{"id":212629,"date":"1996-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-12T20:27:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?p=212629"},"modified":"2019-03-12T20:27:51","modified_gmt":"2019-03-12T20:27:51","slug":"auto-insert-212629","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/auto-insert-212629\/","title":{"rendered":"Middle East situation\/Palestine question – GA debate – Press release"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\n

ASSEMBLY URGES SPEEDED-UP MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS,<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

STRESSES NEED FOR EARLY PROGRESS IN ARAB-ISRAELI NEGOTIATIONS <\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Seven Texts Adopted on Situation in Region; International Support Sought;<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Dissent on Provisions Relating to Jerusalem, Syrian Golan<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The General Assembly urged all parties to the Middle East peace process to fulfil their obligations and to implement concluded agreements by the terms of one of seven resolutions adopted by the Assembly this morning, all by recorded votes. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Approving that resolution by a vote of 159 in favour and 3 against (Iran, Lebanon and Syria), with 2 abstentions (Libya, Sudan), the Assembly called for the immediate acceleration of negotiations on the agreed basis, while stressing the need for rapid progress on all tracks of the Arab-Israeli negotiations. Member States were also called upon to extend economic, financial and technical assistance to parties in the region and to render support for the peace process. (For voting details, see Annex VII.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The representative of Syria, explaining his delegation's vote against that draft, said it should have reflected the deterioration of the peace process because of the non-compliance of the Israeli Government with agreements. Also, since the current resolution contained no mention of relevant Security Council resolutions, Syria could not welcome a process not based on the principle of land for peace. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Supporting the draft, the representative of the United States said it was a clear endorsement of the efforts the parties keep moving forward in their quest for peace. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Also this morning, the Assembly determined that the Israeli imposition of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem was illegal and, therefore, null and void and without validity. A draft by which, the Assembly also deplored the transfer by some States of their diplomatic mission to Jerusalem was adopted by a vote of 148 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 13 abstentions. (For voting details, see Annex V.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

A resolution on the Syrian Golan, as orally revised, was adopted by a vote of 84 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 71 abstentions. By its terms, the Assembly demanded that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of June 1967, calling the de facto annexation a stumbling block to peace. (See Annex VI.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The representative of Israel said her Government had opposed the drafts on Jerusalem and on the Golan because those were matters which should be addressed within the framework of direct negotiations between the parties. The Assembly was not the correct forum to discuss the issues, and any resolution would serve only to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Also this morning, the Assembly reaffirmed the necessity of achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which it said represented the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In one of four resolutions on the question of Palestine, adopted by a vote of 152 in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel), with 4 abstentions (Fiji, Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands ), the Assembly stressed the need for the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; the importance of the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees. (See Annex IV.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The Assembly adopted two resolutions recognizing the continued contribution which the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Division for Palestinian Rights could make to the peace process. By the resolution on the Committee, adopted by a vote of 104 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 46 abstentions, the Assembly authorized the Committee to continue to promote the rights of the Palestinians and called upon the Secretary-General to continue to provide it with the facilities needed to perform its tasks. (See Annex I.) In the resolution on the Division, adopted by 107 votes in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 46 abstentions, the Assembly asked that the Secretary-General continue to provide it with the necessary resources. (See Annex II.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

In the fourth resolution on the question of Palestine, the Assembly called upon the Department of Public Information (DPI) to continue its special information programme on the question for the biennium 1996-1997, with the necessary flexibility. By adoption of that resolution by 157 votes in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 3 abstentions (Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands), the DPI was asked to, among other things, disseminate information on United Nations activities on the question of Palestine; to organize and promote fact-finding news missions for journalists to the area; and to organize international, regional and national encounters for journalists. (Annex III) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The representative of the United States said his Government had opposed the four resolutions because three of them promoted institutions whose approaches to the process were unbalanced and outdated and whose activities drained $7 million annually that could better serve the cause of economic development in the West Bank and Gaza. The United States had opposed the resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, as it inappropriately and unhelpfully injected the Assembly into issues which were under direct negotiations between the parties. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Explaining her Government's opposition to the three later drafts, the representative of Israel said the funds expended to support those Secretariat activities should be devoted to more constructive activities, such as supporting social and economic development that would benefit Palestinians. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The representative of Senegal, acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, introduced the drafts relating to the question of Palestine. The drafts relating to Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan were introduced by the representative of Egypt. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Statements in explanation of position were also made by the representatives of Turkey, Ecuador, Lebanon, France, Sudan, Egypt, Swaziland, Venezuela and Argentina. A statement was also made by the observer of Palestine. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The Assembly meets again at 10 a.m. tomorrow to discuss assistance in mine clearance. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Assembly Work Programme<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The General Assembly met this morning to continue consideration of the question of Palestine and of the situation in the Middle East. It was expected to take action on four draft resolutions relating to that question and three draft resolutions concerning the Middle East. (For background on reports before the Assembly, see Press Releases GA\/9179, of 29 November, and GA\/9182, of 3 December.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Drafts on Question of Palestine <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

By the terms of a draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A\/51\/L.33), the Assembly would endorse the recommendations of the Committee contained in its report and authorize the Committee to continue to promote the rights of the Palestinian people, giving special emphasis to mobilizing support and assistance for the Palestinians. It would also request the Committee to continue its cooperation with non-governmental organizations in efforts to heighten international awareness of the facts relating to the question of Palestine. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

By the draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A\/51\/L.34), the Assembly would request that the Secretary-General continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources, including those needed to further develop the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. The Secretary-General would also be asked to ensure the continued cooperation of the Department of Public Information (DPI) and other units to enable the Division to perform its tasks. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

By the terms of a draft resolution on the Department of Public Information (DPI) of the Secretariat (document A\/51\/L.35), the Assembly would note that several defined provisions of the special information programme on the question of Palestine of DPI are yet to be implemented, and it would stress the importance of implementing all provisions. The Assembly would request that DPI, in full cooperation and coordination with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, continue its special information programme for the biennium 1996-1997, with the necessary flexibility. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

In particular, DPI would be asked to disseminate information on all the activities of the United Nations system relating to the question of Palestine; to continue publications on the question of Palestine; and to expand its audio-visual material on the question of Palestine. In addition, DPI would be asked to organize and promote fact-finding news missions for journalists to the area, and to organize international, regional and national encounters for journalists. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

By another draft resolution (document A\/51\/L.36), the Assembly would reaffirm the necessity of achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Assembly would also express support for the ongoing peace process, stressing the need to scrupulously implement agreements reached between the parties and to begin negotiations on the final settlement. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Calling upon the concerned parties, as well as the co-sponsors of the peace process and the entire international community, to exert all the necessary efforts to ensure the success of the peace process, the Assembly would urge Member States to expedite the provision of economic and technical assistance to the Palestinian people. It would stress the need for the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; the importance of the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The four draft resolutions on the question of Palestine are sponsored by Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Malta, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Drafts on Situation in Middle East <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

By the terms of a draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A\/51\/L.38), the Assembly would determine that the decision of Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem was illegal and, therefore, null and void and without validity. It would also deplore the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980), and their refusal to comply with the provisions of that resolution. The Assembly would once more call upon those States to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

By the terms of the draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A\/51\/L.39), the Assembly would declare that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981), and also that the Knesset decision of 11 November 1981 annexing the occupied Syrian Golan constitutes a grave violation of Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and, therefore, is null and void and has no validity whatsoever. It would call upon Israel to rescind it. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The Assembly would further reaffirm its determination that all relevant provisions of the Regulations annexed to The Hague Convention of 1907, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and call upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect for their obligations under those instruments in all circumstances. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The Assembly would also 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 and demand that Israel resume the talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and respect the commitments and guarantees reached during the previous talks. The Assembly would further demand that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967 in implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The text is sponsored by Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

By the terms of the draft on the Middle East peace process (document A\/51\/L.40), the Assembly would urge all parties to fulfil their obligations and to implement the agreements already reached, and call for the immediate acceleration of negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis. The Assembly would further stress the need to achieve rapid progress on all tracks of the Arab-Israeli negotiations within the peace process. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Under other terms in the draft, the Assembly would also call upon all Member States to extend economic, financial and technical assistance to parties in the region and to render support for the peace process. It would encourage regional development and cooperation in areas where work has begun within the framework of the 1991 Madrid Conference. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The resolution is sponsored by Norway, Russian Federation and the United States. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Question of Palestine<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

IBRA DEGUENE KA (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, introduced the draft resolutions on the question of Palestine, announcing that Cuba, Guinea, Malaysia and Qatar had joined as co-sponsors. He said they were intended to contribute to the peace process and to promote progress towards a comprehensive, just and lasting solution. It was now necessary to reinforce solidarity with the Palestinian people. All delegations were invited to reaffirm their support for that objective and to vote in favour of the drafts. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

General Assembly Plenary – 5 – Press Release GA\/9184 72nd Meeting (AM) 4 December 1996 <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

TULUY TANC (Turkey) said that although Turkey supported the draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, that text did not reflect all the obstacles on the road to lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. One of the fundamental threats to the peace process was terrorism. There was an urgent need for countries which had lent their support to terrorism to immediately stop that unlawful practice and refrain from using terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

EMILIO IZQUIERDO (Ecuador) said it was essential to support the resumption of the peace process. Ecuador endorsed the negotiations aimed at achieving a lasting solution. Ecuador would vote in favour on the drafts, particularly the text on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

YAEL RUBINSTEIN (Israel) said that since September 1993, Israel and the Arabs had made historic steps forward in the peace process. Major developments included the signing by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) of the Declaration of Principles on 13 September 1993, and its subsequent agreements, the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, signed in Cairo on 4 May 1994; the Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities, signed on 29 August 1994; and the Interim Agreement, signed in Washington on 28 September 1995, and the redeployment of the Israeli Defence Forces from all major cities in the territories. On 14 September 1993, Israel and Jordan signed the Agreed Common Agenda, which led to the subsequent Washington Declaration signed on 25 July 1994, and culminated in the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty on 26 October 1994. In addition, bilateral and multilateral negotiations continued, with the expectation of progress on all tracks, including the continuing talks with the Palestinians on the permanent status. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

She said the draft resolution on the Palestinian Rights Committee endorsed and authorized that body's work, while the draft on the Division for Palestinian Rights did the same for the Division. Israel had opposed the existence of those bodies since their inception. They had obstructed dialogue and understanding through a one-sided and distorted portrayal of the Arab- Israeli conflict. They stood in contradiction to the very principles upon which the peace process was based. They also expended valuable resources which should be devoted to more constructive activities, such as supporting social and economic development that would benefit Palestinians. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

She said the draft resolution on DPI asked that Department to disseminate information on all activities of the United Nations system relating to the question of Palestine. That, too, was a needless expenditure of valuable resources which could be put to better use. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Drawing attention to the draft resolution on a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, she said it attempted to predetermine the outcome of negotiations on issues relating to permanent status, in contradiction to the Declaration of Principles. The text was fraught with internal contradictions. It claimed to support the peace process which began in Madrid, while attempting to undermine the fundamental principle of direct negotiations without preconditions, upon which the Madrid process was based. Member States which claimed to support the peace process had a responsibility to oppose the draft resolution, as it struck at the essential principles on which that process was based. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the Palestinian Rights Committee was adopted by votes of 104 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 46 abstentions. (See Annex I for details on vote.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights was adopted by 107 votes in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 46 abstentions. (See Annex II.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on DPI was adopted by 157 votes in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 3 abstentions (Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands). (Annex III) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine was adopted by 152 votes in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 4 abstentions (Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Marshall Islands). (Annex IV) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

PREZEL ROBINSON (United States) said his Government opposed the four resolutions on the question of Palestine. Three of them promoted institutions whose activities and approach to the Middle East peace process were unbalanced and outdated. The terms of those resolutions drained away $7 million each year which could better serve the cause of economic development in the West Bank and Gaza. Money which now funded the activities of obscure Committees and departments which claimed to be dedicated to the welfare of Palestinians could make a real difference in the lives of those people. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

He said the United States urged support for the activities of other United Nations bodies — such as the Special Coordinator, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), or the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) — which directly benefited the Palestinian people. The resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine injected the Assembly into issues which were under direct negotiations between the parties. That was both inappropriate and unhelpful. The United States had, therefore, voted against the four texts. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

KHALIL ABOU-HADID (Syria) said his delegation's position was that the full withdrawal by Israel from all occupied territories and the implementation of the Madrid Conference were the way to guarantee safe, internationally recognized borders. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

ERIC CAMILLE N'DRY (Côte d'Ivoire) said his delegation was not present during part of the vote; he wished to inform the Assembly it would have abstained on L.33 and would have voted in favour of L.34. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

MELVIN SAENZ (Costa Rica) said his delegation was also absent during the vote on resolutions L.33 and L.34. It would have abstained on draft resolution L.33 and voted in favour of L.34. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Situation in Middle East <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

ABDERAHMAN SALAH (Egypt) introduced draft resolutions L.38 and L.39. He said the importance of resolution L.38, on the city of Jerusalem, lay in the fact that "we are witnessing a true crisis in the peace process". Those who favoured peace needed all the support of the General Assembly, he said. Draft resolution L.39, on the occupied Syrian Golan, was founded on Israel's non-compliance to General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

SAMIR MOUBARAK (Lebanon) said that, while admitting that no progress had been made since last year, the sponsors of the draft had ignored the general conclusion that the process of peace was in danger, as a result of Israeli intransigence. He said Lebanon reaffirmed its sincere desire for a just and comprehensive settlement. Israel must implement Security Council resolution 425, which it had refused to do for years. Repeated attacks by the Israeli army north of the so-called security belt established by Israel showed that implementation of the Security Council resolution was the only guarantee for security in Lebanon. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

He said Israel must withdraw from south Lebanon and from the Golan, if a full, just and comprehensive peace in the area were to be achieved. Lebanon recognized the "land for peace" principle. The multilateral negotiations would not be useful as long as Israel remained in the occupied territories. Attempts to impose normalization before that would be doomed to failure. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Mr. IZQUIERDO (Ecuador) said his Government supported the peace process and the strengthening of bilateral and multilateral negotiations, and would vote in favour of the drafts on the situation in the Middle East. Its vote for the draft on the Syrian Golan represented its stand against the annexation of land by force, and for the peaceful settlement of such disputes without the threat of the use of force. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Mr. TANC (Turkey), supporting the draft on the peaceful settlement of the situation in the Middle East, said he must note that there were several reasons for the current impasse in the peace process. Responsibility could not be assigned to only one party. Terrorism was an important obstacle to the peace process. Countries of the region which had supported terrorism must stop that destructive and unscrupulous means of advancing their foreign policy interests. The President of the Assembly RAZALI ISMAIL (Malaysia) informed delegates that although it had been assumed that the next speaker, Syria, would be making an intervention in explanation of position, it appeared that he would be proposing an amendment to one of the drafts. The President said he wished to counsel against an amendment at such a late stage. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

MOSES M. DLAMINI (Swaziland), on a point of order, objected to the amendment of a draft on which action had been called for. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Mr. ABOU-HADID (Syria) said his Government had asked to make its statement on the amendment to the draft on the Syrian Golan before the call for action. The Secretariat had made a mistake, and Syria had been placed on the list of speakers in explanation of vote. Syria wished to replace the first part of operative paragraph 5, which stated "Demands that Israel resume the talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks", with the words "Calls for the resumption of the talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks". <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

SERGEI V. LAVROV (Russian Federation) said his delegation supported that amendment. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The PRESIDENT said the request was for an oral revision, as distinct from an amendment. As the co-sponsors supported the revision, it would be put to a vote as orally revised. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Mr. ABOU-HADID (Syria) said his delegation was opposed to the draft on the Middle East peace process. Syria had tried to convince the co-sponsors of the need for the draft to reflect the status quo, as well as the barriers raised by the Israeli Government due to its non-compliance with agreements. The international community should adopt a resolution reflecting the deterioration in the peace process. The international community must send an urgent message to the Israeli Government stating that their position had frozen the process. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Furthermore, he went on, the current draft did not refer to relevant Security Council resolutions which had been the basis of the peace process. Syria could not welcome a peace process which was not based on the principle of land for peace and international laws. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The PRESIDENT added of the following co-sponsors to the draft on the Middle East peace process: Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy and Japan. Also joining as co-sponsors were: Luxembourg, Malta, Myanmar, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The Assembly then adopted the resolution on Jerusalem by a vote of 148 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 13 abstentions. (See Annex V.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft on the Syrian Golan, as orally revised, was adopted by a vote of 84 in favour to 2 against (Israel and the United States), with 71 abstentions. (See Annex VI.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The Assembly adopted the text on the Middle East peace process by a vote of 159 in favour to 3 against (Iran, Lebanon, Syria), with two abstentions (Libya and Sudan). (See Annex VII.) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Mr. ROBINSON (United States) said the resolution on the Middle East peace process was a clear endorsement of the efforts the parties had made to keep moving forward in their quest for peace. It highlighted the positive role played by the United Nations, and its contribution to maintaining the momentum of the peace process over the past years. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

However, he continued, the same could not be said for the drafts on the Golan and on Jerusalem. The text on Syria served only to complicate the achievement of a mutually acceptable outcome; Syria and Israel had committed to a negotiating process to resolve their differences and achieve a lasting peace, and the Assembly would only make those goals more elusive by injecting itself into the issue. On Jerusalem, the United States had abstained. Jerusalem must remain undivided and its future decided through permanent status negotiations. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

YAEL RUBINSTEIN (Israel) said her delegation welcomed the adoption of the resolution on the Middle East peace process. Israel called upon its neighbours to renew negotiations without preconditions. Israel hoped that the resolution would have included an explicit condemnation of terrorism in all of its forms, as terrorism was one of the main obstacles to peace. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

On the resolution on the Golan, she recalled that the invitation letter to the Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid had said the United States and Russian Federation would assist the parties to achieve peace, through direct negotiations based on several Security Council resolutions. However, she went on, any attempt to link the invitation to other resolutions relating to the Middle East and to the principles of land for peace were misleading and counter-productive. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Israel believed the issues of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should be addressed within the framework of direct negotiations between the parties. The Assembly was not the correct forum to discuss the issues. Any attempt by the United Nations to pass such resolutions would serve only to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

JACQUES GUYOT (France) said his country respected the principles espoused in the resolution on the Middle East peace process. However, it would have wished to see the United Nations take the opportunity to rededicate itself to the issue of Lebanon's sovereignty. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

ALI MOHAMED OSMAN YASSIN (Sudan) said that peace in the Middle East region was indivisible and must include all the parties. His country had called on Israel to commit itself to the agreements it had entered into, as well as to the implementation of United Nations resolutions. Any effort to promote a partial peace would not be helpful in the long run. The draft resolution on the Middle East process was lacking and failed to mention the obstacles being faced. The Sudan had therefore abstained in the voting. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

RAHMA SALAH (Egypt) spoke on behalf of the Arab States which voted in favour of the resolution on the Middle East peace process. He said the favourable vote was cast as an expression in principle in support of the peace process. However, several points should be noted. The draft did not refer to Security Council resolution 425 (1978), which addresses the relationship between Lebanon and Israel. The problems posed to the peace process as a result of Israeli actions should have been reflected in the draft. The text also failed to refer to the dangerous and negative impact of Israel's decision to resume the building of settlements. The vote of the Arab States should not be seen as acceptance of the status quo. Current Israeli policies must be seen for what they were — a real danger to the peace process. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Mr. DLAMINI (Swaziland) said Israel had stated in effect, that the Assembly was not the forum to address the subject of peace in the Middle East. However, in attempting to resolve that issue, the United Nations was serving the interest of all Member States. Swaziland had been with Israel through the toughest of times. It had abstained in the voting on Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan but had voted in favour of the resolution on the Middle East peace process. When one's neighbours were facing a contentious situation, attempts were made to bring them together. That was Swaziland's approach to the Middle East situation. No one won a war; innocent people died. Negotiations towards a permanent solution should continue with the support of the United Nations. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

RAMON ESCOVAR SALOM (Venezuela) said that, as in previous years, his delegation had voted in favour of draft resolutions L.38 and L.40, on the situation in the Middle East, the peace process and Jerusalem. However, as stated at the recent summit of the Ibero-American heads of State and government, the problems in that region must be solved in a constructive manner, including guaranteed access to the holy places and in accordance with international law. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

OSVALDO MARSICO (Argentina), noting his country's abstention, as last year, on draft resolution L.39 on the Golan, said he did not endorse it because of the paragraph referring to the border of 4 June 1967. This, however, did not change Argentina's position on the acquisition of territory by force. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Statement<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

M. NASSER AL-KIDWA, Permanent Observer for Palestine, said his mission was deeply satisfied with the clear positions of the international community, and expressed "thanks and deep appreciation" to Member States supporting the resolutions adopted today. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

He said Palestine gave special importance to the resolution just adopted on Jerusalem, which was a core issue in the settlement of the Middle East question. The votes clearly expressed the position of the international community, the nature of the change required of the parties and the approach towards such a change. These resolutions supported the peace process and the responsibility and commitments of the United Nations. All would understand the context of the message and work accordingly. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

ANNEX I <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Vote on Palestinian Rights Committee <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A\/51\/L.33) was adopted by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 2 against, with 46 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Against: Israel, United States. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Abstaining: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Barbados, Chad, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Kyrgyz Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zaire. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

ANNEX II <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Vote on Provision for Palestinian Rights <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the Provision for Palestinian Rights (document A\/51\/L.34) was adopted by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to 2 against, with 46 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Against: Israel, United States. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Abstaining: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Barbados, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guatemala, Kyrgyz Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone,Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zaire. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

ANNEX III <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Vote on DPI <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the Department of Public Information (DPI) (document A\/51\/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, 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, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Against: Israel, United States. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Abstaining: Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Marshall Islands. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Barbados, Chad, Congo, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zaire. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

ANNEX IV <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Vote on Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A\/51\/L.36) was adopted by a recorded vote of 152 in favour to 2 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, 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, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Against: Israel, United States. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Abstaining: Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Marshall Islands. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Barbados, Chad, Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zaire. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

ANNEX V <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Vote on Jerusalem <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A\/51\/L.38) was adopted by a recorded vote of 148 in favour to 1 against, with 13 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, 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, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Against: Israel. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Abstaining: Bahamas, Barbados, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Samoa, Swaziland, United States. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Absent: Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zaire. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

ANNEX VI <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Vote on Syrian Golan <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A\/51\/L.39) was adopted by a recorded vote of 84 in favour to 2 against, with 71 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Against: Israel, United States. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Côte d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Absent: Botswana, Cape Verde, Congo, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guatemala, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zaire. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

ANNEX VII <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Vote on Middle East Peace Process <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the Middle East peace process (document A\/51\/L.40) was adopted by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 3 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, 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, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Against: Iran, Lebanon, Syria. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Abstaining: Libya, Sudan. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Absent: Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zaire. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

* *** * <\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ASSEMBLY URGES SPEEDED-UP MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS, STRESSES NEED FOR EARLY PROGRESS IN ARAB-ISRAELI NEGOTIATIONS Seven Texts Adopted on Situation in Region; International Support Sought; Dissent on Provisions Relating to Jerusalem, Syrian Golan The General Assembly urged all parties to the Middle East peace process to fulfil their obligations and to implement concluded agreements by […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"country":[],"document-category":[2377,1329],"document-source":[1365],"committee-meeting":[],"document-subject":[2237,1741,1961,1745,2137],"entity":[1729],"document-language":[6542],"class_list":["post-212629","document","type-document","status-publish","hentry","document-category-multimedia","document-category-press-release","document-source-general-assembly","document-subject-golan-heights","document-subject-human-rights-and-international-humanitarian-law","document-subject-jerusalem","document-subject-refugees-and-displaced-persons","document-subject-settlements","entity-united-nations-system","document-language-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document\/212629","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/document"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document\/212629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country?post=212629"},{"taxonomy":"document-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-category?post=212629"},{"taxonomy":"document-source","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-source?post=212629"},{"taxonomy":"committee-meeting","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/committee-meeting?post=212629"},{"taxonomy":"document-subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-subject?post=212629"},{"taxonomy":"entity","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/entity?post=212629"},{"taxonomy":"document-language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-language?post=212629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}