神马午夜福利网

28 April 2025

Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee)

Summary record of the 29th meeting

Held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 20 November 2024, at 3 p.m.

Chair:? Ms. Pav?uta-Deslandes…………… (Latvia)

Contents

Agenda item 49: United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (continued)

Agenda item 50: Israeli practices and settlement activities affecting the rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories (continued)

Agenda item 121: Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly

Completion of the Committee’s work

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

Agenda item 49: United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (continued) (A/C.4/79/L.13 and A/C.4/79/L.14)

1. Mr. Van Schalkwyk (South Africa), introducing draft resolutions A/C.4/79/L.13 and A/C.4/79/L.14, said that it was intended to reaffirm the principled support extended by the General Assembly for those important resolutions in past sessions, with due regard for the extremely grave situation confronting Palestine refugees and the dangerous risks posed to the ability of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to implement the mandate conferred on it by the General Assembly, most dramatically in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in the light of the ongoing assault by Israel, the occupying Power, on the Agency’s personnel, premises, operations and mandate.
2. Mr. Prabowo (Indonesia), also introducing draft resolutions A/C.4/79/L.13 and A/C.4/79/L.14, said that, in draft resolution A/C.4/79/L.13, the General Assembly would call upon on donors to continue to generously contribute to and strengthen support to UNRWA in all five fields of operation. In addition, the Assembly would decide to admit Iraq, upon its request and in line with the criterion set forth by the Assembly, as a member of the Advisory Commission of UNRWA. In draft resolution , the General Assembly would reaffirm that the Palestine refugees were entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom.
3. Mr. Wood (United States of America), speaking in relation to agenda items 49 and 50, said that one-sided resolutions would not advance a durable peace, as they perpetuated long-standing divisions at a time when the international community needed to work together. His delegation would abstain on draft resolution A/C.4/79/L.13. It would vote against the three other draft resolutions put forward at that session, as they would not advance peace or create the conditions for direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
4. The role of UNRWA on the front line of the humanitarian response in Gaza was indispensable. His delegation called upon the Secretary-General to facilitate an independent mechanism to address all allegations that UNRWA personnel had ties to Hamas or other militant groups, which would help to build all parties’ confidence and reaffirm the Secretary-General’s personal commitment to implementing measures to ensure the Agency’s neutrality in fulfilling its critical mandate. Nobody, including Palestinians in need, benefited from the fact that those allegations remained unresolved. Even as the international community addressed the allegations, it must maintain the lifeline to Palestinian civilians.
5. There was no shortcut to a two-State solution. As the United States Secretary of State had underscored, the international community needed to end the conflict, bring home the hostages, including the seven Americans held by Hamas, and promote governance, security and reconstruction in Gaza. His delegation was firmly committed to supporting the path to a two-State solution through constructive measures, including direct negotiations between the parties. It was regrettable that most of the draft resolutions under consideration were detrimental to that vision.
6. Ms. Shapir Ben Naftaly (Israel), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that yet another set of distorted and one-sided draft resolutions were being addressed that day. The systematic bias against Israel at the United Nations did not serve the cause of peace or justice; rather, it perpetuated division, hatred and violence, entrenching false narratives that fuelled conflict rather than resolving it. That bias had never been more evident than in the aftermath of Hamas’s heinous massacre of 7?October 2023, when thousands of Hamas terrorists had committed unspeakable atrocities and executed the most brutal mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust. On that day, 410 days later, 101 hostages remained captive in Gaza, among them 13 women.
7. None of the draft resolutions addressed the suffering of the hostages or condemned the barbarity of the terrorists – many of whom were employed by the same agency under that day’s agenda item – or the threat of terror and its infiltration into a United Nations agency. Rather than denouncing that barbarity, the statements heard in the past weeks in the Committee continued their obsessive focus on vilifying Israel. The draft resolutions dared to condemn Israel while ignoring Hamas’s relentless cruelty against Israelis and Palestinians alike.
8. Every year, Israel alone was singled out, while the heinous crimes of Palestinian terrorist organizations against Israelis, and against the Palestinian people themselves, were ignored. As Israel faced security challenges from Hamas, Hizbullah, the Houthis and the Iranian regime, it upheld its democratic principles and its humanitarian obligations. Hamas diverted humanitarian aid to fund its terrorist activities and exploited Palestinians as human shields. The suffering of the people in Gaza was real, but their true oppressors were not addressed in the draft resolutions.
9. The draft resolutions were the product of an illegitimate politicized agenda aimed at isolating Israel. They were drafted by those with a predetermined discriminatory agenda, countries that could not care less about human rights, if not for the opportunity to demonize Israel. Their sole purpose was to weaponize the United Nations against the only Jewish State and the only democracy in the Middle East. The result was a travesty of justice, a betrayal of that institution’s founding principles.
10. Rather than fuelling hatred, the international community must confront the facts. Hamas was the primary obstacle to peace, together with its sponsors in Tehran. Member States should unite against terror on the ground and at the United Nations. Her delegation would vote against the draft resolutions, which backed the forces of chaos and delegitimized those striving for peace. It was time to end the misuse of United Nations resources for destructive and politically motivated agendas and for the international community to hold Hamas accountable for its atrocities. Israel would stand resolute against the flood of lies, the distortions of reality and the hatred that sought to erase it on the ground and at the United Nations. It would defend its people, its homes, its lives and its right to exist.

Draft resolution A/C.4/79/L.13: Assistance to Palestine refugees

11. Ms. Ukabiala (Secretary of the Committee) said that that the following delegations had become sponsors of the draft resolution: Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Yemen.
12. A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, C?te d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:

Argentina, Israel, Tonga.

Abstaining:

Cameroon, Liberia, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, United States of America.

13. Draft resolution A/C.4/79/L.13 was adopted by 165 votes to 3, with 9 abstentions.

Draft resolution A/C.4/79/L.14: Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues

14. Ms. Ukabiala (Secretary of the Committee) said that that the following delegations had become sponsors of the draft resolution: Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Yemen.
15. A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, C?te d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, 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, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, 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, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against:

Argentina, Isratel, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Tonga, United States of America.

Abstaining:

Cameroon, Fiji, Liberia, Madagascar, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Togo, Tuvalu.

16. Draft resolution A/C.4/79/L.14 was adopted by 162 votes to 6, with 10 abstentions.
17. Mr. Rae (Canada) said that his delegation’s vote in favour of draft resolution reflected its deep concern about the direct attacks over the past year on UNRWA, its mandate and its staff. His delegation had changed its vote as compared to the previous session to clearly express its unwavering support for Palestine refugees, who were in dire need of the international community’s assistance. However, the draft resolution continued to contain some wording that could be seen as prejudging the outcome of the final status negotiations between the parties. Moreover, there were too many resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and his delegation opposed initiatives at the United Nations and in other multilateral forums that solely and unjustly criticized Israel. Those issues must be addressed.
18. A just solution to the issue of the refugees remained essential to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The international community must remember that the current crisis had begun with Hamas’s horrific terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023. During that time, UNRWA had been the backbone of the critical and life-saving humanitarian response in Gaza, in addition to its General Assembly mandate to support Palestine refugees in the occupied Palestinian Territories and neighbouring countries. Canada had condemned the laws passed by the Israeli Knesset on 28?October 2024, which threatened to prevent the vital work of UNRWA in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In the days prior to the laws’ adoption, Canada had led on a joint statement that urged the Government of Israel to not go down that path. Canada continued to press Israel not to implement the laws, to allow the continuation of UNRWA activities in education and health services, and to enable the Agency to work to enable its crucial role in the delivery of humanitarian assistance.
19. The independent review of UNRWA neutrality undertaken in April 2024 was essential, and Canada had taken note of the Agency’s related efforts to address allegations against its staff and its willingness to implement reform of internal processes. His delegation called upon the Agency to make reform a priority and to ensure that its activities remained in line with its mandate, which Canada would monitor.
20. The international community was in the midst of a catastrophic crisis, and the work of UNRWA was critical to address the urgent needs of Palestinians – for whom the Agency’s operations were irreplaceable – and the fate of Palestine refugees. Until a lasting resolution to the conflict was found, UNRWA must be able to provide services and assistance to Palestine refugees, who continued to suffer. It was critical to counter negative momentum created by recent actions. For those reasons, his delegation supported the draft resolution.
21. Ms. Abdelhady (Observer for the State of Palestine), said that her delegation was grateful to all Member States that had supported the draft resolutions. The overwhelming majority in support of the draft resolutions reflected the international consensus on the question of Palestine. The Palestinian people were facing the most grave challenges and crises since the onset of the Nakbah 76 years earlier. The vote on the draft resolutions reaffirmed that the global consensus abided despite all attempts by Israel, the occupying Power, to undermine and nullify it. That consensus was rooted in decades of United Nations resolutions on Palestine, which, contrary to the offensive and baseless claims made by some, were not one-sided or biased but based on international law, respect for universal human rights, and a sense of humanity, empathy and humanitarianism.
22. It was the flagrant defiance and unchecked impunity of Israel that singled it out as a serial violator of international law and that necessitated resolutions, year after year, for decades. Moreover, it was the failure to implement those resolutions that had prevented the realization of their aims, to the detriment of the past, present and future of millions of Palestinians and of an entire region. However, by reaffirming their overwhelming support, Member States had clearly rejected the long-running campaign by Israel aimed at eliminating UNRWA and negating the refugee status and rights of the Palestine refugees, who retained the right to return and to just compensation in line with General Assembly resolution .

Agenda item 50: Israeli practices and settlement activities affecting the rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories (continued) (A/C.4/79/L.15, A/C.4/79/L.16)

23. Mr. Gertze (Namibia), introducing draft resolutions A/C.4/79/L.15 and A/C.4/79/L.16, said that all the grave and systematic violations of international law by Israel, the occupying Power, which were fully documented by the United Nations and international organizations, had intensified and that the human rights crisis that particularly affected the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation had worsened.
24. Mr. Soberon Guzman (Cuba), also introducing draft resolutions A/C.4/79/L.15 and A/C.4/79/L.16, said that the draft resolutions had been updated, with some substantive additions, notably with respect to the advisory opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice on 19 July 2024 concerning the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
25. Ms. Gregoire-van Haaren (Kingdom of the Netherlands), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that her country would continue to work with partners for a two-State solution that provided the opportunity for Israel and the Palestinian territories to live side by side in peace and prosperity. The Kingdom of the Netherlands called for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid. Unilateral measures that imperiled a two-State solution were not in the interest of any of the parties.
26. Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank were illegal, and Israel must comply with its obligations under international law, and in particular article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Kingdom of the Netherlands condemned the Israeli Government’s decisions further expanding illegal settlements. It expressed grave concern about the destruction of homes and property and the record number of violent settler attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The cessation of all Israeli settlement activities was essential for salvaging the two-State solution. For that reason, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would sponsor draft resolution A/C.4/79/L.16.

Draft resolution : The occupied Syrian Golan

27. Ms. Ukabiala (Secretary of the Committee) said that the following delegations had become sponsors of the draft resolution: Belize, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua and Yemen.
28. A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, 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, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against:

Argentina, Israel, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, United States of America.

Abstaining:

Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, C?te d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Fiji, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Rwanda, Togo, Tuvalu, Uruguay.

29. Draft resolution A/C.4/79/L.15 was adopted by 152 votes to 5, with 23 abstentions.

Draft resolution A/C.4/79/L.16: Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan

30. Ms. Ukabiala (Secretary of the Committee) said that that the following delegations had become sponsors of the draft resolution: Belgium Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Yemen.
31. A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against:

Argentina, Fiji, Hungary, Israel, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, United States of America.

Abstaining:

Cameroon, Central African Republic, C?te d’Ivoire, Czechia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Rwanda, Togo, Tuvalu, Uruguay.

32. Draft resolution A/C.4/79/L.16 was adopted by 152 votes to 9, with 19 abstentions.
33. Mr. Rae (Canada) said that his delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution to signal its concern over the expansion of Israeli settlements and the impunity enjoyed by settlers who committed violence. Canada remained committed to a two-State solution that guaranteed peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. It had supported the right of Israel to defend itself in response to the horrific attacks of 7 October 2023. It had also stressed that in defending itself, Israel must uphold its obligations under international law. The expansion of Israeli settlements and the increase in settler violence over the previous year had been deeply damaging to the prospects for a two-State solution. More recently, further damage had been done by calls from senior Israeli Government officials for full annexation of West Bank settlements. No Canadian Government had ever recognized permanent Israeli control of territory occupied in 1967. His country fully recognized that Israel was singled out unfairly in too many resolutions and international initiatives. However, owing to its concern about the negative impact of settlement growth on the prospects for peace, Canada had voted in favour of the draft resolution.
34. Ms. Volkov (Australia) said that her delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution because Israeli settlements were illegal under international law and obstructed the two-State solution. Her delegation reiterated its call on Israel to respond substantively to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and hold settlers accountable for violence. Calls by senior Israeli ministers for annexation of land in the West Bank were troubling. Australia respected the independence of the International Court of Justice and its critical role in upholding international law. Her delegation’s vote was not determinative of its position on the Court’s opinion, including those conclusions reflected in the draft resolution.
35. Mr. Naghdi Nejad (Islamic Republic of Iran) said that his delegation welcomed the adoption of all the draft resolutions submitted under agenda items 49 and 50. Strong support for the Palestinian cause had been expressed, particularly regarding the realization of inalienable rights and the accountability of the occupying regime for crimes committed against Palestinians. Despite the initiatives taken by numerous countries and the United Nations and other international and regional organizations to alleviate Palestinian suffering, and the condemnation expressed in resolutions, as well as peace plans and fact-finding missions, the occupying regime refused to adhere to international laws and prevented the international community from reaching a just settlement. The most effective path to peace in Palestine was a referendum among all residents of Palestine – Jews, Christians and Muslims – and displaced Palestinians and refugees. In the light of the history of conflict and instability in the Middle East, peace could be achieved only by ending the occupation, restoring the Palestinians’ inalienable right to self-determination, returning refugees to their homeland and establishing a Palestinian State with Al-Quds al-Sharif (Jerusalem) as its capital.
36. Israel had no standing to make allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran given the record of the occupation. The Israeli regime had a long history of using such allegations to divert attention from its brutality towards innocent Palestinians and other nations in the region. Israel was the last openly racist and apartheid regime.
37. Mr. Young (United Kingdom) said that his country had long taken the position that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory were illegal and had voted in favour of the draft resolution. Expansion of settlements undermined prospects for peace. Israeli settlers were systematically using harassment, intimidation and violence to pressure Palestinian communities to leave their land. Israel must hold those responsible for such tactics accountable. His country had imposed sanctions on extremist Israeli groups and individuals for violence in the West Bank. It reiterated its position that any attempt to alter the geographic or demographic makeup of the Occupied Palestinian Territory through the use of force and outside of a negotiated solution was wholly unacceptable and illegal. However, his delegation stressed that common article 1 of the Geneva Conventions did not establish third party obligations. The occupation must be brought to an end through a negotiated solution that included a unified Gaza and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in line with pre-1967 borders and agreed land swaps, under the control of the Palestinian Authority, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both States and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees. Peace must be premised upon a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian State.
38. Ms. Abdelhady (Observer for the State of Palestine) said that the overwhelming adoption of the resolution by the Committee was all the more significant coming on the heels of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. That opinion had unequivocally ruled Israeli settlement activities illegal and demanded that they come to an end. Against the backdrop of the darkest days in the history of the Palestinian people, and falling on World Children’s Day, the Committee’s vote served to reinforce the international community’s opposition to the Israeli colonization of occupied Palestine, including East Jerusalem, and its demand for accountability. That sent a message to the Palestinian people that the world had not abandoned them.
39. Mr. Aldahhak (Syrian Arab Republic) said that the vote had sent a clear message to the Israeli entity to end its occupation of the occupied Arab territories, including the occupied Syrian Arab Golan. Refusing to recognize the legal effect of Israeli settlement activity was an important step towards putting a stop to the occupation’s crimes in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, including forced displacement and attempts to impose demographic change. His Government reiterated its invitation to the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories to visit the Syrian Arab Republic. His country reaffirmed its inalienable right to regain the entire occupied Syrian Golan and regarded all measures taken by Israel to change its legal, geographical character or demographic character and impose its laws and administrative measures as null and void, in accordance with Security Council resolution and other United Nations resolutions.

Agenda item 121: Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly ()

Draft decision : Proposed programme of work and timetable of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) for the eightieth session of the General Assembly

40. The Chair said that the proposed programme of work had been prepared taking into account the experience of the current and previous sessions of the Committee, regarding in particular the number of meetings required to conduct and conclude the work of the Committee in an efficient and timely manner. The draft decision would be annexed to the report on the item to the General Assembly for its consideration. The Bureau of the eightieth session of the Committee would be able to review the programme of work and make adjustments, as it deemed necessary.
41. Draft decision was adopted.

Completion of the Committee’s work

42. The Chair, after presenting an overview of the activities of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), said that the Committee had completed its work for the main part of the seventy-ninth session of the General Assembly.

The meeting rose at 4.50 p.m.