations membership. Malta calls on the parties to continue working to build mutual trust, exercise the greatest possible restraint in undertaking any unilateral action that could further undermine the peace process and take concrete steps towards relaunching a political horizon aimed at realizing a two-State solution as soon as possible. Malta remains ready to provide its support to that end.

The President: I now give the floor to the Permanent Observer of the Observer State of Palestine.

Mr. Mansour (Palestine): We thank all the delegations that voted in favour of resolution 77/247. The General Assembly has now requested an advisory opinion on the violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, the annexation and prolonged occupation of our land, the building of settlements and the discriminatory legislation and measures instituted against our people, all of it undeterred by threats or pressure. This vote and request come one day after the formation of a new Israeli Government that has pledged to intensify its colonial and racist policies towards the Palestinian people. We trust that, regardless of how members have voted today, if they believe in international law and peace they will uphold the opinion of the International Court of Justice when it is delivered. And they will stand up to the Israeli Government right now because freedom, justice and peace should prevail. I want to wish everyone in this Hall a happy new year.

The President: The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 47.

/…