{"id":212904,"date":"1999-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-12T20:31:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?p=212904"},"modified":"2021-11-10T16:42:05","modified_gmt":"2021-11-10T21:42:05","slug":"auto-insert-212904","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/auto-insert-212904\/","title":{"rendered":"UNRWA\/Israeli practices – GA Fourth Cttee vote – Press release"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

FOURTH COMMITTEE APPROVES TWELVE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS <\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

CONCERNING UN RELIEF AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES, ISRAELI PRACTICES <\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Approving 12 draft resolutions this afternoon, the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) addressed a wide range of issues concerning the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. The Committee took those actions after concluding its general debate on UNRWA. By one of five draft resolutions on Israeli practices, the Assembly would call upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, and from its repressive measures against the population of the occupied Syrian Golan. That resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 119 in favour, 1 against (Israel) with 3 abstentions (Swaziland, United States, Uruguay). (For details of the vote see Annex XI). <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Assembly would also call upon Israel to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) in which the Council decided that the imposition of Israeli laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect. It would also call upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, in particular from establishing settlements. Also approved, by 120 votes in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States) with 2 abstentions (Swaziland, Uruguay), was a related draft by which the Assembly would reaffirm that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, were illegal and an obstacle to peace and socio-economic development. It would demand complete cessation of the construction in Jebel Abu-Ghneim and of all Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories. (See Annex IX.) By the terms of another draft, the Assembly would reaffirm that the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of civilians in the time of war was applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem and other occupied Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967. That draft was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour, 2 against (Israel, United States) and 1 abstentions (Swaziland) (Annex VIII). A text on the Special Committee to Investigate the Israeli Practices Committee was approved by a recorded vote of 70 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States) with 49 abstentions. By its terms, the Assembly would demand that Israel cooperate with the Special Committee in implementing its mandate. It would deplore Israeli policies and practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories (Annex VII). By another text on Israeli practices, the Assembly would call upon Israel to accelerate the release of all remaining Palestinians arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, in line with agreements already reached. It would stress the need to preserve the territorial integrity of the occupied Palestinian territory and to guarantee the freedom of movement of persons and goods. That text was approved by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 1 abstention (Swaziland) (Annex X). By one of seven drafts on UNRWA, approved by 120 in favour, 1 against (Israel), with 1 abstention (United States), the Assembly would reiterate its deep concern regarding the Agency's persisting critical financial situation and urge all Member States to extend and expedite assistance for the socio-economic development of the Palestinian people and the occupied territories (Annex I). <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a related draft by which the Assembly would ask the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA to continue its efforts. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By another text, approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States) with no abstentions, the Assembly would reaffirm the right of all persons displaced as a result of hostilities to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 (Annex II). The Assembly would, by the terms of another text, strongly appeal to all Member States, specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations to augment special allocations for grants and scholarships to Palestine refugees in addition to their contributions to the regular budget of UNRWA. That draft was approved by 123 votes in favour, none against and one abstention (Israel) (Annex III). Another draft, approved by 121 votes in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States) with no abstentions, would have the Assembly call upon the Government of Israel to compensate UNRWA for damage to its property and facilities resulting from Israeli actions (Annex IV). By the terms of another draft, approved by 122 votes in favour, to 2 against (Israel, United States), with no abstentions, the Assembly would urge the Palestinian and Israeli sides to deal with the issue of Palestine refugees' properties and their revenues in the framework of the final status negotiations of the Middle East negotiations (Annex V). <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>A draft on a University of Jerusalem "Al Quds" for Palestine refugees was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States) with no abstentions. By its terms, the Assembly would call once more upon Israel to remove all hindrances in the way of establishing the proposed university (Annex VI). Drafts on UNRWA were introduced by the representatives of Finland (on behalf of the European Union), the Netherlands and Indonesia. Cuba’s representative introduced the drafts relating to the Israeli Practices Committee. Speaking in explanation of vote were the representatives of Finland (on behalf of the European Union) and the Russian Federation. As the Committee concluded the general debate, the representatives of Tunisia, Israel and South Africa made statements. Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the representatives of Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Israel. The observer for Palestine also spoke. When the Fourth Committee meets at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 10 November, it is expected to start its consideration of the effects of atomic radiation. The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this afternoon to conclude debate on the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). It was also expected to take action on seven draft resolutions related to Palestine refugee issues, and five texts relating to Israeli practices in the occupied territories. Draft resolutions on UNRWA <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By a draft resolution on assistance to Palestine refugees (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.13), the General Assembly would reiterate its deep concern regarding the Agency's persisting critical financial situation as outlined in the report of the Commissioner-General. It would note with profound concern that the continuing shortfall in the Agency's finances has a significant negative influence on the living conditions of the Palestine refugees most in need and that it therefore has possible consequences for the peace process. By other terms, the Assembly would call upon all donors, as a matter of urgency, to make the most generous efforts possible to meet UNRWA's anticipated needs, including the remaining costs of moving its headquarters to Gaza, and encourage contributing governments to contribute regularly and to consider increasing their contributions. Also by that draft, the Assembly would urge all Member States to extend and expedite aid and assistance with a view to the economic and social development of the Palestinian people and the occupied territory. It would welcome the consultative process between the Agency, host Governments, the Palestinian Authority and donors on management reforms. The Assembly would also welcome the increased cooperation between the Agency and international and regional organizations, States and relevant agencies and non-governmental organizations, which is essential to enhancing UNRWA'S contributions towards improved conditions for the refugees and thereby the social stability of the occupied territory. The General Assembly would, by further terms, note the significant success of the Agency's Peace Implementation Programme since the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, and stress the importance that contributions to this Programme are not at the expense of the General Fund. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft's sponsors are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By a text relating to the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.14), the General Assembly would request the Working Group to continue its efforts, in cooperation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, to find a solution to the Agency's financial situation. It would welcome the new, unified budget structure for the biennium 2000-2001, which can contribute significantly to improved budgetary transparency. The Assembly would request the Working Group to continue its efforts, in cooperation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, to find a solution to the Agency's financial situation and request the Secretary-General to provide the necessary services and assistance to the Working Group, by other terms of that text. Its sponsors are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom. A third text relates to persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.15). By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm the right of all such persons to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967. It would express the hope for an accelerated return of displaced people through the mechanism agreed upon by the parties in article XII of the 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. Further, the Assembly would endorse in the meanwhile the efforts of the Commissioner-General to continue to provide emergency humanitarian assistance, as a temporary measure, to displaced persons in the area who are in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities. That draft's sponsors are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine. Another draft relates to grants and scholarships for higher education, including vocational training, for Palestine refugees (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.16). By its terms, the Assembly would strongly appeal to all States, specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations to augment the special allocations for grants and scholarships to Palestine refugees, in addition to their contributions to the regular budget of the UNRWA. It would also request the Agency to act as the recipient and trustee for those special allocations and to award them to qualified Palestine refugee candidates. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Also by that text, the Assembly would appeal to all States, specialized agencies and the United Nations University to contribute generously to the Palestinian universities in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, including, in due course, the proposed University of Jerusalem "Al Quds" for Palestine refugees. The Assembly would also appeal to States, specialized agencies and other international bodies to contribute generously towards the establishment of vocational training centres for Palestine refugees. Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine sponsor that text. A draft on operations of UNRWA (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.17) would have the Assembly call upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and to abide scrupulously by its provisions. Also by that draft, the Assembly would call once again upon the Government of Israel to compensate the Agency for damages to its property and facilities resulting from actions by the Israeli side. It would request the Commissioner-General to proceed with the issuance of identification cards for Palestine refugees and their descendants in the occupied Palestinian territory. Further, the Assembly would note that the new context created by the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government by the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization and subsequent implementation agreements has had major consequences for the activities of the Agency. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The sponsors of that draft are Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the terms of a text on Palestine refugees' properties and their revenues (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.18), the General Assembly would reaffirm that the Palestinian refugees are entitled to their property and to income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of justice and equity. The Assembly would urge the Palestinian and Israeli sides, as agreed between them, to deal with the important issue of the refugees' properties and their revenues in the framework of the final status negotiations of the Middle East peace process. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The sponsors of that draft are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>A final draft on UNRWA relates to the University of Jerusalem "Al Quds" for Palestine refugees (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.19). By its terms, the Assembly would emphasize the need to strengthen the educational system in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 5 June 1967, including Jerusalem, and specifically the need for the establishment of the proposed university. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Assembly would call once more upon Israel to cooperate in the implementation of the present resolution and remove the hindrances that it has put in the way of establishing the University of Jerusalem "Al Quds". <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Its sponsors are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Draft resolutions on Israeli Practices <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By a draft resolution on the work of the Special Committee on Israeli Practices (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.8), the General Assembly would demand that Israel cooperate with that Committee. It would deplore those policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories, as reflected in the reports of the Special Committee. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by Bahrain, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By a draft on applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons during time of war (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.9 Rev.1), the Assembly would reaffirm that the Convention is applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967. The Assembly would demand that Israel accept the Convention's de jure applicability in the occupied territories and that it comply scrupulously with its provisions. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Further, the Assembly would call upon all States parties to the Convention to exert all efforts to ensure respect for its provisions by Israel in the occupied Arab territories. It would reiterate the need for speedy implementation of the recommendations contained in General Assembly resolutions ES-10\/3 of 15 July 1997, ES-10\/4 of 13 November 1997, ES-10\/5 of 17 March 1998 and ES-10\/6 of 9 February 1999 with regard to ensuring respect by Israel for the Convention's provisions. That draft's sponsors are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>A third draft relates to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.10). By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and socio-economic development. By other terms, the Assembly would demand complete cessation of the construction of new settlements in Jebel Abu-Ghneim and of all Israeli settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. It would stress the need for full implementation of Security Council resolution 904 (1994), which called upon Israel to implement measures aimed at preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers, and called for measures to guarantee the safety of and protection of the Palestinian civilians. Sponsoring that draft are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine. By a text on Israeli practices in the occupied territories (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.11), the Assembly would demand that Israel cease all practices and actions that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people. It would call upon Israel to accelerate the release of all remaining Palestinians arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, in line with agreements already reached, and call for complete respect by Israel of all fundamental freedoms of the Palestinian people. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Also, the Assembly would stress the need to preserve the territorial integrity of all the occupied Palestinian territory and to guarantee the freedom of movement of persons and goods within that territory, into and from East Jerusalem, and to and from the outside world. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>That draft's sponsors are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The final text relates to the occupied Syrian Golan (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.12). By its terms, the Assembly would call upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and identity cards on Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, and to desist from its repressive measures against the population of the occupied Syrian Golan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>It would call on Israel to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) in which the Council declared that Israel’s imposition its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Assembly would also call upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements. It would determine that all legislative and administrative actions purporting to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and have no legal effect. The Assembly would call upon Member States not to recognize any of those legislative or administrative measures and actions, by other terms of that text. Its sponsors are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Palestine. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Statements <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

MOHAMED SALAH TEKAYA (Tunisia) said that his country appreciated the efforts of UNRWA to ease the suffering of the Palestinian refugees. It also understood the sacrifices of the countries that hosted refugees. No just and lasting solution had been found to the Palestinian problem so far. The international community had a special responsibility towards the Palestinian refugees in view of the political, legal and human dimensions of that issue. The Agency had managed to mitigate the tragedy to some extent. Continuing, he stressed the need for the Agency to keep up the quality and quantity of its services until a final resolution to the refugee problem was found. It was regrettable that financial problems had a negative impact on the work of UNRWA. It had caused concern among the refugees about the future of the Agency and encouraged many people to interpret the situation as a lack of interest on the part of the international community. He appealed to Member States to contribute to the budget of the Agency, so that its work could go on. Tunisia had always lent its support to UNRWA, since it was convinced of its importance, he said. The Palestinian and the Israeli parties were ready to proceed with negotiations now and the question of Palestine must be given a lot of attention, for it lay at the core of the peace process in the Middle East. Only peace would allow all parties to devote their resources to development. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

YOSEF LAMDAN (Israel) said UNRWA was a major force for stability among a significant segment of Palestinian society. Today, that society was understandably nervous about its future, as Israel and its Palestinian peace partners entered into serious negotiations over permanent status issues, including refugee questions. Expressing concern over the deepening financial crisis haunting UNRWA, and welcoming the modernized budgetary process, he said Israel was only sorry that, in a budget that was increasingly programme and project driven, the Commissioner- General had had to remark that funding for the Peace Implementation Programme appeared to have peaked and was actually declining rapidly. Noting the new format of the Commissioner-General’s report – one that made it clear that only one refugee camp remained in an area under full Israeli control – he said that problems connected with the movement of UNRWA staff and goods were the product of a unique situation on the ground. The safe passage route between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would ease certain matters and Israel was working to help with others. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>While expressing appreciation for UNRWA, he said that Israel would not be able to support the resolutions on its work, except that relating to the financing of the Agency’s work. Those resolutions, instead of limiting themselves to the humanitarian and socio-economic aspects of UNRWA’s work, were loaded with political elements in an attempt to pre-empt positions and unilaterally prejudge the outcome of peace negotiations. A lasting, comprehensive peace would only emerge from agreements reached directly between the parties – not from any resolutions approved by the Fourth Committee. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

BEULAH NAIDOO (South Africa) said that, despite financial constraints, UNRWA had performed its tasks admirably. The Agency provided essential services to Palestine refugees experiencing economic and social hardship imposed by Israel’s illegal occupation. Until the United Nations resolutions related to Palestinian refugees were implemented, the work of UNRWA served to alleviate the immense daily suffering of the people and must be given the fullest support of Member States, United Nations agencies and other organizations. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The peace process was the only means of ensuring lasting peace, security and stability in the region, she continued. Achievement of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independence was pivotal to the achievement of sustainable peace in the Middle East. The first positive steps towards the implementation of Sharm el-Sheikh memorandum were to be welcomed. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Fourth Committee would also take action on the resolutions pertaining to the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices, she said. In that regard, she reiterated the position of the Non-Aligned Movement on occupied East Jerusalem, the illegal Israeli settlements and the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem and the occupied Syrian Golan. The Movement also urged the international community to reaffirm its determination to preserve the fundamental values entrenched in relevant international instruments. The commitment of South Africa to the resolution of the Palestinian question was well known, she said. It was incumbent upon the international community to respect – and ensure respect for – international humanitarian law at all times and without exception. His delegation would vote in favour of the resolutions under the two agenda items under consideration. By ensuring that UNRWA was generously provided with resources to continue its vital work, a clear message would be sent to the Palestinian refugees that, – until a just solution was achieved – the responsibility of the international community towards them had not diminished. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Rights of reply <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

FEDA ABDELHADY-NASSER, observer for Palestine, said it was difficult to believe the Israeli representative’s claim that the majority of Palestine refugees were living under Palestinian control. That was indicative of Israel’s apartheid thinking. Palestinian territory remained occupied; whether Israeli tanks were inside the camps or not made no legal difference. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>She said that the danger of Israel’s arguments lay in its refusal to recognize its responsibility, which was the starting point for any just and lasting solution to the refugee problem. Israel must acknowledge its legal, moral and financial responsibility. Refugees had not been able to return home due to Israel’s rejection in the face of the annual adoption of resolutions by the General Assembly. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) said it was ludicrous that Israeli propaganda could go on as it had since the beginning of the Palestinian tragedy in 1948. It was ironic that Israel insisted on challenging the international community, flouting international humanitarian law and human rights law, as well as laws governing refugees. The many successes of the United Nations included cases in Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and elsewhere. Why had Palestinian refugees not returned? <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said that Israel still found flimsy and incorrect pretexts to avoid answering that question. When the Arabs had intervened in Palestine in 1948, they had done it to save the Palestinians from the crimes of Israel and from the ethnic cleansing policy well known to everyone. It was no secret that the Arabs had lived in harmony with the Jews throughout history, in Spain and even when there had been genuine animosity towards the Jews in other parts of the world. The only solution to the refugee problem lay in the implementation of the relevant United Nations resolutions, he said. However, Israel was still insisting on difficult conditions for implementing those resolutions. Syria looked forward to a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Should the peace process fail, responsibility would be borne by the Israeli side. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

HOSSAM ZAKI (Egypt) said he had followed the efforts of Israeli intellectuals and officials, including the Minister of Education, to dig for the truth about how their country had been established and at what cost. Those people were advocating a new look at history, rather than relying on the fictions that had been fed to the common Israeli people for the last 50 years. Atrocities had been committed against the Palestinian people. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

He expressed doubts about the Israeli representative’s reference to the number of Jewish citizens of Arab States who had left for Israel after the new State had been established. Those who had left Egypt in 1956 had been playing a role harmful to the country’s national security and their sympathy to Israel had far exceeded their loyalty to Egypt. They had had no choice but to leave. He called on Israel to look forward to the future and not to drag the international community back into the labyrinth of the past. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

HASSAN KASSEM NAJEM (Lebanon) said he wanted to clarify certain statements by the representative of Israel. The Arab States had never been responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. The daily Israeli practices and the crimes committed by Zionist gangs aimed at expelling Palestinians from their country were quite evident. The representative of the occupation forces had referred to the fact that his country was not a host country. It could never be a host country, as it was a country with a history of expelling people and displacing Palestinians to the neighbouring countries, including Lebanon. Regarding Israeli statements that it was combating terrorism, he said that his country had clear evidence of State terrorism on the part of Israel, which persisted in its occupation and bombardment from air and sea. His country looked forward to a just and durable peace based on the agreed principles, including land for peace, and other instruments of international legality. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Mr. LAMDAN (Israel) said he had no intention of debating historical facts, especially when confronted with revisionist versions of history. Nor did he intend to be dragged into a debate, which should have been devoted to the humanitarian aspects of the refugee problem. That question would be negotiated at the final status talks, which were to begin next week. It was there that the problems would be addressed and, hopefully, resolved. Some parties should come back to the negotiating table before they were overtaken by events. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) stressed that the representative of Israel had falsified history when speaking about the exodus of Jews from Arab territories. He had been the one who had caused the whole discussion. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Turning to another aspect, he said that he would like to see implementation of United Nations resolutions. The representative of Israel had said that he was looking forward to the conclusion of peace negotiations. Syria had opened the way to peace in the Middle East, but Israel had stopped the peace negotiations. The whole world knew that. Now, Israel was saying that negotiations should go on from ground zero. That position had been rejected by the whole international community. The talks should continue from where they had stopped on the basis of the basic principles, including the principle of land for peace, which Israel was still rejecting. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Action on Texts <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Draft Resolutions concerning UNRWA <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

KATRI SILFVERBERG (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, introduced the draft resolution on assistance to Palestine refugees (A\/C.4\/54\/L.13) and expressed hope that this year the draft would again get the support of the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

MONICA VAN DAALEN (Netherlands) introduced draft resolution on the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA (A\/C.4\/54\/L.14). <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

HAZAIRIN POHAN (Indonesia) introduced the draft resolutions on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities (A\/C.4\/54\/L.15); L.16 offers by Member States of grants and scholarships for higher education and vocational training for Palestine refugees (A\/C.4\/54\/L.16), operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), (A\/C.4\/54\/L.17), Palestine refugees’ properties and revenues (A\/C.4\/54\/L.18); and on University of Jerusalem “Al-Quds” for Palestine refugees (A\/C.4\/54\/L.19). <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

BURHANUL ISLAM (Pakistan) sought clarification regarding the draft resolutions on assistance to Palestine refugees, on the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA; and on operations of the Agency. He wanted to know why a special paragraph had not been included in those texts requesting the Secretary-General to submit a report at the next session of the General Assembly. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Committee was informed that Brunei Darussalam had joined the number of co-sponsors of the draft resolutions on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities; on offers by Member States of grants and scholarships for higher education and vocational training for Palestine refugees, on Palestine refugees’ properties and revenues; and on University of Jerusalem “Al-Quds” for Palestine refugees. Malaysia and Bangladesh became co-sponsors of the draft resolutions on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities; on offers by Member States of grants and scholarships for higher education and vocational training for Palestine refugees, on operations of the UNRWA, on Palestine refugees’ properties and revenues; and on University of Jerusalem “Al-Quds” for Palestine refugees. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Committee then approved the draft on assistance to Palestine refugees (A\/C.4\/54\/L.13) by a vote of 120 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 1 abstention (United States). (For details of the vote see Annex I.) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft on the financing of the UNRWA (A\/C.4\/54\/L.14) was approved without a vote. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Committee then approved the draft on persons displaced as a result of June 1967 and subsequent hostilities (A\/C.4\/54\/L.15) by a vote of 121 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with no abstentions. (Annex II). <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The Committee then acted on the draft on offers by Member States of grants and scholarships for Palestine refugees (A\/C.4\/54\/L.16), which was approved by a vote of 123 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (Israel) (Annex III). <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft on operations of the UNRWA (A\/C.4\/54\/L.17) was approved by a vote of 121 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with no abstentions (Annex IV). <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft on Palestine refugees’ properties and revenues (A\/C.4\/54\/L.18) was approved by a vote of 122 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with no abstentions (Annex V). <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

By a vote of 122 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with no abstentions, the Committee adopted the draft on the University of Jerusalem “Al- Quds” for Palestine refugees (A\/C.4\/54\/L.19) (Annex VI) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Draft Resolutions Concerning Israeli Practices. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

RAFAEL DAUSA CESPEDES (Cuba) introduced the five drafts on the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

BURHANUL ISLAM (Pakistan) said that his delegation wanted to join the co-sponsors of the resolution on the occupied Syrian Golan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Committee was informed that Brunei Darussalam had joined the co-sponsors of draft resolutions on: the work of the Special Committee; Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem and the occupied Syrian Golan; and on the occupied Syrian Golan. Malaysia Bangladesh and Indonesia had joined the co-sponsors of all the drafts under the agenda item. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Committee approved the draft on the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices (A\/C.4\/54\/L.8) by a vote of 70 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 49 abstentions (Annex VIII) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War to the occupied territories (A\/C.4\/54\/L.9\/Rev.1) was approved by a vote of 122 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 1 abstention (Swaziland) (Annex VIII). <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Committee then acted on the draft on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem and the occupied Syrian Golan (A\/C.4\/54\/L.10). It was approved by a vote of 120 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (Swaziland and Uruguay) (Annex IX). <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Committee approved the draft on the Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory, including Jerusalem by a vote of 119 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 1 abstention (Swaziland) (Annex X). <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The draft on the occupied Syrian Golan (A\/C.4\/54\/L.12) was approved by a vote of 119 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 3 abstentions (Swaziland, United States, Uruguay)(Annex XI). <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Explanations of Vote. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Speaking in explanation of vote on the draft regarding the Special Committee on Israeli Practices, KATRI SILFVERBERG (Finland), on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said that while the Union had been able to support the adoption of other draft resolutions under that agenda item, it had the same difficulty as in previous years with the draft under consideration. Therefore, it had abstained in the vote. The European Union viewed with concern some of the policies applied by the Israeli Government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, it considered that the mandate and functions of the Special Committee failed to take account of present realities and that the issues covered by the Committee could better be dealt with in another framework. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Continuing, she reiterated the European Union’s firm commitment to a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement in the Middle East based on the Madrid and Oslo accords. In that context, the European Union warmly welcomed the Sharm el-Sheikh memorandum and reaffirmed its readiness to be fully associated with the implementation of that agreement, if the parties so wished, through a significant political and economic contribution, and to contribute to the issues to be negotiated between the parties under the permanent status negotiations. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

VLADIMIR DEDOUCHKINE (Russian Federation) said his delegation had supported the resolutions and was pleased to note the growing understanding in the Middle East of the need for peace and stability, as well as mutually beneficial cooperation. However, a complicated human rights situation still existed. The issues of refugees, Jerusalem and the occupied Syrian Golan must be resolved. The Russian Federation had consistently been in favour of the Golan’s return to Syria in accordance with the relevant resolutions and in keeping with the principle of land-for-peace. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

General statements <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Ms. ABDELHADY-NASSER, observer for Palestine, expressing gratitude to those Member States which had supported the resolutions, noted that Israel had remained the only one to vote against or abstain on two UNRWA resolutions, thus preventing a consensus. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

MIKHAIL WEHBE (Syria) thanked the Member States that had stood by the resolutions, because in so doing they had supported the just and fair position. That was the position of Syria in calling for a just and comprehensive peace and for the implementation of resolutions that supported international legitimacy – Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 435 – and the land-for-peace principle. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

ZAID AL-HADIDI (Jordan) said his delegation’s support for resolution had not been reflected on the board. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus), Committee Chairman, took note of that statement. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

SIDDIA ABDALIA (Sudan) apologized for not having attended the first part of the voting due to unavoidable circumstances. Had he been present, Sudan would have voted in favour of all resolutions concerning the work of UNRWA – A\/C.4\/54\/L.13 through L.19. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

(annexes follow) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n

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

\n

Vote on Assistance to Palestine Refugees. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on assistance to Palestine refugees (document A\/C.1\/54\/L.13) was approved by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain: United States. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia\/Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Jordan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(END OF ANNEX I) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Displaced Persons From June 1967. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.15) was approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 2 against, with 0 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Dar Salam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain: None. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia\/Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(END OF ANNEX II) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Grants and Scholarships For Palestinian Refugees. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on offers by Member States of grants and scholarships for Palestinian refugees (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.16) was approved by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 0 against, with 1 abstention as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran , Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Against: None. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia\/Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(END OF ANNEX III) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on operations of the UNRWA <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the operations of the Untied Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees on the Near East (UNRWA) (document A\/C.4\/54\/L\/17) was approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 2 against, with 0 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain: None. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(END OF ANNEX IV) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Palestine Refugee Properties <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues (document A\/C.4\/54\/L\/18) was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 2 against, with 0 abstentions, as follow: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain: None. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(END OF ANNEX V) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on University of Jerusalem. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the University of Jerusalem “Al-Quds” for Palestine Refugees (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.19) was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 2 against, with 0 abstentions as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain: None. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(END OF ANNEX VI) <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian Peoples and other Arabs of the Occupied Territory (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.8) was approved by a recorded vote of 70 in favour to 2 against, with 49 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(END OF ANNEX VII)<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Applicability of Geneva Convention <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War to the Occupied Palestinian Territory (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.9\/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 2 against, with 1 abstention, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte D’ Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain: Swaziland. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea- Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(END OF ANNEX VIII)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Israeli Settlements <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.10) was approved by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain: Swaziland, Uruguay. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(END OF ANNEX IX) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Israeli Practices <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.11) was approved by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to 2 against, with 1 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain: Swaziland. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(END OF ANNEX X) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

The draft resolution on the occupied Syrian Golan (document A\/C.4\/54\/L.12) was approved by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to 1 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain: Swaziland, United States, Uruguay. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

* *** *  <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

ga4ct.99<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

ga4rw.99<\/p><\/div>\n

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

FOURTH COMMITTEE APPROVES TWELVE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING UN RELIEF AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES, ISRAELI PRACTICES Approving 12 draft resolutions this afternoon, the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) addressed a wide range of issues concerning the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"country":[],"document-category":[1329,3745],"document-source":[5618],"committee-meeting":[],"document-subject":[1945,2237,5200,2349,1745,2137],"entity":[5343,1729],"document-language":[6542],"class_list":["post-212904","document","type-document","status-publish","hentry","document-category-press-release","document-category-voting-record","document-source-general-assembly-fourth-committee-special-political-and-decolonization","document-subject-assistance","document-subject-golan-heights","document-subject-humanitarian-relief","document-subject-living-conditions","document-subject-refugees-and-displaced-persons","document-subject-settlements","entity-palestine-plo-palestinian-authority","entity-united-nations-system","document-language-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document\/212904","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\/212904\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country?post=212904"},{"taxonomy":"document-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-category?post=212904"},{"taxonomy":"document-source","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-source?post=212904"},{"taxonomy":"committee-meeting","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/committee-meeting?post=212904"},{"taxonomy":"document-subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-subject?post=212904"},{"taxonomy":"entity","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/entity?post=212904"},{"taxonomy":"document-language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-language?post=212904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}