Instead, it was aimed at trying to breathe new life into the negotiations. It was time for action and time to move forward, he said, calling for support from those present in the Assembly today. It would show that the world would not accept the continuation of the occupation.
In its endeavour to acquire non-Member State status today, Palestine reaffirmed that it would always adhere to and respect the Charter and resolutions of the United Nations and international law, uphold equality, guarantee civil liberties, uphold the rule of law, promote democracy and pluralism and uphold and protect the rights of women. We are a nation that values idealism, but acts with pragmatism. Israel is a nation that never hesitated to defend itself, but will always extend its hand for peace.
It had been the goal of the Israeli people and every Israeli leader since the re-established of Israel 64 years ago. The Palestinians must recognize the Jewish State and they must be prepared to end the conflict with Israel once and for all. None of those vital interests appeared in the resolution, he said, and as such, Israel could not accept it.
And because the resolution was so one-sided, it did not advance peace, but pushed it backwards. No decision by the United Nations could break the 4,year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel. The people of Israel waited for a Palestinian leader that was willing to follow in the path of President Sadat.
For as long as President Abbas preferred symbolism over reality, as long as he preferred to travel to New York for United Nations resolutions, rather than travel to Jerusalem for genuine dialogue, any hope of peace would be out of reach.
Israel had accepted that plan. The truth was that from until , the West Bank had been ruled by Jordon, and Gaza had been ruled by Egypt.
The Arab States had not lifted a finger to create a Palestinian State. The truth was that to advance peace, Israel had dismantled entire communities and uprooted thousands of people from their homes in the Gaza Strip in Last week, Gaza had been turned into a launching pad for rockets into Israeli cities, a haven for global terrorists and a munitions dump for Iranian weapons. The resolution would not confer statehood on the Palestinian Authority, which clearly failed to meet the relevant criteria.
The text would not enable the Palestinian Authority to join international treaties, organizations, or conferences as a State. The resolution could not serve as an acceptable term of reference for peace negotiations with Israel.
It sent a message that the international community was willing to turn a blind eye to peace agreements. No quick fixes. They could have chosen to accept the solution of two States for two peoples. They rejected it then, and they are rejecting it again today.
Today, the Palestinians were turning their back on peace. An independent State of Palestine with equal rights and responsibilities to those of other States would contribute to the attainment of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. The recent cycle of indiscriminate violence and disproportionate use of force in the Gaza Strip served as a serious reminder of the need for an earnest resumption and acceleration of the peace process, he said.
Conditions conducive for that progress were ending illegal settlement activities, lifting the blockade of Gaza and enhancing its intra-Palestinian dialogue at this historic moment. JOHN BAIRD, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada , spoke in opposition to the resolution before the Assembly, saying that it had undermined the core foundations of the decades-long commitment by the international community and the parties themselves to a two-State solution. Tracing the history of that sustained effort, from with the passage of Assembly resolution to , with the passage of Security Council resolution , he said the path to peace had rested in direct negotiations between the two parties.
He said the successive Security Council resolutions and various international commitments and understandings over nearly seven decades had formed the building blocks of a collaborative peace process that remained unfinished, and the resolution would not advance the cause of peace, spur a return to negotiations or better the lives of the Palestinian people. Conversely, such a unilateral step would harden positions and raise unrealistic expectations. Any two-State solution must be negotiated and mutually agreed upon by both sides, he reiterated, calling on both sides to return to the negotiating table without preconditions.
The denial of the right of Palestinians to a State had no justification on moral, political or legal grounds. His position on the matter had been consistent, that the Palestinians had a legitimate right to an independent State, and that Israel had the right to live in peace and security.
Due impetus must be given to those goals, he said, urging the parties to renew their commitment to a negotiated peace. Speaking in explanation of vote following action, the representative of the United States said that, for decades, her Government had worked to achieve an end to the long and tragic conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Indeed, it was necessary to ask if a measure would bring the parties closer to peace or push them further apart.
But the only way to do so, and to resolve all status issues, was the crucial, if painful, work of negotiations between parties. It would also continue to oppose all unilateral actions that circumvented or prejudged outcomes that could only be negotiated, including Palestinian statehood.
Indeed, it ignored virtually all other core questions such as security. President Obama had been clear in stating a realistic basis for negotiations, and the United States would continue to base its efforts on that approach. The representative of France , speaking after the vote, said that, by voting to recognize Palestine as a non-Member Observer State, France had voted in favour of a two-State solution, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, within secure, internationally recognized borders.
The current meeting was a new stage towards the two-State solution, he continued. Only a few days after a new explosion of violence between Israel and Gaza, France had to give its full support to partners for peace, while those of armed struggle sought to win the day. He called upon the international community and the Arab world to contribute to prospects for peace, which included ending attacks on Israel and immediately returning to the negotiating table.
The representative of Singapore said that his delegation supported the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland and had, in the past, supported relevant Assembly resolutions. Both sides had legitimate rights and shared responsibilities and must be prepared to make compromises to achieve the larger good of a lasting peace. Because of those interlinked rights and responsibilities, no unilateral move could result in a just and durable outcome. However, as facts on the ground had remained unchanged, its aspirations had not been helped.
He expressed the hope that the two parties would resume negotiations. Joining the international community in welcoming an end to the attacks on Gaza and southern Israel, he expressed regret for the loss of life on both sides. Israel and Palestine must return to credible negotiations to save a two-State solution. The Palestinian leadership should, without precondition, return to the table. In that regard, his delegation had abstained in voting on the resolution.
Although Palestine had just became a non-Member Observer State, that would not change the situation on the ground. All possible efforts should be made in the coming weeks to restart peace negotiations. However, such status must be achieved only through direct negotiations.
He called, in that regard, for a solution with two States — Israel and Palestine — living side by side in peace and security. He also recalled relevant Assembly resolutions, including a relevant text. The upgrade of status also endowed the Palestinians with obligations, including the obligation to refrain from the use of the threat of force and others.
Bilateral recognition, however, depended on future negotiations. The representative of Belgium said that true progress would be achieved when the Palestinians were able to enjoy, on the ground, a State with institutions, officials and infrastructure necessary to function smoothly.
He agreed with the goal of a two-State solution, with a future State of Palestine that was democratic, viable and durable. The two-State solution was the only possible one, he stressed, and all efforts should be directed to that end. The resolution was not recognition of a State in full terms, he added. Priority should be placed on a swift resumption of peace talks. Calling for a swift resumption of the peace talks, he said that the parties must be brought to the same table.
The representative of Bulgaria said that his delegation had abstained because it was felt that the resolution would neither change the reality on the ground nor speed up the peace process. He called for an immediate resumption of peace negotiations without precondition. In that regard, his country had bilateral diplomatic relations with both Israel and Palestine. Given the impact of the resolution adopted today on an early resumption of negotiations, he said he was sceptical that the text would advance the peace process.
Any unilateral act was detrimental to the peace process. Serbia, and Yugoslavia before, had exhibited unwavering support for the Palestinian struggle towards independence, based on its own sense of justice.
Serbia had diplomatic relations and maintained good and friendly cooperation with Israel as well. Neither a nation that was a victim of the Holocaust, nor one that was still questing for its statehood deserved to live in the same precarious situation for more than 60 years. Both peoples were weary of conflict and should not be made to wait any longer for it to end. He, therefore, called for peace negotiations to be urgently resumed and accelerated so that a peace agreement based on the relevant Security Council resolutions, the Madrid principles, the Quartet Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative could be reached.
The representative of Honduras , voting in favour of the resolution, did so to support the fundamental rights of human beings and of nations large and small. Honduras supported a two-State solution, Israel and Palestine. The vote in favour would contribute to a just peace and justice for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
There was a need for a comprehensive and negotiated solution to resolve all outstanding issues. She understood that peace could not be imposed from outside, but must be found between the two States involved. A true peace could only be found through mutual recognition of the rights of both peoples. French Ambassador Francois Delattre said Paris would continue its efforts to get a resolution through the council that would help move peace efforts forward.
It is our responsibility to try again. An earlier Palestinian draft called for Jerusalem to be the shared capital of Israel and a Palestinian state. Israel, which pulled troops and settlers out of the Gaza Strip in , has said its eastern border would be indefensible if it withdrew completely from the West Bank. Emerging Markets Updated. Given the rapidly shifting landscape, these terms cannot capture the full range of nuances, narratives and historical events.
This tool is meant as a starting point and we encourage you to continue your exploration of this topic through further research.
Last update and review: September Search Term. Gay Haredim Turn to Her for Help. Sometimes She Prescribes Chemical Castration. Israel Could Soon Reopen to Tourists. The Land Wasn't Emptied of Arabs'.
0コメント