{"id":213666,"date":"1997-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-12T20:39:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?p=213666"},"modified":"2019-03-12T20:39:25","modified_gmt":"2019-03-12T20:39:25","slug":"auto-insert-213666","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/auto-insert-213666\/","title":{"rendered":"Jerusalem\/Settlements – GA emergency session debate – Press release"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

General Assembly Plenary<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Tenth Emergency Special Session<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

7th Meeting (PM)<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

GENERAL ASSEMBLY CALLS FOR NEW MOMENTUM IN STALLED MIDDLE EAST<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

PEACE PROCESS, SEEKS END TO ISRAELI SETTLEMENT ACTIVITY<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Majority at Special Session also Support Holding Conference<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

On Applying Geneva Convention Rules in Occupied Territories<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span>At its resumed tenth emergency special session this afternoon, the General Assembly condemned the Israeli Government's failure to comply with previous resolutions, including the call for an end to the construction of Jebal Abu Ghneim, south of East Jerusalem,  and  all other settlement activity.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Further, the Assembly called  for re-injecting momentum into the stalled Middle East peace process and for the implementation of all agreements between Israel and the Palestine  Liberation Organization  (PLO), and  the upholding of the "land for peace" principle.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>It took that action by adopting a resolution, as orally amended, by  a vote of 139 in  favour to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States), with 13 abstentions.  (See Annex.)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Assembly also reiterated its recommendation that the High Contracting  Parties to the  Fourth Geneva  Convention on  the protection of civilians in  time of war  convene a conference on measures  to enforce the Convention in the Occupied  Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem.  It also recommended that the Government of  Switzerland, in  its capacity as depository of  the Geneva Convention,  convene a meeting  of experts  with a target date not later than the end of February 1998.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Permanent Observer  of Switzerland said there  was a lack of consensus on  the convening of a conference and its goals.  However, a majority of States parties had  called for a conference.  While only a few were against it, others raised serious concerns, including  that it might damage efforts to advance the peace process.  He said the proposed conference  would be effective only if it were carefully  prepared and  all interested  parties participated.  The Contracting Parties should respect their commitments  to international  humanitarian law and facilitate the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of the United States  said his Government was concerned about construction at Har Homa (Jebal Abu Ghneim), which undermined the peace process and did  not establish an environment for successful negotiation.  However, the  tenth  emergency  special  session  and  the resolution did not contribute to that goal.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Statements were also made by Singapore, Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Tunisia,  Pakistan, Yemen, South Africa, Namibia, Kuwait, Syria  and Cuba.  The observer of the ICRC addressed the Assembly.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Jordan introduced the draft resolution and read out oral amendments.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Explanations of vote were made by Swaziland, Canada, Japan, Norway, Australia, Syria, Israel and the Republic of Korea. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Israel, Egypt and the Observer of Palestine spoke in exercise of the right of reply.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m., Wednesday, 19  November,  to appoint a member of the Joint Inspection Unit and consider the agenda  item, "Towards a culture  of peace".   It will also consider assistance in  mine clearance. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Assembly Work Programme<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly met again this  afternoon  to consider illegal Israeli actions  in  occupied  East Jerusalem  and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory.  The Assembly had before it a report of the Secretary- General submitted in accordance with resolution ES-10\/3 adopted on 15 July.  It was also  expected to take action on a related draft resolution.  (For further details, see Press Release GA\/9355 of today's date.)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>PANG TE CHENG (Singapore) said Israel's  decision to proceed  with the building  of a settlement in East Jerusalem could undermine the Middle East peace process.  All governments had the right to adopt policies and address the  housing needs  of their  populations, and Israel was entitled to its housing plans to provide  for the housing needs  of both Jews and Arabs in the country, but the selection of East Jerusalem as the venue for a housing project was controversial because  unilateral steps  would only  complicate the already difficult negotiations.  The final status of Jerusalem, a city which was sacred not only to Jews but also to Muslims and Christians, was still subject to negotiations between the parties.  Singapore urged the Israeli Government to reconsider the housing  project in  East Jerusalem so that the peace process could continue unimpeded.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said Singapore firmly believed the peace process was the only path  to peace  and security  for both  the Palestinians and Israel, and also their neighbours.  He reaffirmed his country's commitment to a just and lasting peace  based  on Security  Council  resolutions 242, 338 and  425 and the framework  of  international law.  Singapore would  continue  to support efforts that would enable the  Palestinian  people  to realize  their just aspirations.   <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>SERGEI LAVROV (Russian Federation) said unilateral actions could negatively affect the negotiating process, he and called on Israel to halt the construction of new settlements  and immediately start implementing the Palestinian-Israeli agreements.  He said Israeli  security should, of course, be taken into account and noted that Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, had visited the  region to make a contribution to breaking the deadlock.  He had put forward an initiative to  strengthen the climate of trust and  international legality in the region and the development of cooperation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Mr. Lavrov said Russia agreed with the argument in favour of convening a conference on implementation of the Fourth  Geneva Convention.  But it also agreed with those States who proposed a meeting  of experts from interested countries, to assess all aspects of convening a conference and to consider ways of improving the humanitarian situation in the   Palestinian territories.  He said Russia was ready to contribute to efforts  aimed at finding  a mutually  acceptable  formula  that  could help  implement the Convention's  provisions concerning  the occupied  territories, and expected that such a formula would be reflected in the  draft resolution to come before the Assembly.  As a co-sponsor of the  peace process, Russia  would continue taking  steps to  make sure it moved forward.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>MACHIVENYIKA MAPURANGA (Zimbabwe) said the Organization of African  Unity (OAU) had passed resolutions welcoming the peace process and exhorting  all parties involved,  particularly the  Palestinian Liberalization Organization (PLO) and Israel, to persevere in consolidating the peace process in order to bring to fruition the peace and prosperity that  had eluded the region for several decades.  The OAU position was that the international  community must help to save the Middle East region from war and conflict. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said the provisions of the  existing agreements and accords between the PLO and Israel must be sincerely complied with.  The Israeli leadership should concede the  realities on the ground  and resolve all pending issues with the Palestinian National Authority, including the immediate  reversal of  all provocative and illegal  acts of  building new settlements  in East Jerusalem and other occupied Palestinian lands.  The construction of those settlements was the single most important cause  of conflict in the  region.  Zimbabwe supported the draft before the Assembly and urged all delegations to do so.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>ALI HACHANI (Tunisia) said the Assembly had come together again to condemn the illegal  Israeli activities in East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories.  It was clear that Israel had not followed up  on any of the demands  of the Assembly,  and had not ended its colonization of the occupied territories.  Nor had it ceased its settlements.  Israel, the occupying Power, had not yet admitted the applicability of the Fourth Geneva  Convention and had only implemented a minimum number of the Assembly's demands.  For example, it had not indicated its intention to cease its illegal activities.  Everyone was aware of the impact of those activities on the peace  process.  Israel was continuing its defiance of the will of the international community and commitments that  flowed from  its membership of the United Nations.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said the Assembly must counter Israel's illegal activities in order to save the credibility of the international organization.  The Assembly  must ask Switzerland  to prepare for the convening of a conference.  The draft resolution before the Assembly met the demands of the present situation and legitimate claims which had not been  met by Israel.  He called  on Israel to drop its illegitimate actions and implement all aspects of  relevant United Nations resolutions.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>VICTOR MARRERO (United States) said this was neither  the time, the place, nor the format in which the lack of progress in negotiations could  receive the consideration it deserved, and that the problem could be addressed only in  face-to-face negotiations.    His Government was concerned about construction at Har Homa, which undermined the peace process and  did not establish an environment for successful negotiation.  All wanted to achieve a lasting, just and  comprehensive peace in the  Middle East, and the United Nations could play a positive role in that regard.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>However, this emergency special session and the  draft resolution before the  Assembly did not contribute to that goal.  Actions by the United Nations such as the annual passage  of the Assembly's "positive" resolution on the Middle East peace process  could help   create support and encouragement for  it. But  condemnatory actions eroded  the confidence  and trust on which the road to peace was built.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said the United Nations must learn the language  of cooperation, not condemnation;  it must encourage, not discourage.  The United Nations was involved in efforts to  energize the peace process.  The parties were taking steps towards  progress, and the United Nations resolution with its call for a conference  on  implementation of  the  provisions  of the  Fourth  Geneva Convention would  make the work of  the negotiating  parties more difficult, not easier. The resolution  would not achieve the goal it sought, which  was why the United States would vote against it.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>AHMAD KAMAL (Pakistan) said measures aimed  at  changing the  physical character,  demographic  composition, institutional structure or status of the  Palestinian and  other Arab territories occupied  since 1967, including Jerusalem, had no legal validity and must be rescinded.  The deportation of local inhabitants from the  occupied  territories  constituted a serious violation  of international conventions.  It was also a flagrant and unacceptable violation of The Hague resolutions of 1907, the relevant resolutions of the  Security Council and the General Assembly, the Declaration of Principles, as well as the subsequent agreements concluded between the Palestinians and the Israelis.   Pakistan strongly condemned all those actions and policies. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said his country had steadfastly supported the just struggle for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.  It believed that Al-Quds Al-Sharif, occupied  since  1967 by Israel, was the core issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  It remained central to any comprehensive settlement, and no lasting peace in the region would be possible without the return of Al-Quds and all occupied territories to the Palestinian people.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>It was  now incumbent upon the Assembly to do what the Security Council had failed to do,  and ensure that the process was not undermined because of the provocative and irresponsible actions of Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>IBRAHIM SAID AL-ADOUFI (Yemen) said the Israeli Government was  to be condemned for its refusal to respond to the recommendations of the Assembly and the Security Council.  Yemen called on Israel to cease construction of its illegal settlements in Jebal Abu Ghneim and other parts of the occupied territories — actions which were in grave violation of  Council resolutions.  The international  community should  also  call on  Israel  to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention.  It had become clear how the current Israeli  Government undermined the peace  process and the policy of land  for peace.  Israel's  establishment of settlements, confiscation of properties detention of  scores of  people  were all  in violation  of international laws. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said Israel had not complied with its commitments to  the Palestinian people.   The current situation was  particularly grave at a time when the world was seeking peace.  The continuation of the aggressive action  towards the Palestinian people must end.  He called  on Switzerland to make the necessary preparations for a conference to which the Palestinian Authority should be invited.  He also called on  the international community to  bring pressure  on the  Israeli Government to abide by relevant United Nations resolutions.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>KHIPHUSIZI JOSIAH JELE (South Africa) said that, despite clear condemnation by the  General Assembly and  the international  community, the Israeli Government had  persisted in constructing illegal settlements.  The Assembly had underscored that actions by  Israel amounted  to a unilateral attempt to change the legal status of Jerusalem, an issue to be  discussed at a later time.  The Israeli Government  also rejected  the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said South Africa supported the  Palestinian people because it believed peace in the Middle East could be achieved only when they had won  their rights.  The existing peace  agreements must be implemented quickly and the stalled peace process  should be rescued.   The General Assembly must remain seized of the matter; violations of  Security Council and General Assembly resolutions could not be allowed to continue  with impunity.  South Africa intended to vote in favour of the  resolution because it would send a clear message  that the international community was determined to put the peace process back on track.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>MARTIN ANDJABA (Namibia) said his delegation had emphasized  that it was not possible  to divorce the complete nationhood of the Palestinian people from a just, comprehensive  and lasting peace in  the Middle East.  It was concerned that thousands of Palestinians in  the occupied territories continued to live under abhorrent conditions, while others were  said to remain in  Israeli prisons, subjected to torture and other mistreatment.  The Israeli authorities were attempting to alter the political geographical  setting of East Jerusalem in its favour.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He  said  resolutions ES-10\/2 and ES-10\/3 from the emergency special session remained  valid, and Namibia called on the Israeli Government to implement  them.  He supported the recommendation to convene a conference on measures to enforce the Fourth Geneva  Convention.   The PLO should be involved in the  preparation such a conference.  Both  parties should return to the negotiating table and recommit themselves to  a  peaceful settlement.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>MOHAMMAD A. ABULHASAN (Kuwait) said Assembly resolutions ES-10\/2 and ES-10\/3 indicated that Israel should immediately stop building settlements and refrain  from illegal  activities against the Palestinian people in East Jerusalem.  They also demanded that  Israel respect the Fourth Geneva Convention.  The Israeli Government was continuing  its intransigence and lack of respect for the will of the  international community and Assembly resolutions.   The Assembly should condemn Israel's actions.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said the Secretary-General's report indicated that there was  clear international agreement to convene a conference on measures to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention.   Kuwait supported those calling for such a conference.  It condemned Israel's continued violations of relevant United Nations resolutions,  particularly  its construction  of  new  settlements in East Jerusalem.  It also called on the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention and on Switzerland to start the necessary preparations for a conference. The United Nations should continue its important role in the peace process.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Israel should stop undermining the peace process and implement  relevant Security  Council  resolutions fully and completely.  It should withdraw immediately from southern  Lebanon.  The world had witnessed Israel's failure to meet the legitimate claims  and rights of the Palestinian people.  The Member States should support the  current draft resolution and implement it as soon as possible.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>MIKHAIL WEHBE (Syria) said practices inherent in Israeli policies violated  the rights of Palestinian people, including those  in Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan.  Numerous  resolutions of the United Nations had not prevented Israel  from  disregarding  the will of the international community, and persistently working  against a just  and lasting peace.  Israel was not a peace-loving State; it was defying international law.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said Israel was persisting in  building settlements without regard  for Security  Council resolutions, which had condemned those activities.  In Jebal Abu Ghneim, the bulldozers were still at working,  despite calls, including one  from the United  States, for such  activity to end.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had recently  confirmed that the Golan was a vital zone for Israeli security.  The  peace process was at  an impasse, due to the Israeli Government's disregard for the will  of the international community.  Israeli practices sought to break away from past agreements and commitments, and to abolish the Madrid peace process.  Prime Minister Netanyahu was disregarding the policy of land for peace. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said security was the result of peace, which was not possible without dignity and justice.  Israel's persistence  in its erroneous concepts, while its  occupation continued, would turn  the peace into a mutual bloodbath and not bring  security.  Israel had  a history of  State terrorism, the latest example of which was the recent assassination attempt in Jordan.  The Arab countries  had declared  on various occasions their  objection to terrorism.  Syria cherished a just and lasting peace, based on relevant Council resolutions and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.  The High Contracting Parties  to the  Fourth Geneva Convention should agree to the convening of a conference as soon as possible.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>CARIDAD YAMIRA CUETO MILIAN (Cuba) said the constant in Israel's policy was the violation of the people and territory of Palestine.  Cuba supported a lasting peace in the Middle East and  was in favour of a return of all the Arab territories by Israel.  The  international community must condemn Israel for its flagrant violations of all decisions and  resolutions by the international community.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>She said Israel must put  an end to its policies  of expanding the illegal settlements which led to the destruction  and demolition of many Palestinian homes.  It must  also cease detentions  and economic policies that  violated the principles of international  law.  It was necessary to take measures  to protect  the Palestinian  people, international  law and  the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.  Her country supported the Conference of  the  High Contracting Parties of the Convention, which was a source of  international law, coexistence of nations and human dignity, and must be respected.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>SYLVIE JUNOD, observer for the International  Committee of  the Red Cross (ICRC), said  the organization's humanitarian activities in Israel  and the occupied territories included visiting detainees, restoring contact between separated  family members and  providing medical  assistance.  The ICRC had always called on the Israeli Government to  comply with  provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and always affirmed its applicability to the  territories occupied by Israel in 1967.  Israel remained bound to the Convention.  The ICRC repeatedly noted disregard for international humanitarian law,  such as the transfer of parts of the population of the  occupied territories into Israeli territory, and was concerned about it.  Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention  stipulated that the parties must respect the Convention in  all circumstances.  The  States decided on  the means and  methods.  International responses to humanitarian problems should be assessed in view of the  practical results that might be achieved.  The ICRC was free of political motivations and impartial, to carry out its mandate.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>JENO C.A. STAEHELIN, Permanent Observer of Switzerland, said there was  a lack of consensus on the convening of a conference between parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.   Consultations  had not succeeded in indicating what goals such a conference should achieve.  However, a majority of  States parties  to the Convention  had called  for a  conference.  Only a few were against, and serious concerns were raised, that such a conference might damage efforts to advance the peace  process; that it  was necessary  to carefully  prepare such a conference; and that alternative or prior steps might be taken before the conference.  Switzerland agreed  with some  of those concerns.  International law and  humanitarian action must not be politicized.  The top priority for  any initiative must be  a strengthening of the peace process on the ground.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He  said  Switzerland had agreed to a proposal by the twenty-sixth Conference  of the  Red Cross  and the Red Crescent to organize periodic meetings to examine general  humanitarian problems.  No political issues would be discussed at those meetings.  The first one would take place in January, and  would be  a forum  of non-political  dialogue between  States.  Switzerland also supported any initiative that would improve the  situation on the ground.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>There was no alternative to the peace process.  The  proposed conference could  not be  effective unless  all  the interested  parties  participated.  Such a conference must be  carefully prepared, and time must be taken in the preparation  to ensure its success.   Switzerland  reminded the Contracting Parties to respect their commitments to international humanitarian  law and facilitate the activities of the ICRC.  Switzerland was committed to three goals:  non-politicization of humanitarian  aid,  support  of  the  peace process, and improvement of the situation on the ground.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The representative of Jordan introduced the draft resolution and announced  that Brunei Darussalam, Pakistan and Viet Nam had joined the list of co-sponsors.  He then read out amendments to the text.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>An eleventh preambular paragraph to be added, to read as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>"recalling its rejection of terrorism, in all its  forms and manifestations, in   accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions and declarations".<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Operative paragraph 5 to be amended, to read as follows:  "recommends to the  Government of Switzerland, in  its capacity as depository  of the Geneva Convention, to   undertake the necessary  steps, including the convening of a meeting of experts in order  to follow up on the above  mentioned recommendation, with a target date of, but not later than, the end of February 1998."<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Explanations of vote<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>MOSES M. DLAMINI (Swaziland) said that  since the Madrid Conference  there was  a genuine  agreement which had been endorsed by the parties in the conflict.  His  country  had been waiting for the two parties to come together  to honour  the Madrid Accord.   Negotiating meant  standing in the middle and arbitrating on an issue of conflict.  No one could win a war, but when parties talked they finally agreed.  His country  would, thus, abstain from voting.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>ROBERT R. FOWLER (Canada) said the draft resolution reflected  his country's  concerns regarding  the ongoing construction of a new settlement in Jebal  Abu Ghneim\/Har  Homa.  It  was contrary to international law and harmful to the peace process.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Canada's policy was that the  Fourth Geneva Convention  did apply to  the territories  occupied by  Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem.  As a High Contracting Party,  its decision  about  the  merits of  convening the conference would be made after  a  full examination  of the  necessity and possible outcome of such a conference, as well  as cost implications and, of course, full consultations with other High Contracting Parties.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He said Canada  believed it was incumbent on the parties to honour  and fully implement their existing agreements.  That commitment must include  a determined effort  on  the part of the Palestinian leadership  to  combat terrorism.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>MASAKI KONISHI (Japan) said he would vote in favour of the draft because his  country  agreed  with  the  general thrust  of  the resolution on  the construction activities in East Jerusalem.  It was concerned, however, that the Conference of the High Contracting  Parties for Fourth Geneva Convention would have a negative effect on the peace process.  It was Japan's hope that Palestine and  Israel could bring the peace process to the table.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>HANS JACOB BIORN LIAN (Norway) said the emergency special session  of the General Assembly  was not conducive  to progress in the peace process, and his Government had  reservations about many elements in the  draft resolution. Ultimately, it was  the responsibility of the parties themselves to move the peace process forward and implement the peace agreements.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>However, Norway was deeply concerned about Israel's settlement activities in the Palestinian areas.  Unilateral steps were not in the spirit of the agreements between the two  sides and contrary to international law.  That was why Norway would vote in favour of the resolution.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Assembly then adopted the resolution, as orally  revised, by a vote of 139 in favour  to 3 against (Federated  States of Micronesia, Israel, United States), with 13 abstentions.  (See Annex.)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>JOHN CRIGHTON (Australia) said settlement activity was unhelpful to the peace  process.  His Government urged  the  concerned  parties to  commit themselves to the  process.  He abstained on the draft because there was no substitute to direct talks between the parties themselves.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Mr. WEHBE (Syria) said his delegation voted in  favour of the resolution and supported  the Palestinian  people's right to self-determination, with East Jerusalem as its capital.   Syria wanted to resume the peace process from the  point it had reached in Washington.    Israel must respect commitments made by previous Israeli governments.  Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories were illegal, ran counter to international law and  violated relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.  The draft resolution   adopted today affirmed the responsibility of the United Nations vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli  conflict, with  the Palestinian question at its core.  The peace process was stalled because the present Israeli  Government abandoned the  peace process.  Syria regretted the  preambular paragraph in the draft which concentrated on occupied  Palestinian territories,  rather than all  occupied Arab territories.   Another of the preambular paragraphs should have concentrated on Israeli settlement activities.  He said the Arab countries  were  against terrorism  and  made  a  distinction  between terrorism and legitimate struggle.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>DAVID PELEG (Israel) said  the resolution  adopted today  would not bring the parties together, but rather would  continue to  provide an excuse  for those  who wished  to  see  the issue dealt with by fiat in international forums, rather than  by direct bilateral talks.  The Assembly had not done itself credit by gathering every  few months to pass an outdated resolution which had no effect whatsoever on the actual workings of the peace process.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The recommendation contained in the resolution concerning the High Contracting  Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention was especially regrettable, since it politicized an essential humanitarian  instrument.  That would  set a  dangerous  precedent  which  undermined the Convention and efforts to implement it.  For those reasons, Israel voted against the resolution.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>HAE-JIN CHUN (Republic of Korea) said there had not been much progress  in the  peace process, despite recent efforts.  The situation on  the ground continued unchanged and Israeli settlement activity had not ceased.  Those activities should end immediately and all  sides should negotiate all issues openly and candidly.  There  was a risk  that the  momentum of the peace process would be lost.  He had, therefore, voted in favour of the resolution.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Right of Reply<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Mr. PELEG (Israel), speaking  on  right  of  reply,  referred to  this morning's statement made by the representative  of Egypt, on events  leading to  the June 1967  war and Israel's subsequent presence in the territories.  He said Israel's presence in territories was a result of having to fight a war of self-defence thrust on it by both the  actions and rhetoric of  a number  of Arab leaders  at the  time, mostly notably the  then President of Egypt, Abdul Nasser.  He said Israel wanted  to set  the  record straight, hopefully for the last time, on the words of aggression and violence  that emanated from Cairo in those days.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He then read exerts from Radio Cairo on 17  May 1967 by  President Nasser who said "Egypt, with all her resources — human, economic and scientific — is prepared  to plunge  into a total war which will be the end of Israel."  On that  day, he  went on,  Egypt demanded  the immediate withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force from its  buffer positions between Egypt  and Israel, and the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip.   Unfortunately, Secretary-General Thant acquiesced  to that demand.  Then  Nasser ordered 100,000 troops to enter Sinai and take up positions formerly held by  United Nations forces.  Other Arab  countries committed forces and encircled Israel in a ring of<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

hostility.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Israel wanted to remind the Assembly that but  for such  aggressive action, there would have been no war in 1967, and Israel would  not at present be in the territories, and Member States would not be debating the issue.  Israel remained committed to peace with its   neighbours and called on the Palestinians and others who  were party  to the  peace process  to join  in redoubling efforts to achieve peace.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>HOSSAM ZAKI (Egypt) said Israel had quoted some media comments made 30 years  ago on Cairo Radio well  before the establishment of peace.  There was no point in saying that the  Cairo broadcasts were a provocation to war, since there was also an endless list of propaganda coming from Israel. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>He had a problem understanding  the Israeli  representative's  statement that  if the provocation had not occurred, Israel would  not have occupied the territories.  Israeli comments indicated  its particular attachment and, therefore, right to that land.   The war was either one  for "a right" or a matter of self-defence.  Egypt had started peace in the region and worked tirelessly to establish it among all  countries, including Israel.  It should not, therefore, be subjected to such statements.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>NASSER AL-KIDWA, Observer for Palestine, said  he wished  to express the gratitude  of the Palestinian people and its leadership to all Member States who had supported  the resolution.  Despite the reluctance of some parties, his delegation was still proud of the  just and clear decision which had been adopted by the majority.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

\n

Vote on Illegal Israeli Actions in Occupied Palestine Territory<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The draft resolutions on  illegal Israeli  actions  in  occupied  East Jerusalem  and the rest of the  occupied Palestinian territory, as revised (document A\/ES-10\/L.3), was adopted by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to  3 against, with 13 abstentions:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria,  Andorra,  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,  Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus,  Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso,  Canada, Cape  Verde, Chad, Chile,  China, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic  Republic of the Congo,  Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary,  Iceland, India, Indonesia,  Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao   People's Democratic  Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta,  Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,  Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua  New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation,  Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia,  Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria,  Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,  Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United  Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Abstain:   Australia, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Georgia, Marshall  Islands, Nicaragua, Romania, Rwanda,  Swaziland, Uzbekistan  and Zambia.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Absent:  Cambodia, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea,  Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Palau, Panama, Republic of the Congo, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles,  Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Vanuatu.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

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

General Assembly Plenary Tenth Emergency Special Session 7th Meeting (PM) GENERAL ASSEMBLY CALLS FOR NEW MOMENTUM IN STALLED MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS, SEEKS END TO ISRAELI SETTLEMENT ACTIVITY Majority at Special Session also Support Holding Conference On Applying Geneva Convention Rules in Occupied Territories At its resumed tenth emergency special session this afternoon, the General […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"country":[],"document-category":[2377,1329],"document-source":[1365],"committee-meeting":[],"document-subject":[1961,2137],"entity":[1729],"document-language":[6542],"class_list":["post-213666","document","type-document","status-publish","hentry","document-category-multimedia","document-category-press-release","document-source-general-assembly","document-subject-jerusalem","document-subject-settlements","entity-united-nations-system","document-language-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document\/213666","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\/213666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country?post=213666"},{"taxonomy":"document-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-category?post=213666"},{"taxonomy":"document-source","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-source?post=213666"},{"taxonomy":"committee-meeting","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/committee-meeting?post=213666"},{"taxonomy":"document-subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-subject?post=213666"},{"taxonomy":"entity","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/entity?post=213666"},{"taxonomy":"document-language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-language?post=213666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}