Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

Question de Palestine/situation au Moyen-Orient - Vote de l'AG - Communiqué de presse (extraits) (10 décembre 2007) Français
Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information (DPI)
10 December 2007

General Assembly
GA/10670

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-second General Assembly
Plenary
64th & 65th Meetings (AM & PM)


/...

By a traditionally wide margin the Assembly adopted a resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine by a vote of 161 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Tonga, Vanuatu) (Annex IV).  The text states that the momentum generated at last month’s Middle East peace conference at Annapolis, Maryland, had helped set the stage for immediate follow-up negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Paris on 12 December, in which Israeli settlements will figure prominently.

By its terms, the Assembly stressed the urgent need for sustained and active international involvement, including by the diplomatic Quartet, to support both parties in revitalizing the peace process towards the resumption of direct talks to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement, on the basis of United Nations resolutions, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet-backed “Road Map” peace plan.  It also called on parties to exert all efforts to halt the deterioration of the situation and reverse all measures taken on the ground since 28 September 2000.

Among the other resolutions adopted under that issue was a text on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, adopted by recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 55 abstentions (Annex I).

A resolution on the division for Palestinian rights of the Secretariat was approved by a recorded vote of 110 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 54 abstentions (Annex II); the text on special information programme on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information was adopted by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Malawi, Tonga, Vanuatu) (Annex III).

The Assembly then adopted two resolutions on the situation in the Middle East.  By a text on Jerusalem, adopted by a vote of 160 in favour to 6 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 7 abstentions (Angola, Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu) (Annex V), the Assembly reiterated its determination that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and, therefore, null and void, calling on Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures.

It further stressed that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure the freedom of religion and conscience of its inhabitants.

By a resolution on the Syrian Golan, adopted by a vote of 111 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 56 abstentions (Annex VI), the Assembly declared that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void.

The Assembly determined the occupation of the Syrian Golan was a stumbling block in achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region, and called on Israel to resume talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks.  It further demanded that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the 1967 lines, and called upon the parties concerned, the co-sponsors of the peace process and the entire international community to exert all necessary efforts to ensure the resumption of the peace process.

/....

Introduction of Draft Resolutions on Question of Palestine

PAUL BADJI ( Senegal), Chair of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, discussed the Committee’s work, noting that in the past, it had proposed to make use of available resources to carry out all planned activities in its annual programme.

He wished to dispel misunderstandings about the Committee’s mandate, saying that the Committee’s position on the Palestinian question was similar to that of most other groups of Member States, including the European Union.  Under his direction, the Committee had recently discussed issues with European institutions in Brussels, and had held consultations with the European Union and the European Commission since 1996.  Through the years, views had come together on various points.  Moreover, the Commission had supported the Middle East peace process, particularly since the 1991 Madrid peace conference.  He supported the important work of the Quartet’s Special Envoy to promote the economic development of Palestinians.  While demanding an end to occupation, the Committee had supported the creation of two States living side by side in peace and security within pre-1967 borders.

The Committee favoured an independent Palestinian State, and condemned all activities targeting civilian populations, he continued.  In last week’s communiqué, it had welcomed the Annapolis conference as a “decisive stage” in negotiations to end Israeli occupation.  He was particularly pleased by the parties’ efforts to work towards that objective.  Nonetheless, some States had refused to support the Committee’s mandate, and he urged them to reconsider their position.  He welcomed increased international efforts aimed at resuming the peace process, asking the Assembly to adopt the four resolutions and to support the important objectives contained in them.

The four draft resolutions and two texts on the situation in the Middle East are summarized in Press Release GA/10663, issued 29 November.

Action on Draft Resolutions

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote on the text on the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the representative of Panama said his delegation believed in independence and national sovereignty.  The United Nations had a responsibility to monitor the situation in the Occupied Territory until it was resolved.   Panama was concerned by the Assembly’s lack of efficiency in this area, however.  The last few resolutions adopted on the situation had had “very low impact”.  It would abstain from voting on this text, in light of the recent progress that had been made towards solving the conflict.  The Assembly should rethink its role in dealing with the conflict.  Indeed, it was time for the Assembly to re-evaluate its actions, in this regard.

The Assembly then adopted a resolution on the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A /62/L.18) by a vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 55 abstentions (for details see annex I).

It then adopted a text on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/62/L.19) by a recorded vote of 110 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 54 abstentions (annex II).

The draft resolution on the special information programme on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information (document A/62/L.20/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Malawi, Tonga, Vanuatu) (annex III).

The Assembly then adopted the draft text on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/62/L.21/Rev.1) by a vote of 161 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Tonga, Vanuatu) (annex IV).

The Assembly then took up consideration of two texts on the situation in the Middle East.

It adopted a text on Jerusalem (document A/62/L.22) by a vote of 160 in favour to 6 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 7 abstentions (Angola, Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu) (annex V).

The Assembly then adopted a text on the Syrian Golan (document A/62/L.23) by a vote of 111 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 56 abstentions (annex VI).

Statements after Vote

Speaking after the action, the representative of Portugal, on behalf of the European Union, said he voted in favour of the draft on the special information programme on the question of Palestine because the resolution would enhance dialogue and understanding between the Israeli and Palestinian societies.

Regarding his abstention from the vote on the Syrian Golan, the European Union remained concerned about the situation in the Middle East, and stressed the importance of the Annapolis conference and the support of a two-State solution.  He supported the current negotiations, calling the Annapolis conference a turning point that would support a just and lasting solution.  He stressed that there could be no military solution.  He said Security Council resolution 242 must be respected, and that peace must be based on land for peace.  Negotiations should resume as soon as possible.  The Union voted in the Fourth Committee regarding the Syrian Golan and abstained from voting on this resolution, preferring to have only one resolution before the Assembly.

The representative of the United States could not support the resolution on the Syrian Golan because he continued to disagree with the text, which presented final status issues.  Regarding the Annapolis meeting, the resolution was unhelpful, he said.  The United States policy on Syria was well known, and the position remained unchanged since last year.

The representative of Iran said he had voted in favour of the resolution on the question of Palestine, but had reservations.  Iran had been unwavering in its support of the Palestinian people to attain national rights, and it supported the legal and democratic Government of Palestine.  But he believed that internal issues should be dealt with by Palestinians and through national dialogue, not with outside interference.  Iran supported the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and stressed the importance of the international community’s support.  The settlement of the Palestinian issue would occur only when the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people were addressed.

In explanation of vote after the vote, Israel’s representative said his delegation had voted against the draft resolutions, which all promoted an inaccurate narrative of the situation in the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Indeed, the recycling of drafts showed that the Assembly remained oblivious to the bilateral nature of the process.

In that regard, he highlighted areas where the resolutions failed to promote a peace process.  Resolution A/62/L.21 did not mention the greatest impediment to peace:  terrorism, as seen in the daily barrage of rocket fire on Israeli towns.  Since June, Palestinian terrorists had fired rockets every three hours.  The resolution ignored calls for the release of Gilad Shalit.  Ending the Qassam rocket fire and Mr. Shalit’s release were the basic criteria for the way forward.  A resolution that ignored those issues did not help settlement of the conflict.  Despite efforts to find language on resolution A/62/L.20, it was regrettable that a text could not be reached that enabled the Assembly’s consensus.  A balanced text would have enabled Israeli officials to take part in Department of Information activities.  However, rather than working together, Palestinians chose a resolution that only made those gaps wider.

In the biased conclusions, the resolutions had fed Palestinians’ fictitious sense of reality, he said.  Aside from the damage done to the region, they rendered the United Nations incapable of playing a role in addressing the conflict.  Efforts should be diverted to more realistic goals.  Hope for Palestinians could not be found in resolutions that promoted zero-sum solutions.  Indeed, not one had mentioned the vicious acts of violence carried out by Hamas.  Hope could be found only in the hearts and minds of leaders committed to peace.  It lived in the Road Map and in the insistence that both parties embrace their responsibilities.  The spirit of Annapolis had been felt in the region.  Moderate Arab States’ presence there had created the proper atmosphere to start substantive negotiations.  The resolutions considered today were completely detached from that process.

The representative of Argentina, explaining Argentina and Brazil’s vote on the resolution on the Syrian Golan, said those delegations had voted in favour of the draft, as they understood that its most important aspects related to the unlawful acquisition of territory by force.  Regarding operative paragraph 6, their votes did not prejudge the contents of that paragraph.  He urged the parties to resume talks to find a final solution to the question of the Syrian Golan, taking into account the principle of territory for peace.

The representative of Australia, in explanation of vote after the vote, was concerned at the disproportionate resources dedicated to the question of Palestine.  Annual resolutions endorsing the various work units did not rationalize the Secretariat’s structure, and the Department of Public Information’s programme was not a constructive use of resources.  They did little to help the cause for peace in the Middle East.

In a general statement, the representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union on the question of Palestine, welcomed the joint understanding reached at the Annapolis conference to launch, in good faith, bilateral talks to negotiate a peace treaty by the end of 2008, leading to the creation of a viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace next to Israel.  To build on that progress, it was essential that the parties desist from actions that would deter them from finding a just and lasting solution.  The European Union recalled the importance of instituting the Road Map, and reiterated concerns at violence against either Israelis or Palestinians.  While recognizing Israel’s right to self-defence, he called on Israel to exercise restraint.  At the same time, he condemned the firing of rockets into Israel.

The European Union was determined to support parties in their negotiations in a sustained manner, and would work closely with the Quartet and other partners, he said.  The Union was ready to take part in institution-building and good governance initiatives, among other efforts.  In closing, he underlined the importance of the donor conference to take place in Paris.

The representative of Syria said the international community was still supporting the adopted resolutions, which reflected that Member States supported the United Nations Charter and Syria’s right to its occupied land.  The vote sent out a clear message to Israel that occupation, murder, expansionist policies, settlements and the annexation of the territories of others were not acceptable.

It was obvious that Israel needed to be reminded that the international community had rejected its policy, which was against peace.  That was especially true since Israel’s Government had confiscated territory and had announced plans to build units for 300,000 settlers only two days after the Annapolis meeting.  He reaffirmed Syria’s appeal for a just, global peace and said that the Syrian Golan should be liberated from Israeli occupation, as guaranteed by international law.  Israeli occupation in the Syrian Golan was a two-fold crime in the eyes of the international community, not only regarding the Syrian Golan occupation, but concerning the fact that Israel had illegally annexed the Syrian Golan in 1981, prompting the Security Council to adopt resolution 487.  It was a bitter truth that Syrians had lived under the yoke of occupation, and the occupier should be condemned, in the same way Nazi Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland and Danzig in 1939 should have been condemned.  Not having condemned that Nazi German action allowed the occupier to expand.  The Golan was of no less importance than the two regions mentioned, and the international community should condemn the occupation.

During the current peace process, Syria wanted to take part in any discussions that would bring about peace and justice in the region.  That process required putting an end to Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories, Shabaa Farms and the Syrian Golan.

The Observer of Palestine called the resolutions a narrative of the international community about how peace based on justice could be accomplished, despite the resistance of one delegation.  It was high time for Israel to learn from what was done at the Assembly each year, as well as the negotiations Palestinians undertook with all blocs, including the European Community, the African bloc and so on, to find peace.  Only one delegation’s actions on the ground worked against the spirit of peace.  How could the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem continue after Annapolis? he asked.

The actions of Israel spoke much louder than their assertion of interest in peace, he continued.  They must change their behaviour to move the peace process forward.  They claimed Palestinians enjoyed being victims, but that was untrue.  The illegal wall, prisoners and continued expansion of settlements attested to the occupation.  Israel should wake up and look at reality.  He looked forward to concluding a peace treaty in 2008 with Israel, and to allowing the long-awaited Palestinian State to be born.

After those statements, the representative of Hungary said that his delegation would clarify its position on the votes on the texts that had just taken place.  Hungary would have abstained in the vote on the texts on the “Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” and the “division for Palestinian Rights in the Secretariat”.  It would have voted in favour of both texts on the “special information programme on the question of Palestine” and the “peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”.  It would have voted in favour of the text on Jerusalem and abstained in the vote on the text on the “Syrian Golan”.
/...

ANNEX I

Vote on Palestinian Rights Committee

The draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/62/L.18) was adopted by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against, with 55 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Absent:  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Kiribati, Madagascar, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.
ANNEX II

Vote on Division for Palestinian Rights

The draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights (document A/62/L.19) was adopted by a recorded vote of 110 in favour to 8 against, with 54 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.

Absent:  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Kiribati, Madagascar, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.
ANNEX III

Vote on Special Information Programme

The draft resolution on the special information programme on the question of Palestine (document A/62/L.20/REV.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 8 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

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, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, 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, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Malawi, Tonga, Vanuatu.

Absent:  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Kiribati, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.
ANNEX IV

Vote on Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question

The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the Palestine question (document A/62/L.21/REV.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 7 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

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, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, 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, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:   Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Cameroon, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Tonga, Vanuatu.

Absent:  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Kiribati, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.
ANNEX V

Vote on Jerusalem

The draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A/62/L.22) was adopted by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 6 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, 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, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Angola, Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu.

Absent:  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Kiribati, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.
ANNEX VI

Vote on Syrian Golan

The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/62/L.23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 6 against, with 56 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.

Absent:  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Kiribati, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

/...


* *** *


For information media • not an official record

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter