{"id":212980,"date":"1996-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-12T20:32:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?p=212980"},"modified":"2021-11-10T16:38:05","modified_gmt":"2021-11-10T21:38:05","slug":"auto-insert-212980","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/auto-insert-212980\/","title":{"rendered":"UNRWA, Israeli practices in the occupied territories – GA Fourth Cttee concludes debate, approves draft resolutions – Press release"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

SPECIAL POLITICAL AND DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

PALESTINE RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY, ISRAELI PRACTICES, PEACE-KEEPING<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Committee concludes work for current session;<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\nThirteen draft resolutions recommended to General Assembly<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The General Assembly would address a broad range of issues concerning the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices in the occupied territories, and peace-keeping in all its aspects, by the terms of 13 draft resolutions approved this morning by the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization), as it concluded its work for the current session. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By one of five resolutions on Israeli practices, the Assembly would demand the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities and would stress the need for full implementation of Security Council resolution 904 (1994), which called upon Israel to prevent illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers and to guarantee the safety of the Palestinian civilians in the occupied territory. The text was approved, as orally amended, by a vote of 126 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 6 abstentions (Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica, Marshall Islands, Panama, Uruguay). (For details of the vote, see Annex III.) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By another draft, the Assembly would request the Special Committee to continue to investigate Israeli polices and practices in the occupied territories, paying particular attention to Israel's non-compliance with the 1949 Geneva Convention regarding the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War. The draft was approved by a vote of 69 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 59 abstentions (Annex I).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>A related resolution, approved by a vote of 129 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 4 abstentions (Costa Rica, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Panama) would have the Assembly reaffirm the applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian territory and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 (Annex II).<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\n\t<\/span>By another draft, the Assembly would demand that Israel cease all practices which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people. The Assembly would also call for an immediate end to the closure of the occupied territories and the assurance of the freedom of movement within the Palestinian territory, in conformity with international law and agreements reached. It would call upon Israel to accelerate the release of all Palestinians arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. The Assembly would also
\ncall for respect by Israel of the Palestinian people's fundamental rights, pending the extension of the self-government arrangements to the rest of the occupied territory. The text was approved by a vote of 125 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 7 abstentions (Argentina, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Federated States of Micronesia, Panama, Uruguay, Marshall Islands) (Annex IV).\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By another draft, the Assembly would 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 desist from establishing settlements. The Assembly would further call upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity
\ncards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, and desist from its repressive measures against the population therein. The Assembly would determine that all such measures taken by Israel violated international law and had no legal effect. That text was approved by a vote of 127 in favour to 1 against (Israel) with 6 abstentions (Costa Rica, Guatemala, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Uruguay) (Annex V).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the terms of the draft resolution on peace-keeping approved this morning as amended by a vote of 135 in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel), with no abstentions, the Assembly would decide to expand the membership of the Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations. The Assembly would further decide that the Special Committee should continue its efforts for a comprehensive review of the whole question of peace-keeping operations in all their aspects (Annex XIII).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Prior to that action, the Committee deleted an operative paragraph that made reference to programme budget implications.  The proposal to delete the paragraph was approved by a vote of 125 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Turkey, United States) (Annex XII).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By one of seven resolutions on UNRWA, approved by a vote of 139 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 2 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, United States), the Assembly would urge all Member States to expedite aid and assistance for the development of the Palestinian people and the occupied territories, and would call on all governments, as a matter of urgency, to make the most generous efforts to meet the anticipated needs of the Agency (Annex VI).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>A related resolution, approved without a vote, would have the Assembly request the working group on the financing of UNRWA to continue its efforts for the period of one year, and request the Secretary-General to provide the necessary services and assistance to the working group for the conduct of its work. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Acting by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia), the General Assembly would reaffirm the right of all persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967. The Assembly would further express the hope for an accelerated return of displaced persons through the mechanism under Article XII of the 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, and would endorse UNRWA's efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to persons currently displaced and in need of assistance as a result of those hostilities (Annex VII). <\/p>\n

\t<\/span>By the terms of another text, approved by a vote of 142 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (Israel), the Agency would be requested to act as the recipient and trustee for the special allocations for grants and scholarships and to award them to qualified Palestine refugee candidates (Annex VIII).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By another draft, the Assembly would welcome the transfer of the Agency headquarters to Gaza and the signing of the Headquarters Agreement with the Palestinian Authority, and would call on Israel to compensate the Agency for damages to its property and facilities resulting from actions by the Israeli side. The resolution was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 3 abstentions (Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands) (Annex IX).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By another draft approved this morning, the Assembly would reaffirm Palestine Arab refugees' entitlement to their property and to income derived therefrom. It would request the Secretary- General to take all appropriate steps to protect Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel and to preserve and modernize existing records. The text was approved by a vote of 128 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 8 abstentions (Argentina, Costa Rica, Fiji, Guatemala, Jamaica, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Turkey) (Annex X).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By a final text approved this morning, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to take all necessary measures for establishing the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds", and call once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cooperate in the implementation of the present resolution. The draft was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia) (Annex XI).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Cuba introduced the draft resolutions on the Israeli Practices Committee. Statements in explanation of vote were made by the representatives of the Russian Federation, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Iran, Ireland, Ecuador, Japan and Venezuela.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representatives of Ireland, Netherlands and Indonesia introduced drafts on the UNRWA. Statements in explanation of vote on those texts were made by representatives of the Russian Federation, Iran, Japan and Canada. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Statements were made this morning, as the Committee concluded its consideration of the report on Israeli practices, by the representatives of Iran, Jordan, Ireland (on behalf of associated States), Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Senegal. The Chairman of the Committee made a closing statement. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Committee Work Programme<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this morning to continue its consideration of Israeli practices in the occupied territories. The Committee has before it three reports of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices (documents A\/51\/99\/Add.1 and A\/51\/99\/Add.2). (For more information on the reports, see Press Release GA\/SPD\/102 of 25 November.)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

 The Committee was also expected to take action on seven draft resolutions on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), five draft resolutions on Israeli practices, and a draft resolution on peace-keeping in all its aspects.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Drafts Resolutions on UNRWA<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the terms of a draft resolution on assistance to Palestine refugees (document (A\/C.4\/51\/L.12), the Assembly would urge all Member States to expedite aid and assistance to the economic and social development of the Palestinian people and the Israeli- occupied territories. It would call upon all governments, as a matter of urgency, to make the most generous efforts to meet the anticipated needs of UNRWA, including the costs of moving the headquarters to Gaza.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Also by the draft, it would be recognized that UNRWA is doing all it can within the limits of available resources.  The Assembly would express gratitude to the specialized agencies and to private organizations for their valuable work in assisting refugees.  It would stress the importance that contributions to the peace implementation programme of UNRWA are not at the expense of the Agency's General Fund. It would note with profound concern that the structural deficit problem confronting the Agency portends an almost certain decline in the living conditions of the Palestine refugees, and that it, therefore, has possible consequences for the peace process.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by 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 the text of a draft resolution on the working group on the financing of UNRWA (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.13), the Assembly would request the working group to continue its efforts for the financing of the Agency for the further period of one year.  The Secretary-General would be requested to provide the necessary services and assistance to the working group for the conduct of its work. The Assembly would express its deep concern about the critical financial situation of the Agency, which is affecting the continuation of necessary services to the Palestinian refugees, including the emergency-related programmes.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the text of a draft resolution on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.14), the Assembly would reaffirm the right of all persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967. It would further express the hope for an accelerated return of displaced persons through the mechanism agreed upon by the parties under Article XII of the 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self- Government Arrangements, signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); would endorse the efforts of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to provide humanitarian assistance to persons currently displaced and in need of assistance as a result of the June 1967 hostilities; and would strongly appeal to all governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously to the Agency and other organizations concerned for the above purposes.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Under the terms of a draft resolution on offers by Member States of grants and scholarships (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.15), the Assembly would request UNRWA to act as the recipient and trustee for the special allocations for grants and scholarships and to award them to qualified Palestine refugee candidates.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the text of a draft resolution on the operations of UNRWA (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.16), the Assembly would welcome the completion of the transfer of the Agency headquarters to Gaza and the signing of the Headquarters Agreement between the Agency and the Palestinian Authority; acknowledge the support of the host government and the PLO provided to the Agency in the discharge of its duties; and call upon Israel, the occupying Power, to accept 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.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the text, the Assembly would call once again on the Government of Israel to compensate the Agency for damages to its property and facilities resulting from actions by the Israeli side; and request the Commissioner-General to proceed with the issuance of identity cards for Palestine refugees and their descendants in the occupied Palestinian territory.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Assembly further notes that the new context created by the signing of the 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self- Government Arrangements by Israel and the PLO, and subsequent implementation agreements, had had major consequences for the activities of the Agency, which is henceforth called upon, in  close cooperation with  the United Nations Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories, the specialized agencies and the World Bank, to continue to contribute towards the development of economic and social stability in the occupied territories. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By that draft, the Assembly would also urge all States and organizations to continue to increase their contributions to ease the current financial constraints of the Agency and to support the Agency in maintaining the most basic and effective assistance to the Palestine refugees. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Under the terms of a draft on Palestine refugees' properties and their revenues (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.17), the Assembly would recall, that in the framework of the Middle East peace process the PLO and the Government of Israel agreed to commence negotiations on permanent status issues of the refugees, and call for the commencement of those negotiations.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Assembly would reaffirm that the Palestine Arab refugees are entitled to their property and to income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of justice and equity; and request the Secretary-General to take all appropriate steps, in consultation with the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, for the protection of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel and to preserve and modernize existing records.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Assembly would also: call once more on Israel to render all facilities and assistance to the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution; call upon all parties concerned to provide the Secretary-General with any pertinent information in their possession concerning Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel which would assist the  Secretary- General in the  implementation of the present resolution; and urge the Palestinian and Israeli sides, as agreed between them, to deal with the important issues of Palestine 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 draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the text of a draft on the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds" (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.18), the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to take all necessary measures for establishing the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds", in accordance with the General Assembly resolution 35\/13 B of 3 November 1980, giving due consideration to the recommendations consistent with the provisions of that resolution; and call once more upon Israel, the occupying  Power, to cooperate in the implementation of the present resolution and to remove all hindrances that it had put in the way of establishing the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds".<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Draft Resolutions on Israeli Practices<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the terms of a draft on the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.19), the Assembly would commend the Special Committee's efforts and impartiality, and demand Israel's cooperation with that body. The Assembly would deplore Israeli policies and practices which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people, and express concern over the deterioration of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, the result of Israeli practices and measures and the impasse facing the Middle East peace process.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Also by the draft, the Assembly would request the Special Committee to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories pending complete termination of  the occupation, paying particular attention to Israel's lack of compliance with the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War. In that regard it would be requested to consult with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to ensure that the welfare and human rights of the peoples of the occupied territories are safeguarded.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Under other terms of the text, the Assembly would request the Special Committee to submit periodic reports to the Secretary- General on the situation in the occupied Palestinian Territory.  The Special Committee would further be requested to continue to investigate the treatment of prisoners in the occupied territories.  The Assembly would also request that the Secretary-General provide all necessary facilities to the Special Committee, and continue making available additional staff as necessary, to assist that body in performing its tasks. The Secretary-General would be requested to circulate regularly to Member States the Special Committee's periodic reports, and to ensure the widest circulation of those reports, as well as of information on the Special Committee's activities, by all means available through the Secretariat's Department of Public Information.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>A draft resolution on the applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.20) would have the Assembly reaffirm that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967. Also by the draft, the Assembly would demand that Israel accept the de jure applicability of the Convention to the occupied territories and that it comply with the provisions of the Convention.  The Assembly would call upon all States parties to the Convention to exert all efforts in order to ensure respect for its provisions by Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the terms of a draft on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory and the occupied Syrian Golan  (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.21\/Rev.1) 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 economic and social development. It would call upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and to all the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide by its provisions. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By further terms of the draft, the Assembly would demand complete cessation of all illegal Israeli settlement activities.  It would stress the need for full implementation of Security Council resolution 904 (1994) in which the Council called upon Israel to continue implementing measures with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers, and called for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians in the occupied territory.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the terms of a draft on Israeli practices affecting human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.22) the Assembly would determine that all measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the occupied Palestinian territory in violation of the Geneva Convention and relevant resolutions of the Security Council were illegal and should cease immediately. The Assembly would demand that Israel cease all practices and actions which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people.  The Assembly would call for an immediate end of the closure of the Occupied Palestinian territory and the assurance of the freedom of movement of persons and goods within the Palestinian territory and with the outside world, in conformity with international law and agreements reached. It would call upon Israel to accelerate the release of all remaining Palestinians arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, in line with agreements reached. The Assembly would also call for complete respect by Israel of the Palestinian people's fundamental rights, pending  the extension of the self-government arrangements to the rest of the occupied territory.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

 \t<\/span>The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the terms of a draft resolution on the occupied Syrian Golan (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.23\/Rev. 1) the Assembly would call upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, in particular 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 without international legal effect. 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 desist from establishing settlements. The Assembly would determine that all such measures taken by Israel violated international law and had no legal effect.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Under the terms of the draft, the Assembly would further call upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, and to desist from its repressive measures against the population therein. It would deplore Israel's violations of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and call once again on Member States not to recognize any of the legislative or administrative measures and actions referred to above.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The text is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the terms of the draft resolution on peace-keeping in all its aspects (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.9), the Assembly would decide to expand the membership of the Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations in accordance with the provisions of its report. Those Member States which are past or present personnel contributors to United Nations peace-keeping operations and those which were observers at the 1996 session of the Special Committee should, upon request in writing to the Chairman of the Committee, become members at its 1997 session. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>It would also decide that those Member States which become personnel contributors to United Nations peace-keeping operations in years to come or participate in the future in the Special Committee for three consecutive years as observers should, upon request in writing to the Chairman of the Committee, become members at the following session of the Committee.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>By the draft, the Assembly would endorse the proposals, recommendations and conclusions of the Special Committee and urge Member States, the Secretariat and relevant organs of the United Nations to take all necessary steps to implement them.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Also by the draft, the Assembly would recommend that, should any of the proposals contained in the text result in budgetary implications for the bienniums 1996-1997 and  1998-1999, such additional costs should be accommodated within the appropriation levels approved by the Assembly for those bienniums, in accordance with the Financial Regulations and Rules of the Organization.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Assembly would further decide that the Special Committee, in accordance with its mandate, should continue its efforts for a comprehensive review of the whole question of peace-keeping operations in all their aspects, including a review of the implementation of its previous proposals, and should consider new proposals so as to enhance the capacity of the United Nations to fulfil its responsibilities in that field.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draftis sponsored by Argentina, Canada, Egypt, Japan, Nigeria and Poland.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>A related document (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.24) submitted by the Secretariat on the programme budget implications of the draft resolution on peace-keeping (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.9) indicates that endorsing the recommendations of the Special Committee on Peace- keeping would have no implications for the 1996-1997 budget programme.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>JALAL SAMADI (Iran) said the report  of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices showed that conditions in the occupied territories had deteriorated badly.  The human rights of the Palestinian people had been violated and the territories had been subject to closure, which had a destructive impact on economic and social conditions. Economic losses due to the closure were estimated at more than $6 million per day. It was estimated that 10 persons had died due to lack of access to medical care.\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said the restrictions on movement of people and goods had also restricted access to religious sites. The expansion of settlements, the building of bypass roads to settlements and the confiscation of land had continued in the period under consideration. Eighteen Jewish settlements existed in the Gaza Strip and settlers occupied 30 per cent of that area. At the same time, 1.2 million Palestinian citizens lived in the remaining area. The decision to open the tunnel in the vicinity of Al-Aqsa Mosque showed a determination to change the status quo in the occupied territories and to "de-Islamize" the holy places of Jerusalem.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>THAMER ADWAN (Jordan) said the peace process had raised high hopes for the Palestinian people, but those hopes had been dashed because of Israeli practices. Israeli practices included closure, demolition of homes and expansion of  settlements, as well  as administrative detention and restrictions on movement of persons  and goods  in the Palestinian territories. The total closure of the Palestinian Territory was a contravention of the Geneva Convention of 1949 and other international law.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said that the most serious factor-building tension in the region was the continued expansion of Israeli settlements. United Nations resolutions very clearly condemned those settlements.  The confiscation of Arab lands for Israeli settlements would not benefit any of the parties to the peace accords. The status quo should remain. The signing of the Jordan-Israel accords was one more step to a just and lasting peace, and his country's commitment to peace required opposing any development that posed a threat to the peace process. The question on the table today could not be addressed separately from the quest for a just and lasting peace for the Palestinian people and the region.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>RONAN CORVIN (Ireland) spoke for the European Union, and the associated States of the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovakia. He said the Israeli practice of closing the occupied territories had dealt a damaging blow to the Palestinian economy, which could breed increased violence. While recognizing Israel's security concerns, he encouraged that Government to lift the closure. There appeared to be a de facto policy by the Israeli Government of encouraging settlements in occupied  land. Increased allocations for settlements had been provided for in the 1997 Israeli budget and tax incentives for settlers were to be maintained. Such settlements were illegal and posed serious obstacles to peace, he said.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Union had great difficulties with many of the Israeli Government's actions, he continued.  The provisions of the peace agreements must be implemented.  Once those provisions had been fully implemented, however, the issues covered by the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices would be better  addressed in another framework than that Committee. A different approach might lend itself more readily to compromise and mutual understanding.  There could be no alternative to a just and lasting settlement to the Palestinian question and to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole. Such a settlement must be grounded in the relevant resolutions of the Organization. He emphasized the  Union's willingness to assist in every way possible the achievement of that objective.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>HOSSAM ZAKI (Egypt) said Israeli practices in the occupied territories had not changed since the Special Committee's establishment. Those practices were no different in times of war than in times of peace. Still, his country was aware of the many complex obstacles that interfered with the achievement of peace.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>On the Israeli settlements in occupied territories,  he said such practices were a clear and direct violation of international resolutions. Despite declarations by the Israeli Government about its commitment to the peace process, the continued practice of establishing and expanding settlements forced the international community to deeply question that country's sincerity. Implanting settlers in occupied areas represented an attempt to renege on the principle of land for peace, which was the fundamental principle upon which the peace process had been based.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said the Israeli Government's actions paved the way for extremism and violence to replace negotiations and dialogue.  Israel must bear full responsibility for the present decline in the peace process. Israeli practices were complicating peace negotiations. The international community must address the matter and ensure that peace prevailed.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>MANSOUR bin KHALID AL-FARHAN AL-SAUD (Saudi Arabia) said the report of the Special Committee documented grave violations of human rights that had occurred after the agreement signed in Oslo. The Palestinian movement had respected that call for peace. The report covered the period following the signing of the agreement in Oslo, which had given new impetus to hopes for peace. The fact the closure had been imposed by Israel since February 1996 was a violation of the spirit of peace. Trade activities had been ended in the Gaza Strip and products could not be imported.  There was still an embargo in effect.  Palestinians working in Israel had been replaced by foreigners, a practice that deprived whole families of their existence. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said the Israeli settlements were being expanded and new settlements were being formed.  The building of bypass roads to link settlements was also proceeding. That created a  situation where one saw  Israeli settlements with anywhere from three to 500 families was provided with two-lane highways, while towns with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had no access to highways. For the peace process to advance, it was necessary to respect all international norms of protection of human rights. If the Palestinian people regained their rights, that would lend credibility to the peace process. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>IBRA DEGUENE KA (Senegal) said he supported the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee in regard to the protection of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.  His country had welcomed on all possible occasions the prospects for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Every attempt should be made to remove obstacles to the peace process. In order to do that, resolve was needed on the part of all parties involved. If the pace of the peace agreements were not maintained and the agreements were not implemented, regional violence could re-emerge.  The situation in the occupied territories declined daily. The territory remained closed, with devastating consequences for health, the economy, and education. The report documented acts of intimidation that violated the agreements to which Israel was a party.  Israel had a right to secure borders, but it must not do violence to the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Introduction of Drafts on Israeli Practices<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>HOMERO ZACKER RIVERO (Cuba) introduced the five draft resolutions related to the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices. The drafts directly concerned the peace process in the Middle East, he said. The Chairman of the Special Committee, in introducing its three-part report, had indicated that in many ways the situation in the occupied territories had deteriorated.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The five drafts concern the continuation of the work of the Special Committee, applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian Territory, Israeli settlements, Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people and other occupants of the occupied territories, and the occupied Syrian Golan. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Secretary of the Committee said that the Programme Planning and Budgetary Division had informed the Committee that there were no budget implications on the proposals.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Action on Draft Texts<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Speaking before the vote, the representative of Israel, speaking on the draft resolution on Israeli settlements, said that the question of settlements should be resolved in the framework of direct negotiations between the parties themselves. It was not a matter for decision by the Committee.  The draft tried to predetermine the outcome of negotiations, which, on the basis of existing agreements, were to be the result of direct negotiations between the parties.  He said he would vote against that
\ndraft, and urged all supporters of the peace process to do the same. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of the United States said that the resolutions just introduced contained outdated language that barely took note of progress in the Middle East region since the Madrid Conference five years ago. It ignored the efforts of the parties to negotiate their positions. The language of those drafts became more anachronistic by the year. The resources that went to the Special Committee on Israeli Practices should be shifted to support the Palestinian Government and the economic development in the Palestinian Territory. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said such a shift would also show that the Committee was serious about reform. He urged the Committee to omit the standard paragraph in the draft requesting further reports by the Special Committee. He also expressed his opposition to the specific references to Jerusalem in the resolutions and the way in which the texts inappropriately prejudged matters that should be dealt with in negotiations between the parties. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee then approved the draft on the work of the Special Committee by a vote of 69 in favour to 2 opposed (Israel, United States), with 59 abstentions. For details of the vote see Annex I.)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee then approved the draft on applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian Territory by a vote of 129 in favour to 2 opposed (Israel, United States), with 4 abstentions (Costa Rica, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Panama) (Annex II).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Before the vote on the draft resolution on Israeli settlements, the representative of Norway proposed an amendment to preambular paragraph 4, replacing "aware of" with "welcoming".  The paragraph would read "Welcoming the Mideast peace process".  He said it was necessary to acknowledge the accomplishments in the peace process. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>That oral amendment was approved by the Committee without a vote. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee then approved the draft on Israel settlements as orally amended, by a vote of 126 in favour to 3 opposed (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 6 abstentions (Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica, Marshall Islands, Panama, Uruguay) (Annex III). <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee then approved the draft on Israeli practices affecting human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territory by a vote of 125 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 7 abstentions (Argentina, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Panama, Uruguay) (Annex IV).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee then approved the draft on occupied Syrian Golan by a vote of 127 in favour, to 1 opposed (Israel), with 6 abstentions (United States, Uruguay, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Guatemala, Costa Rica) (Annex V).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Speaking after the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation said he condemned human rights violations in the occupied territories, but also condemned terrorist methods. As a co-sponsor of the peace process in the Middle East, his country urged compliance by the parties of earlier-agreed upon tenets.  The human rights of refugees, including freedom of movement, must be protected.  His country did not predetermine the final solution, which were subject to bilateral agreements between the parties. He had voted in favour of the drafts.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Australia said that she had voted in favour of the text on Israeli practices affecting human  rights.  She called for international adherence to human rights standards.  At the same time, Israel must protect its security.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Canada said that she had voted in favour of the new draft on Israeli settlements, but she was concerned about the proliferation of resolutions. The practice did not enhance the Organization's efficacy. The resolution in question mentioned the status of Jerusalem, but the status of that city could only be resolved as part of a general peace. She had voted in favour of the text on Israeli practices and human rights, and reiterated her  strong support  for the international human  rights instruments referred to in the draft.  Israel's legitimate security concerns continued to be of grave importance.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Argentina had abstained from voting on the draft on Israeli practices affecting human rights.  The text prejudged all aspects of the Israeli occupation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Iran said he had voted in favour of the draft resolutions. He expressed reservation on any parts of the drafts that might be construed as recognition of Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Ireland, on behalf of the European Union, said that, as in previous years, he had difficulty with the draft regarding the Special Committee's mandate and had, therefore, abstained. Despite the Union's dismay over Israeli practices, it found the draft problematic. It had failed to take into account the situation of the Israeli Government. He reiterated the Union's commitment to peace in the Middle East.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Ecuador said he had voted in favour of the resolutions because his country's foreign policy had always condemned the use of force to resolve territorial disputes.  The peace process in the Middle East must be resolved through dialogue.\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Japan said that he had voted in favour of the text on Israeli settlements.  Those settlements could only affect the peace process adversely. The practice was illegal, and should be suspended. It should be discussed in the context of negotiations.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Venezuela said that, had he been in the room at the time of voting, he would have voted in favour of the texts on the Special Committee, the Geneva Convention and Israeli Settlements.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee then took up the draft texts on UNRWA. The representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, introduced the draft resolution on assistance to Palestinian refugees.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of the Netherlands introduced the draft on financing UNRWA.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Indonesia introduced drafts on displaced persons, offers of grants and scholarships, operations of UNRWA, refugee properties, and the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds".<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Speaking before action on the texts, the representative of Morocco said he joined in co-sponsoring the draft resolutions on assistance to Palestinian refugees, financing UNRWA and the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds".<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Senegal said he joined in co-sponsoring the drafts on scholarship operations of UNRWA, refugee properties and the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds".<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of the United States said his country's commitment to the work of UNRWA was well known.  As its largest donor, it preferred a single draft dealing with the Agency.  There was no need to inject the Agency into status issues in the peace process. His Government was committed to resolving the issues facing the Palestinian people. It had supported the transfer the Agency headquarters to the region. He joined the consensus on the resolution on higher education. That support, however, was tempered by its view of the University of Jerusalem "AL-Quds", which he did not support. He also objected to the reference to the territory occupied since June 1967. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee then approved the draft on assistance to Palestine Refugees by a vote of 139 in favour to 1 opposed (Israel), with 2 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, United States) (Annex VI).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee approved the draft text on the working group on the finances of UNRWA without a vote.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee approved the draft on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 hostilities by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 opposed (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia) (Annex VII).\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee approved the draft on offers of grants and scholarships, by a vote of 142 in favour to none opposed, with 1 abstention (Israel) (Annex VIII).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee approved the draft on the operations of UNRWA by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 opposed (Israel, United States), with 3 abstentions (Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands) (Annex IX).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee approved the draft on Palestine refugees' properties by a vote of 128 in favour to 2 opposed (Israel, United States), with 8 abstentions (Argentina, Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guatemala, Jamaica, Marshall Islands, Turkey) (Annex X).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee approved the draft on the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds" by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 opposed (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia) (Annex XI).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of the Russian Federation said he fully supported the humanitarian activities of UNRWA, particularly at the present crucial stage of the beginning of Palestinian self-government in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Bearing in mind the important tasks facing the Agency, he had voted in favour of the drafts on the operations of UNRWA, refugee properties and the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds."<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Iran said he had joined the consensus on financing UNRWA and voted in favour of the other drafts. However, that fact should not be construed as recognition of Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Japan considered the peace process the only legitimate way to resolve the conflict. He had voted in favour of the text on refugee properties, although it contained matters that should be discussed in the final status negotiations. His vote should not in any way be considered to prejudge those negotiations.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Canada said she had changed her vote this year on the resolution on refugee properties and voted in favour. Her country had long maintained that the question of Palestinian property and the rights herein should be discussed in the context of final status negotiations. The current resolution had addressed the matter in that manner, making her vote possible.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Speaking before the vote on peace-keeping, the representative of China said that, regarding operative paragraph 4 of the draft, the budgetary implications should be considered in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). Inclusion of paragraph 4 was improper and he suggested it be deleted.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Costa Rica supported China's proposed revision.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Ireland, on behalf of the European Union, requested a brief adjournment before action on the draft, if the issue was to be put to vote.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Cuba said he supported without reservations the oral revision made by China. The current paragraph 4 was superfluous. As the programme budget implications stated, there were no financial implications. Operative paragraph 4 addressed how the Organization should proceed in the event any of the proposals contained therein had budgetary implications. Therefore, in such an event, the matter should be sent to the Fifth Committee. The Committee should not deal with matters that did not come within its purview.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of the Russian Federation said additional time was necessary in order to conduct further consultations on the matter. The statement on the programme budget implications of the peace-keeping draft text had been submitted recently. Time was needed for consultations.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Colombia said he supported China's suggestion. Operative paragraph 4 was unnecessary and not within the Committee's jurisdiction. It did not contribute to the Committee's discussion. Instead, it introduced extraneous elements. He urged that a decision be taken on the draft today.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Egypt said he was a traditional co-sponsor of the resolution. However, operative paragraph 4 had made him change his position in light of the new circumstances of the Assembly. He had consulted with many interested delegations and regrettably had not been able to reach agreement on the paragraph. He therefore supported China's revision. If that were not supported, he would withdraw his co-sponsorship of the resolution.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Committee Chairman said that numerous efforts had been made for consensus. In response to the representative of Ireland's request for time to coordinate the Union's position, he agreed to a brief adjournment.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>After a brief recess, the Committee then took a recorded vote on the oral amendment to delete operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on peace-keeping, which concerns budgetary implications of the draft for the bienniums 1996-1997 and 1998-1999. That oral amendment was approved by a vote of 125 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Turkey, United States), with no abstentions (Annex XII).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Speaking after the vote, the representative of Canada, speaking also for Australia and New Zealand, said he had voted in favour of the draft with the paragraph removed on the understanding that the draft did not in itself give rise to programme budget implications.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Argentina said he had voted in favour of the deletion of the paragraph. He associated himself with Canada's vote.\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Cuba asked that the draft, as amended, be adopted without a vote.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of the United States requested a recorded vote.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft, as orally amended, was then approved by a vote of 135 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States) with no abstentions (Annex XIII).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said he had sought to strengthen the Organization's peace-keeping capabilities and he had joined with other countries to support reforms within the Department of Peace-keeping Operations. The Secretariat had noted that the practice of loaned officers was essential to the Department's functions, and he supported it.   His country endorsed the principles of equitable geographical staffing and was committed to expanding its training capacities. He was committed to loaned officers, since they enhanced the Organization's capacities without added expenses. His country could not support the resolution without assurance that substitution of loaned officers would not add to the Organization's financial burdens.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said he had voted for deletion of paragraph 4, and in favour of the resolution. Still, he regretted that the practice of passing the resolution without a vote had not been continued. He hoped that consensus would be restored when the item was considered in the Assembly, and that method would be adhered to in the future. The resolution, and the Special Committee's report, should command consensus.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Concluding Statement by Committee Chairman<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>ALOUNKEO KITTIKHOUN, Committee Chairman, said that of 30 meetings allotted to the Committee, it had utilized 22. In terms of punctuality, the Committee had done well.  He had implemented the process of strict punctuality because of his own sense of discipline.  Almost all the Committee's meetings had been started on time. The Committee had also done well in adhering to the time limit of the statements.  He apologized again to those colleagues he had interrupted when they spoke past their allotted time limit.  At the same time, he was grateful to them for their understanding. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>On the issue of decolonization, he said that this year something different had occurred regarding the omnibus draft resolution. He had organized two informal talks between the concerned parties and they had then agreed to adopt seven out of 22 proposed amendments to the draft. In the spirit of flexibility, the administering Powers had dropped two amendments from their proposed text.  The Committee had then decided to defer taking action on the omnibus draft resolution until March 1997. The Committee was bound to that decision, which would now be left to the General Assembly.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He thanked the parties concerned on the matter of Western Sahara for their patience, sense of responsibility and mutual understanding. That spirit had allowed the Committee to approve the draft resolution without a vote. On the matter of atomic radiation and composition of relevant organs of the Organization, he recalled that the Committee had approved the draft on the former without a vote, and recommended the deletion of the latter item to the Assembly.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In its consideration of the Department of Public Information (DPI), he noted that the Committee had heard 39 speakers after the introductory statement made by the Department's director. That dialogue had given the Committee insight into the Department's financial shortfalls and had increased the Department's awareness of the concerns of delegations. Two drafts had been approved without a vote. On the peaceful uses of outer space, the main resolution was adopted without a vote. It was to be hoped that the Committee's deliberation of the matter would contribute to and enhance international cooperation on the peaceful uses of outer space.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Regarding the two items on Palestine — UNRWA and the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices — he said there had been 30 speakers on the former and 15 on the latter.  The resolutions on the items had been subjected to extensive informal discussions. Actions on the seven UNRWA draft resolutions and the five Israeli practice drafts had been taken today.  In accordance with the peace accords signed by both parties, he hoped the dialogue would continue.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>On the comprehensive review of peace-keeping, he said 61 speakers had taken the floor. It was an important and difficult issue. There had been two draft resolutions:  one on the safety of peace-keeping personnel; the other on comprehensive review.  The former was adopted without a vote. After extensive informal consultations, the latter draft was adopted by a recorded vote.  That was unfortunate.  He hoped that dialogue would be continued on that very important issue.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In closing, he expressed his indebtedness  to all members of the Committee's Secretariat, particularly the Committee's Secretary, Abdul Razzaque Khan.  He noted with regret that Mr. Khan, who had served the Organization with distinction for many years, was going to retire. His valuable services would be sorely missed, and on behalf of the Committee, he extended his best wishes.  He also thanked the Committee's two Vice-Chairmen, Anastasia Carayanides (Australia) and Sonia Leonce-Carryl (Saint Lucia), and its Rapporteur, Walid Deudech (Tunisia). Though four in number, the Bureau had acted as one, he said.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft resolution on the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices in the occupied territories (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.19) was approved by a recorded vote of 69 in favour to 2 against with 59 abstentions, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Abstaining: Andora, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,  Jamaica, Japan,  Kazakstan, Latvia,  Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,  Marshall Islands,  Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain,  Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Lesotho, Liberia,  Madagascar, Malawi,  Mauritius, Monaco, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zaire.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\n

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

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Applicability of 1949 Geneva Convention<\/p>\n

\t<\/span>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 Territories (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.20) was approved by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 2 against with 4 abstentions, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus,  Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia,  Lebanon, Lesotho,  Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,  Niger, Nigeria,  Norway, Oman, Pakistan,  Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
\n 
\n\t<\/span>Against: Israeli, United States.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon  Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zaire.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The orally amended draft resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territory (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.21\/Rev. 1) was approved by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 3 against with 6 abstentions, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Andorra, angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Dar-Salam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji,
\nFinland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, GReece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kuwait, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Abstaining:  Andora, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech  Republic, Denmark, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

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

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft resolution on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.22\/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 2 against with 7 abstentions, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Australia,  Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium,  Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
\n 
\n\t<\/span>Against: Israeli, United States.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Abstaining: Argentina, Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia, Guatemala, Marshall Islands, Panama, Uruguay.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kyrgyz  Republic,  Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The  draft  resolution on  the  occupied  Syrian  Golan  (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.23\/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 1 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,  India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kuwait, Lao  People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
\n 
\n\t<\/span>Against: Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Abstaining: Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia,  Guatemala, Marshall Islands, United States, Uruguay.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft resolution on assistance to Palestinian refugees (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.12) was approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 1 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam,  Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Abstaining: Federated States of Micronesia, United States.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyz Republic, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft resolution on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.14) by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cote D'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia,  Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Abstaining: Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua-Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros,  Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands,  Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Offers of Scholarships for Palestine Refugees<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft resolution on offers by  Member States  of grants and scholarships for  higher education for  Palestine refugees  (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.15) was approved by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana,  Greece, Guatemala, Guinea,  Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia,  Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon,  Lesotho, Liberia,  Libya,  Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,  Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Abstaining: Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua-Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and  Herzegovina, Cameroon,  Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyz Republic, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

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

\t<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Operations of UNRWA<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft resolution on the operation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency  for Palestine  Refugees in  the  Near East (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.16) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyz Republic, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone,
\nSolomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on Refugees' Properties<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft resolution on Palestine refugees' properties and their revenues (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.17) was approved by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 2 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Australia,  Austria, Azerbaijan,  Bahrain, Bangladesh,  Belarus, Belgium,  Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait,  Lao People's Democratic Republic,  Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Abstaining: Argentina, Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guatemala, Jamaica, Marshall Islands, Turkey.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Vote on University of Jerusalem 'Al-Quds'<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft resolution on the University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds" for Palestine refugees (document A\/C.4\/51\/L.18) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour 2 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho,  Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Abstaining: Costa Rica, Federated States of Micronesia.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Palau,Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\/…<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

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

\n

ga4ct.96<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SPECIAL POLITICAL AND DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON PALESTINE RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY, ISRAELI PRACTICES, PEACE-KEEPING Committee concludes work for current session; Thirteen draft resolutions recommended to General Assembly The General Assembly would address a broad range of issues concerning the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"country":[],"document-category":[1329],"document-source":[5618],"committee-meeting":[],"document-subject":[1945,2441,1861,2237,2613,1961,2349,1745,2137,2729,1917],"entity":[5343,1729],"document-language":[6542],"class_list":["post-212980","document","type-document","status-publish","hentry","document-category-press-release","document-source-general-assembly-fourth-committee-special-political-and-decolonization","document-subject-assistance","document-subject-education-and-culture","document-subject-fourth-geneva-convention","document-subject-golan-heights","document-subject-internally-displaced-persons","document-subject-jerusalem","document-subject-living-conditions","document-subject-refugees-and-displaced-persons","document-subject-settlements","document-subject-shelter","document-subject-situation-in-the-opt-including-jerusalem","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\/212980","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\/212980\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country?post=212980"},{"taxonomy":"document-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-category?post=212980"},{"taxonomy":"document-source","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-source?post=212980"},{"taxonomy":"committee-meeting","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/committee-meeting?post=212980"},{"taxonomy":"document-subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-subject?post=212980"},{"taxonomy":"entity","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/entity?post=212980"},{"taxonomy":"document-language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-language?post=212980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}