爆料网

21 February 2025

Note: Excerpts of the Summary records related to the question of Palestine has been reproduced below.

Third Committee

Summary record of the 51st meeting

Held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 14 November 2024, at 3 p.m.

Chair: Mr. Maniratanga (Burundi)

Contents

Agenda item 27: Advancement of women (continued)

Agenda item 66: Report of the Human Rights Council (continued)

Agenda item 70: Right of peoples to self-determination (continued)

Agenda item 71: Promotion and protection of human rights (continued)

(b)??? Human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (continued)

The meeting was called to order at 3.05 p.m.

/…

Agenda item 70: Rights of peoples to self-determination (continued) (A/C.3/79/L.49)

???????????????????? Draft resolution A/C.3/79/L.49: The right of the Palestinian people to self?determination

45. The Chair said that the draft resolution had no programme budget implications.
46. Ms. Rizk (Egypt), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said that the Palestinian people enjoyed the same human rights as all peoples, including the right to self-determination, the most foundational of all rights and freedoms. They had the right to live in their own independent and sovereign State and to decide on their own political, cultural and economic development, without any control or threat by a foreign party, in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations. As in previous years, the draft resolution contained calls for an end to the Israeli presence in the territories it had occupied since 1967 and for the fulfilment of the two-State solution on the basis of internationally agreed terms of reference, with a view to achieving just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East.
47. In its historic advisory opinion issued in July 2024, the International Court of Justice had determined that Israel must bring an end to its continued unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible, and had called upon Member States to comply with their obligations and ensure compliance by Israel, the occupying Power. OIC applauded the countries that had recently recognized the State of Palestine, which was a significant step towards the realization of justice, peace and the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Countries should fulfil their obligations under international law to bring an end to the illegal occupation by Israel of the State of Palestine. OIC urged countries that had not yet done so to recognize the State of Palestine and support it as a full member of the United Nations.
48. Mr. Mahmassani (Secretary of the Committee) said that the following delegations had become sponsors of the draft resolution: Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Namibia, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Viet Nam.
49. He then noted that the following delegations also wished to become sponsors: Central African Republic, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Syrian Arab Republic and Zimbabwe.
50. The Chair said that a recorded vote had been requested on the draft resolution.
51. Ms. Salem (Observer for the State of Palestine) said that the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination was not subject to conditions, reservations, negotiations or a vote; that right was inalienable, and there could be no derogation from its existence or exercise. The draft resolution was presented annually not due to any dispute over the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination or about their existence as a people, but rather because that right was systematically violated and suppressed by the prolonged and unlawful occupation by Israel, as had been confirmed by the International Court of Justice, which had dismissed the argument that, somehow, that right was conditional upon matters of security concerning the occupying Power.
52. The Government of Israel claimed that it had the right to occupy, build settlements, annex Palestinian land, forcibly displace the Palestinian people and declare unlawful sovereignty over their territory. It also claimed to have the power to frustrate Palestinian statehood, which was the ultimate expression of the right to self-determination. The draft resolution rejected those claims and affirmed international law, stressing the urgent need to end the Israeli occupation, confirm the independence of the Palestinian people and implement the two-State solution, so that the State of Palestine and Israel could exist side by side, in peace and security. The text did not seek to cancel out any State but rather to protect the State of Palestine from cancellation.
53. Ms. Mimran Rosenberg (Israel), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that the Committee had been working on improving its working methods, including by reducing the number of draft resolutions. The Committee’s consideration of a separate draft resolution on self-determination was undeniably political in nature and served as an example of the double standards it employed with regard to Israel. While the delegation of the State of Palestine would affirm that the draft resolution was about peace and that achieving such peace was possible, Member States should not be blinded by catchphrases. Israel had shown its willingness to compromise and make difficult sacrifices in order to achieve peace. Her delegation questioned whether the same could be said of others.
54. The attack on 7 October 2023 had not been an act of resistance or self-determination, but one of savagery, carried out by a genocidal terrorist organization that not only denied the sovereignty of Israel but also openly called for its destruction. However, the delegation of the State of Palestine had not condemned Hamas, had not said that innocent Israeli civilians should not be targeted and had not stated that the refusal by Hamas of the right of Israel to exist jeopardized the prospect of achieving peace in the region.
55. Following that attack, antisemitism and the delegitimization of Israel had reached unprecedented levels as part of an orchestrated political lynching, whose effects were being felt in all corners of the world. The international community had recently seen how words spoken in so-called Palestinian solidarity protests had been transformed into actions, as Jews were chased through the streets. The chant “from the river to the sea” had been heard in those protests. The Palestinian delegation had not expressed its concern regarding such chants, which denied the right to exist of the only Jewish State in the world. The Palestinian delegation had not worked bilaterally with Israel but had instead chosen to defame and delegitimize Israel on the international stage.
56. The need to respect and preserve the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, was stressed in the sixth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution. If the Committee stopped to consider what was between the West Bank and Gaza and the meaning of territorial unity as described in the text, it would realize that the zone in question ran “from the river to the sea”. The aim of the Palestinian delegation and the objective of the draft resolution was not to promote self-determination but rather to destroy the territorial integrity of a sovereign State that was a State Member of the United Nations and to deny the right to self-determination of the Jewish people. Her delegation had called for a vote on the draft resolution and would vote against it.
57. Ms. Arab Bafrani (Islamic Republic of Iran), making a general statement before the voting, said that the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to self-determination had long been denied. The world was witnessing an intensification of the Israeli regime’s violence and blatant use of force, which had led to the deaths of thousands of Palestinians each day and continued unabated with no accountability. The Islamic Republic of Iran vehemently condemned the atrocities committed by the Israeli regime against the Palestinians in full view of the international community. The international community should stand up for the right of displaced Palestinians to return to their homes, take serious action to end the occupation and secure the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to an independent State of Palestine.
58. The actions and decisions by the resistance of Palestine, which were solely determined by Palestinians themselves, were grounded in their right to self-determination. The Islamic Republic of Iran supported the Palestinian people in their struggle against occupation and in exercising their inalienable right to self-determination through the establishment of a sovereign State of Palestine with Al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital. Her delegation strongly supported the draft resolution and encouraged other delegations to show their opposition to the crimes against humanity and atrocities committed by the Israeli apartheid regime in the Palestinian territories. Her delegation’s vote in favour of the draft resolution should not be construed in any way, whether directly or indirectly, as a recognition of the Israeli regime.
59. Ms. Jabou Bessadok (Tunisia), making a general statement before the voting, said that peace in the Middle East could not be achieved without justice, and justice could be achieved only by fully recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to their land. Palestine belonged to the Palestinian people, and Tunisia opposed any attempt to fragment or reduce their territory. The solution lay in the recovery by Palestine of all its territory and in the establishment of a sovereign, independent State of Palestine, with Al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital. All Member States should recognize the rights of Palestine and support the legitimate aspirations of its people, and take immediate measures to end the occupation and allow Palestinians to recover their territory.
60. At the request of the representative of Israel, a recorded vote was taken on draft resolution A/C.3/79/L.49.

In favour:

Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, C?te d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:

Argentina, Israel, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Paraguay, United States of America.

Abstaining:

Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Togo, Tonga, Tuvalu.

61. Draft resolution A/C.3/79/L.49 was adopted by 170 votes to 6, with 9 abstentions.
62. Mr. Padilla Gonzalez (Cuba) said that his delegation was pleased to see the delegation of the State of Palestine among the Member States – where it should always have been – but regretted its continued absence in the voting results.
63. The genocide and indiscriminate massacres of the heroic people of Palestine committed by Israel with the shameful complicity of the United States must stop immediately. It was unacceptable that Israel had murdered some 40,000 and injured more than 100,000 Palestinians, most of whom were women and children, and was hindering the access of 80 per cent of humanitarian missions to Gaza. For decades, the Palestinian people had been the victims of the illegal occupation of their territory, the colonization of their land, violations of their rights and apartheid practices. His delegation condemned the murder of civilians and innocent people on all sides of the conflict, regardless of ethnicity, origin, nationality or religion. The dangerous expansion of the conflict into other countries in the region was a matter of concern.
64. Cuba reaffirmed its support for a broad, just and sustainable two-State solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that allowed for the exercise of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the creation of an independent and sovereign State of Palestine within the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and that guaranteed the right of refugees to return.
65. Ms. Eyrich (United States of America) said that her country had been clear in its commitment to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Regrettably, the draft resolution did not represent an effective step towards achieving that goal. Direct negotiations between the parties towards a durable two-State solution remained the best path to durable peace. The United States was committed to that goal and would continue to work with all Member States to chart a future where Palestinians realized their legitimate right to self-determination and a State of their own.
66. Mr. Mogyorósi (Hungary) said that his delegation’s vote in favour of the draft resolution did not alter the position of Hungary on General Assembly resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which neglected the legitimate security concerns of Israel. The resolution of the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be grounded in direct bilateral negotiations between the parties. Hungary reaffirmed its commitment to a just, comprehensive and lasting peace based on the two-State solution.
67. Ms. Qamash (Jordan) said that her country firmly supported the draft resolution, which reaffirmed the fundamental and inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, a right that was a peremptory norm. Any denial of that right perpetuated instability and deepened grievances in the region. The draft resolution was urgent in the light of the horrific violence in Gaza and the West Bank, where the targeting of hospitals, schools and vital infrastructure and the obstruction of essential humanitarian aid demonstrated a grave disregard for the basic rights and dignity of the Palestinian people. Acts of settler terrorism and practices edging towards ethnic cleansing had worsened the already dire conditions, and the calls by Israeli officials for Gaza to be reduced to rubble showed an alarming absence of a desire for peace. Such actions contradicted any stated commitment to a peaceful resolution and cast doubt on the will to achieve a just and lasting solution.
68. The fact that a vote had been requested on the draft resolution called into question the international community’s commitment to fundamental rights. The Palestinian people’s right to self-determination was inherent; it was not up for negotiation or conditional on political considerations. It was the international community’s collective responsibility to protect and promote the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

/…