Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search
Souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles dans les territoires palestiniens occupés - Débat de la Deuxième Commission de l’AG - Compte rendu (extraits)

English (pdf) ||Arabic||Chinese||Français||Русский||Español||

Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS


        General Assembly
15 January 2016

Original: English

Seventieth session
Official Records

Second Committee

Summary record of the 31st meeting
Held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 12 November 2015, at 3 p.m.

Chair: Mr. Logar ............................................................. (Slovania)



Agenda item 64: Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources (continued)


The meeting was called to order at 3.10 p.m.


Agenda item 64: Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources (continued) (A/C.2/70/L.21)

Draft resolution on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources (A/C.2/70/L.21)

38. The Chair said that the resolution contained no programme budget implications and that Turkey had joined the list of sponsors.

39. Mr. Marobe (South Africa) introduced a correction to the second footnote of the draft resolution.

40. Mr. Amer (Israel), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that once again the important work of the Second Committee had been side-tracked by those who preferred to exploit the Committee for their own political agendas and remain in their comfort zone of Israel-bashing, rather than doing the difficult work of finding solutions, compromising and striving for reconciliation.

41. The draft resolution was based on a report of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia that embodied everything that a United Nations report should not be: it was one-sided, economical with the truth, factually lacking and selective in its data and analysis. Both the report and the draft resolution ignored the fact that Gaza was controlled by a terrorist organization, which divided its time and resources between attacking Israeli civilians (as had been the case in the 2014 conflict), violating the human rights of its own people, and misusing the financial resources at its disposal.

42. Unfortunately, the draft resolution did not contain any prescriptive elements calling for the conflict to be solved through direct negotiations that were based on a willingness to compromise, the promotion of reconciliation and the rejection of hatred and incitement.

43. The annual ritual of Israel-bashing and pro-Palestinian lip service was in fact a disservice to the Palestinians, and served only those who preferred continued conflict, division and unilateralism. The fact that it was the only conflict discussed in the Second Committee illustrated that the proponents of the draft resolution were only concerned with perceived political gain, rather than finding solutions for the mutual advantage of Israelis and Palestinians alike. His delegation had therefore requested a vote and would vote against the resolution.

44. Mr. Flies (Luxembourg), speaking on behalf of the European Union in explanation of vote before the voting , said that as in the past, the European Union would support the draft resolution. However, the use of the term Palestine in the draft resolution could not be construed as recognition of the State of Palestine and was without prejudice to the individual position of Member States on that issue and on the validity of accession by Palestine to the conventions and treaties mentioned therein.

45. In addition, the adoption of the resolution was without prejudice to the results of the discussions on the revitalization of the work of the Second Committee, in particular with regard to the addition of subjects to the agenda and the reports ensuring the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness of the Committee’s work, especially in the context of implementing the 2030 Agenda and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda.

46. A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, 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, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, 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, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States of America.


Australia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Togo, Tonga.

47. Draft resolution A/C.2/70/L.21 was adopted by 156 votes to 7, with 9 abstentions.

48. Mr. Abushawesh (Observer for the State of Palestine) expressed his condolences to the Lebanese people and their families, as well as the Government, for the terrorist attacks that had claimed many lives that day.

49. The draft resolution just adopted recognized the right of the Palestinians to permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, including land and water, and therefore to reparations when those resources were exploited or endangered by illegal measures being taken by the occupying Power in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. Those measures included the building of settlements and the construction of the separation wall, in defiance of international law and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

50. It would be useful to remember the lessons of history: those who had provoked disasters in other countries had been forced to pay reparations to their victims. Israel itself had received reparations on account of the actions committed by the Nazis. However, although certain losses could be covered by reparations, others could not be quantified monetarily.

51. The representative of Israel had yet again made the claim that Gaza was governed by a terrorist group. In fact, Gaza, the West Bank, occupied East Jerusalem and Israel itself were all governed by a gang of terrorists and settlers. Some days prior, the European Union had taken a step to consolidate peace in the Near East by deciding to label products produced in Israeli settlements. That was a legitimate step in the right direction that would bring Palestinians and Israelis closer to peace. The international community should now take the further step of boycotting products coming from the settlements and boycotting the settlers themselves, all of whom were terrorists, by prohibiting them from entering their countries, refusing to grant them citizenship, and refusing to grant them credentials as members of the Israeli diplomatic corps.


Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter