Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search
Droit de peuple Palestine à l’autodétermination - Débat de la Troisième Commission de l’AG /Vote – Compte rendu

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



Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS

UNITED
NATIONS
A
        General Assembly
Distr.
GENERAL
A/C.3/65/SR.50
20 January 2011

Original: English
Sixty-fifth session
Official Records



Third Committee

Summary record of the 50th meeting Held at Headquarters, New York, on Monday, 22 November 2010, at 3 p.m.

Chair: Mr. Tommo Monthe .................................................... (Cameroon)



Contents

/... Agenda item 67: Right of peoples to self-determination (continued)

/...



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


/...

Agenda item 67: Right of peoples to self-determination (continued)

Draft resolution A/C.3/65/L.52: The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination

14. The Chair said that the draft resolution had no programme budget implications.

15. Mr. Selim (Egypt), introducing draft resolution A/C.3/65/L.52, said that Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Liberia, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, San Marino and Ukraine had joined the sponsors. The inalienable right to self-determination was enshrined in international law and international human rights instruments. It was not a gift to be bestowed by the international community on peoples living under colonialism and foreign occupation. Adoption of the draft resolution by consensus would send a strong positive message of solidarity to the Palestinian people and would surely contribute to the ultimate realization of their long-overdue right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent, sovereign and viable State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

16. Mr. Gustafik (Secretary of the Committee) said that Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Spain and Sweden had joined the sponsors.

17. Ms. Furman (Israel), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that in 2009, the new Prime Minister of Israel had spoken of his vision of peace, with two free peoples living side by side in that small land, with good neighbourly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and Government, with neither one threatening its neighbour’s security or existence. The Prime Minister’s offer to meet at any time and in any place to discuss peace was still valid.

18. Israel would vote against the resolution because real progress towards the self-determination of the Palestinian people would come not from one-sided political resolutions but through direct bilateral negotiations. Israel continued to call on the Palestinian leadership to return to negotiations without preconditions. The road to peace was not an easy one, but peace could certainly not be achieved until the two sides sat down to talk.

19. The draft resolution called for the unity of the Palestinian territories, but failed to address the fact that Hamas terrorists had violently seized control of the Gaza Strip, separating it administratively from the West Bank. Furthermore, the resolution failed to place any responsibility on the Palestinians to respect the safety and security of the State of Israel. Thousands of rockets and mortars had been launched against Israel in recent years, and during the previous weekend, another seven mortars and one long-range rocket had been fired from the Gaza Strip. Real peace should be based on security, mutual recognition and mutual respect, in order to ensure prosperity for the two peoples.

20. At the request of the representative of Israel, a recorded vote was taken on draft resolution A/C.3/65/L.52.


21. Draft resolution A/C.3/65/L.52 was adopted by 174 votes to 5, with 3 abstentions.

22. Mr. Díaz Bartolomé (Argentina) said that his delegation welcomed the adoption of the draft resolution and had also welcomed the adoption of draft resolution A/C.3/65/L.51 on the right to self-determination of peoples that were still under colonial domination or foreign occupation. The right to self-determination should be interpreted in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) and 2625 (XXV) and other relevant United Nations resolutions.

/...

27. Ms. Rasheed (Observer for Palestine) said that the brutal denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination was the cause of their suffering and of the problems faced by the Middle East region as a whole. The international community’s continuous affirmation of that right was critical. The resolution could only promote peace and should not be seen as contrary to the peace efforts, but as complementary and necessary. The right to self-determination was not a permanent status issue or an issue for negotiation, but an inalienable right of all peoples. Israel’s negative vote had sent the message that it rejected the creation of a Palestinian State and the vision of two States living side by side in peace and security. By opposing the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, Israel was violating the crux of the agreements, namely mutual recognition between the two sides. It was not possible to recognize the Palestinian people and their rights and yet refuse that people the right to self-determination.

28. The two-State solution for peace was seriously undermined by the continuation of illegal Israeli policies and practices. The continued colonization of Palestinian land, through the illegal settlement campaign and the unlawful construction of an expansionist wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, was seriously undermining the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the possibility of realizing the two-State solution. Those activities were the true threat to a peaceful settlement.

29. The 174 votes in favour and the 135 sponsors of the draft resolution illustrated the fact that the Israeli representative’s statement was merely an attempt by the occupying Power to distort the context of the occupation. Any solution for peace in the Middle East had to recognize and guarantee the basic rights of both peoples. Recognizing the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, including their right to an independent State of Palestine, was clearly a first step in that direction. The Palestinian people would not surrender that right under any circumstances and would continue their efforts until an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, was not just a dream or an aspiration, but a Palestinian reality.


/...

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter