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

Droit du peuple palestinien à l’autodétermination - Troisième Commission approuve projets de résolution - Communiqué de presse (extraits) Français
Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information (DPI)
General Assembly
22 November 2010




General Assembly
GA/SHC/4000

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

Sixty-fifth General Assembly
Third Committee
50th Meeting (PM)

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES TEXT TO ENSURE HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTED IN ANTI-TERRORISM

EFFORTS, ANOTHER STATING 'NO RELIGIOUS SHOULD BE EQUATED WITH TERRORISM'
 
Four Other Texts Approved on Rights to Food, Development;
Trafficking in Women and Girls; Palestinian Self-Determination



/...

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to hear the introduction of a draft resolution entitled Combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/65/L.46/Rev.1).

It was also scheduled to take action on the following drafts:  Trafficking in women and girls (document A/C.3/65/L.20/Rev.1); The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/65/L.52); Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (document A/C.3/65/L.32/Rev.1), programme of activities of the International Year for People of African Descent (document A/C.3/65/L.33/Rev.1, with amendment A/C.3/65/L.67); the right to development (document A/C.3/65/L.41/Rev.1); the right to food (document A/C.3/65/L.42/Rev.1); and Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/65/L.43/Rev.1).

Action on Texts

/...

The Committee then took action on the draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/65/L.52).

That draft would have the Assembly express the urgent need for the resumption and accelerated advancement of negotiations within the Middle East peace process, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Road Map, and for the speedy achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides.  Affirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders, it would reaffirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine; as well as urge all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination.

The representative of Egypt, the main sponsor, made a statement, saying that the inalienable right to self-determination was enshrined in international agreements and was not a gift to be bestowed on people under foreign occupation, such as the Palestinians, who had been counting on the international community to protect their right to self-determination.  It was hoped that the international community would show solidarity by adopting the resolution by consensus.  The resolution would enable the Palestinians to establish on their own land a sovereign State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The Chair of the Committee said that a recorded vote had been requested.  Egypt asked who had requested the vote, to which the Chair answered that Israel had made the request.

Speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, the representative of Israel said that, shortly after being sworn in as the Israeli Prime Minister last year, Benjamin Netanyahu spoke about his vision for Israel and Palestine, discussing two free peoples living side by side, with neither threatening the other.  Netanyahu had appealed to his Arab neighbours, saying, “let us talk peace”.  That simple and genuine offer remained today, just as when it was first made.  Israel had called for a vote on the text and would vote against it, as one-sided political resolutions would not result in real progress.  Progress would, instead, take place on the ground through direct bilateral negotiations.  Israel continued to call on Palestine to return to negotiations without preconditions.  Peace could not happen without two sides sitting down to talk.  While the resolution called for unity, it failed to discuss Hamas’ separating Gaza from the West Bank.  It failed to ensure Palestine’s respect for the security of the State of Israel.  Thousands of mortars had been launched at Israel from the Gaza Strip.  Real peace could only be based on mutual respect.

The Committee then approved the resolution by a recorded vote of 174 in favour to 5 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Nauru, Marshall Islands, United States) with 3 abstaining (Canada, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo).

In an explanation of the vote after the vote, the representative of Argentina wished to reaffirm the country’s recognition of the inalienable right of Palestine to self-determination.  Self-determination required an active subject — if that subject did not exist, there would be no right to self-determination.  On the issue of the Malvinas Islands, the United Kingdom had expelled the peaceful Argentine population and replaced it with its subjects.  That made it a special case of decolonization and recognized as a sovereignty dispute.  The means to resolve it was the renewal of bilateral negotiations to find a fair, peaceful solution.  Argentina hoped that the draft resolution would result in a Palestinian State that was independent.  Argentina expressed full support for the right to self-determination of people under foreign occupation.

/...

The Observer of Palestine, expressing appreciation to those who had co-sponsored the resolution, said, without a doubt, the denial of the Palestinian people their right to self-determination remained the problem in the Middle East.  The reaffirmation of that right, shown by the resolution, was crucial, until the right was realized.  The resolution should not be seen as contrary to peace efforts.  It was complementary and could only promote peace, not undermine it.  Self-determination was not an issue under negotiation, and Palestine must not continue to be robbed of it.  The message that Israel sent by casting its vote was that it rejected the creation of a Palestinian State and the idea of two States side by side.  Israel violated the crux of the agreement, because it could not reject the recognition of Palestine while recognizing self-determination.  The “so-called peace” alluded to by Israel was the continuation of illegal Israeli policies.

The two-State solution for peace was in serious jeopardy and was being undermined by Israel’s policies, he continued.  That was unmistakably evident in the colonization of land and the creation of the wall, which were undermining the right to self-determination.  That was the real threat to peace, not the resolution.  The statement made by Israel merited no response, as the vote spoke for itself, and was only an attempt by a power to continue its occupation.  To achieve peace in the Middle East, the recognition of the right of Palestinians to self-determination was the first step.  The right of the Palestinians to self-determination would not be surrendered until that right, and the independence of the Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, was a reality.

/...


* *** *

For information media • not an official record

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter