United Nations

 NEW YORK, 1 December (UN Headquarters) -- The General Assembly this morning adopted six resolutions by recorded vote -- two on the situation in the Middle East and four on the question of Palestine -- as it concluded its consideration of those items.

 By the terms of a resolution on Jerusalem, adopted with 145 Member States voting in favour, 1 against (Israel) and 5 abstentions (Angola, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, United States), the Assembly determined that the decision of Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem was illegal and, therefore, null and void.  The Assembly also deplored the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980).  (See Annex I.)

 With 96 voting in favour, 2 against (Israel, United States), and 55 abstaining (see Annex II), the Assembly adopted a resolution on the Syrian Golan, by the terms of which it declared that Israel had failed so far 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, and had no validity whatsoever.  The Assembly called upon Israel to resume the talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and to respect the commitments and undertakings reached during previous talks.  It also demanded that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967.

In action on the question of Palestine, the Assembly adopted a resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in a recorded vote of 106 in favour, 2 against (Israel, United States), and 48 abstentions (see Annex III).  By that resolution, the Assembly authorized the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, to make such adjustments in its approved programme of work as it may consider appropriate and necessary in the light of developments, and to give special emphasis to the need to mobilize support and assistance for the Palestinian people.

The recorded vote on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat was 107 in favour, 2 against (Israel, United States), and 48 abstentions (see Annex IV).  By that resolution, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources and to ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work. 

 The resolution on the Special Information Programme on Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat was adopted in a recorded vote of 151 in favour, 2 against (Israel, United States) and 2 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands).  (See Annex V.)  By the terms of the resolution, the Assembly requested the Department to continue, with the necessary flexibility as may be required by developments affecting the question of Palestine, its special information programme for the biennium 2000-2001, and, in particular, to disseminate information on all the activities of the United Nations system relating to the question of Palestine.  The Assembly also requested the Department of Public Information to promote the Bethlehem 2000 Project. 

 A draft text on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/55/L.48) was adopted by a recorded vote of 149 in favour, 2 against (Israel, United States), and 3 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru).  By the resolution, the Assembly expressed its full support for the ongoing peace process, which began in Madrid and for the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements of 1993, as well as the subsequent implementation agreements, including the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 1995 and the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum of 1999.  It expressed the hope that the process would lead to the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.  It stressed the need for commitment to the principle of land for peace and the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and the need for the immediate and scrupulous implementation of the agreements reached between the parties, including the redeployment of Israeli forces from the West Bank.

 Responding to statements made during yesterday afternoon's and this morning's debate, the representative of Israel said that, despite recent setbacks, tremendous progress had been made in turning enemies into partners for peace.  In May this year, Israel had unilaterally withdrawn its forces from southern Lebanon.  In confirming Israel’s compliance with Security Council resolution 425, the Secretary-General had specifically determined that the area known as “Shabaa” was not Lebanese territory.  Consequently, subsequent Lebanese claims against Israel regarding that area, justifying aggressive activity by terrorists emanating from Lebanese territory, were in direct contravention of the Secretary-General’s findings. 

 He said any discussion of the situation in the Middle East must not only consider Israel’s immediate neighbours, but also address the threats to peace and stability on the periphery of the region.  Iran, “a stalwart of Middle Eastern rejectionism”, continued to support the terrorist activities of Hezbollah and continued efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  Meanwhile, Iraq’s persistence in developing weapons of mass destruction was particularly troubling in light of that country’s proven enthusiasm for firing missiles at civilian populations. 

 He said Israel envisioned a broad circle of peace in the Middle East that would encompass all of its neighbours and constitute a complete and final end to the state of conflict.  For Israel, he said, normal peaceful relations included the establishment of full diplomatic ties, the removal of boycotts, repeal of discriminatory legislation and practices, transportation and communication links, and the free movement of goods and people over borders.  “Surely, the triumph of peace, true peace, will be the triumph for all people in the Middle East and for all generations to come,” he said.

 The representatives of the Russian Federation, Turkey, Chile, Ukraine, Indonesia and Norway also spoke this morning.  Representatives of the United States, France (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Argentina, Israel and Mexico spoke in explanation of the vote, while the representatives of Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Iraq and Israel exercised their right of reply.  The Permanent Observer of Palestine also spoke.

 The Assembly will meet again at 3 p.m. to take up consideration of the role of diamonds in fuelling conflicts.

Assembly Work Programme

 The fifty-fifth regular session of the General Assembly met this morning to continue its consideration of the situation in the Middle East.

 It was also expected to take action on draft resolutions introduced during the debate on the question of Palestine.

Statements

 ANDREI E. GRANOVSKY (Russian Federation) said that, unfortunately, on the threshold of the twenty-first century, the international community was forced to admit that the situation in the Middle East remained unstable.  The Madrid process, however, had shown that the international community was capable of finding ways to deal with the situation.  From the start of the crisis, the Russian Federation had been tirelessly seeking to do all it could to bring the opposing parties to the negotiating table.  One of the important items on the agenda of recent Moscow talks had been finding a way to get the peace process back on track and to improve relations between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon. 

It was important that all concerned parties be brought into the process to find an acceptable solution for all on the basis of Security Council resolutions.  The Russian Federation considered it important that the international community do its utmost to implement the guidelines laid down in Sharm el-Sheikh.  True peace in the Middle East would not be possible without constructive dialogue between Israel and Syria and the return of the Golan Heights.  Similarly, if there was to be true and stable peace, there must be a resolution to the problem in southern Lebanon.  The international community did not have any right to lose sight of the political achievements scored in recent times. 

 UMIT PAMIR (Turkey) said that the Middle East was passing through difficult and strenuous times, taxing the best efforts of everyone working for the establishment of a lasting peace.  It had been frightening and saddening to see the violence erupting in the way it had, claiming the lives of more than 300 people, predominantly Palestinian, causing thousands of injuries and great material damage.  Indeed, one could but take the long view and look forward, he said.  The results of Sharm el-Sheikh must be upheld by all parties, as the peace process represented the only real and viable chance for future generations. 

 The establishment of the Fact-Finding Committee in the aftermath of the Summit was an important and encouraging development.  It had been vested with a crucial task, and he looked forward to the successful completion of its mandate within the agreed timetable.  The Palestinian-Israeli conflict lay at the heart of the Middle East issue, and it was the key for a solution.  He added that the Holy City of Jerusalem must be a potent symbol of tolerance and co-existence; its religious, cultural and historic status must be kept intact for all. 

 Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 remained the basis for achieving a lasting peace in the region, a peace that would pave the way for prosperity and enlightened cooperation.  Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, in accordance with resolution 425, was another crucial step in the right direction.  Turkey respected the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and had tried to alleviate their suffering.  Many injured Palestinians were receiving medical treatment in Turkey.  Medical assistance had also been sent to the region.  In addition to Turkish financial humanitarian assistance, amounting to $500,000, $3 million in structural financial assistance was being provided to the Palestinian Authority. 

 YEHUDA LANCRY (Israel) said that, despite recent setbacks, tremendous progress had been made in turning enemies into partners for peace.  The time had come to break the cycle of tragedy, and begin a new era of triumphs in the making of peace.  The first of those triumphs was the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979.  Fifteen years later, a peace treaty was established between Israel and Jordan.  In May this year, Israel had unilaterally withdrawn its forces from southern Lebanon.  It must be stressed that, in confirming Israel’s compliance with Security Council resolution 425, the Secretary-General had specifically determined that the area known as “Shabaa” was not Lebanese territory.  Consequently, subsequent Lebanese claims against Israel regarding that area, justifying aggressive activity by terrorists emanating from Lebanese territory, were in direct contravention of the Secretary-General’s findings.  A continuation of acts of aggression by Lebanese terrorists carried with it a danger of imminent escalation.

 He said that, this year, his country had also continued in its quest to achieve a comprehensive peace with Syria, on the basis of the framework established at the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991.  The most recent effort took place at meetings between Prime Minister Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Shara in the United States in January.  At those talks, Israel had presented “a territorial proposal which was quite significant”, as President Clinton had said.  Yet that and other proposals went unanswered by the Syrian side, which chose to break off the negotiations.

 “We must not forget that any discussion of the situation in the Middle East must not only consider Israel’s immediate neighbours, but also address the threats to peace and stability on the periphery of the region,” he said.  Iran, “a stalwart of Middle Eastern rejectionism”, continued to support the terrorist activities of Hezbollah and continued efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  He had evidence that Iran had developed chemical weapons and reason to believe it had developed biological warfare capabilities as well.  Iranian officials continued to call for jihad and the destruction of the State of Israel.  Meanwhile, Iraq’s persistence in developing weapons of mass destruction was particularly troubling in light of that country’s proven enthusiasm for firing missiles at civilian populations.  Iraq’s denial of access to United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission teams, and its history of hostility towards Israel, made that country a continued threat to Israel’s security and to regional stability.

 He said Israel envisioned a broad circle of peace in the Middle East that would encompass all of its neighbours and constitute a complete and final end to the state of conflict.  It sought to establish clearly defined borders that would eliminate all territorial disputes, a peace that would provide a framework for regional security and would curb the threat to stability posed by extremist elements.  It sought a peace that would improve the lives of all the peoples of the Middle East, creating a predictable economic environment, attracting foreign investment and facilitating sustainable economic and social development.

 For Israel, he said, normal peaceful relations included the establishment of full diplomatic ties, the removal of boycotts, repeal of discriminatory legislation and practices, transportation and communication links, and the free movement of goods and people over borders.  Peace treaties also provided a framework for cooperation with regard to environment, cultural relations, tourism, health, agriculture, crime prevention and the elimination of incitement.  Peace in the Middle East need not be a dream, and endless confrontation need not be the region’s only reality.  “Surely, the triumph of peace, true peace, will be the triumph for all people in the Middle East and for all generations to come,” he said.  “Peace needs an unshakable commitment -- both ethical and political -- that has to be assumed by the regional leadership for the sake of future generations.” 

 JUAN EDUARDO EGUIGUREN (Chile) expressed deep sorrow at the tragic events that had taken place in the occupied territories and in Israel since 28 September.  His Government called for restraint and calm so that the parties could restart the peace process.  Chile was pleased by the fact that Israel had complied with Security Council resolution 425 by withdrawing its forces from southern Lebanon.  On another matter, he hoped that Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic would renew their discussions on the Golan Heights, in conformity with the pertinent resolutions of the Council.

 Further, Chile welcomed the creation of a fact-finding mission in the current crisis between the Palestinians and Israelis.  In addition, it supported the activities of the Secretary-General in exploring concrete measures to put an end to the violence.  He cited the principles that formed the basis of Chile's foreign policy because of their applicability to the general situation in the Middle East, specifically: peaceful settlement of disputes; compliance with Security Council resolutions 242 and 338; observance of international humanitarian law, in which the protection of civilian populations was fundamental; recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; and the right of Israelis and Palestinians to live within safe and internationally recognized borders.

 His country urged both parties “to begin to speak the language of peace, hope and reconciliation”.  What Israelis and Palestinians must internalize was that violence left no one victorious.  A just, negotiated and lasting settlement was the only path open for both parties, he added.  In closing, Chile noted that it had excellent relations with the Arab countries, with Israel and with the Palestinian Authority.  The prolongation of the crisis day by day was disquieting to the international community.  He felt that the Middle East was dear to Chile, which had a large Palestinian population as well as a large Jewish population; moreover, they all lived together amicably, demonstrating that coexistence was not only possible but produced great results.

 VALERI P. KUCHYNSKI (Ukraine) noted that the situation in the Middle East had remained at the top of the United Nations agenda for more than half a century.  Over the past year, the peace process had witnessed its ups and downs.  The Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon, the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status talks, the second Camp David Summit had all rekindled hopes that the beginning of a new millennium would finally bring a long-awaited peace to the whole region.  Regrettably, hopes had not been met, and the upsurge of violence during the last two months in the Palestinian territories, in Israel and recently in Lebanon had brought the Middle East peace process to the most crucial stage of its history. 

 Ukraine condemned acts of excessive and indiscriminate use of force against Palestinian civilians, and called on Israel to stop them immediately.  He was also convinced that Israel had to stop its settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, and must no longer resort to economic sanctions against the Palestinian population.  It was well known that violence begot only violence.  At this critical juncture, he called on the Israelis and Palestinians to demonstrate their political courage, wisdom and restraint.  Both parties must resume their negotiations as soon as possible, based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

 He welcomed the fact that the Israeli-Lebanese track had seen significant progress this year.  He was satisfied with the implementation of Security Council resolution 425, which led to the deployment of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and established the blue line along the border between Israel and Lebanon, this restoring Lebanese Government control over its territory.  He regretted that the Israeli-Syrian track had been stalled for a long time.  It was in the interest of all peoples in the region to have the Israeli-Syrian talks on the occupied Syrian Golan resumed without further delay and without preconditions.  He called on the Governments of Syria and Israel to further explore the direct talks that followed the Washington summit meeting in December 1999.

MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia) said his country could not but express its dismay at the current state of affairs, where military aggression had been substituted for peace negotiations.  Israel must be called upon to cease its aggression without preconditions, as failure to prevent further escalation on the ground would ignite the whole region and result in incalculable consequences, not only for the Middle East but for the world at large.  The stakes involved in bringing peace to the Palestinians and to the people of the region were high, for it involved not only the question of peace, territory and settlement, but also the future of an entire people and its never-ending struggle for freedom and independence. 

 Peace was, however, illusory if it meant unimplemented agreements, broken deadlines and unmet commitments.  Neither could peace flourish and grow when accords were reached but untenable policies continued unabated.  Those had included the expansion of settlements, confiscation of Arab lands, demolition of houses and property and the economic strangulation of the Palestinian territories.  The interests of peace could never be served if its sole purpose was to legitimize occupation and dispossession.  A just and lasting settlement in the Middle East, with the question of Palestine at its core, could only be attained by fully taking into account the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to their homeland and due recognition of the rights of all States in the region to live within internationally recognized borders. 

 OLE PETER KOLBY (Norway) appealed to both sides not to respond to provocations.  The parties must implement the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings and do their utmost to cease all actions that could escalate the conflict.  He said the peace process contained both political and economic elements.  Continued economic development in the Palestinian territories was critical to a lasting peace and would also benefit Israel.  The violence of the last two months was threatening positive development.  If security measures continued to impede the normal functioning of the economy, it might also undermine support for the political process.  He, therefore, urged Israel to lift the closure of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and, instead, to encourage the development of the Palestinian economy.

 His country had always understood and supported Israel’s quest for security and had condemned terrorist attacks from any quarters.  But lasting security could not be sustained at the expense of others.  Israel must respect the safety and security of the Palestinians.  Excessive and disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians had exacerbated the tensions and fuelled further violence.

 The only long-term solution to the ongoing conflict was a final peace agreement.  Such an agreement must be just and fair.  Great efforts and sacrifices would have to be made on both sides in order to reach such an agreement, possibly to be preceded by a new interim agreement.  Significant progress had been made at Camp David.  He urged the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to use that window of opportunity and to take brave steps to ensure peace and stability for all. 

Explanation of Vote before Vote

 LARRY CARP (United States), explaining his votes on the situation in the Middle East, said that the United States continued to support a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East.  It would do everything it could to assist the parties in reaching a negotiated agreement which would resolve their differences.  The situation in the Middle East was at a crucial point, he said.  The Assembly must now concentrate on supporting the parties’ efforts to take the difficult step to end the cycle of violence and return to a negotiated settlement.

 The resolution entitled “The Syrian Golan”, like so many of the other resolutions dealing with the Arab-Israeli dispute, sought to interject the General Assembly into ongoing negotiations.  Syria and Israel continued to publicly support the principle of a negotiating process to resolve their differences, and resolutions such as this did not contribute to that goal.  The United States would vote against it.  The United States would abstain on the resolution on Jerusalem, consistent with the belief that the future of Jerusalem must be decided through permanent status negotiations. 

Action on Draft Resolutions A/55/L.49 and A/55/L.50

 The Assembly, by a recorded vote of 145 in favour, 1 against (Israel) and 5 abstentions (Angola, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, United States), adopted resolution A/55/L.49 on Jerusalem.

 Also in a recorded vote, the Assembly adopted resolution A/55/L.50 on the Syrian Golan, with 96 Member States voting in favour, 2 against (Israel and United States) and 55 abstaining.

Explanation of Vote after Vote

 CHRISTOPHE BIGOT (France), explaining his vote on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the European Union reiterated its firm commitment to a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement in the Middle East based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, on the principle of “land for peace” and on the Madrid and Oslo Accords.  The European Union wished to express once again its extreme concern in the face of the current crisis in the occupied territories and in Israel.  It reiterated its wish for an early resumption of the peace talks, interrupted despite the hopes created by the meeting at Camp David.  The European Union also fully supported early resumption of negotiations on the Lebanese and Syrian tracks. 

 As in previous years, the draft resolution regarding the Syrian Golan contained geographical references which prejudged the outcome of bilateral negotiations.  That was why the European Union had again abstained in the vote.

 MATEO ESTREME (Argentina) said that his country had voted in favour of draft resolution A/55/L.50, on the Syrian Golan, because the essential aspect of that resolution was related to the illegal acquisition of territory by force.  Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nation Charter prohibited the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of States.  That was an imperative aspect of international law.  With regard to operative paragraph 6 of the relative resolution, the Argentinian vote did not necessarily prejudge the geographical references it contained.

Rights of Reply

 SELIM TADMOURY (Lebanon), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that the statement by Israel made it seem as if Lebanon was being the offending party -- as if it had been Lebanon that had occupied Israel for 22 years and not the reverse.  Since 24 May, the beginning of the Israeli withdrawal, there had been many reports proving that Israel was violating the borders, shooting civilians on their way to work and terrorizing entire villages with supersonic overflights.  He also questioned Israel’s activity in the Shabaa Farms area, which had been recognized as Lebanese territory. 

 There were 19 Lebanese prisoners of war in Israeli prisons, denied the right to a legal hearing.  That was a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions.  Why was Israel not releasing them, he asked, and why was Israel violating the Fourth Geneva Convention?  Another source of tension was the 350,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.  Israel had to stop accusing and threatening Lebanon at every turn, as it had done continuously for 22 years.  Lebanon had made a considerable effort in establishing stability in southern Lebanon, in full accordance with United Nations provisions.

 MAHDI HAMZEHEI (Iran), exercising his right of reply, said Iran would like to see peace and justice prevail in the Middle East.  Israeli assertions about the bombing in Buenos Aires were a ploy to divert attention from its own violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  The question was whether those fighting against occupation were freedom fighters or terrorists.  Hezbollah and others should not be labeled terrorists, and the world knew it. 

It was astonishing that the regime which stockpiled weapons of mass destruction should accuse another country in the Middle East of doing the same.  Iran was a full party to the instruments that were the main pillars of disarmament, including the Biological and Chemical Weapons Convention, which Israel refused to join.  Israel remained the only non-party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in the Middle East.  Its nuclear programmes threatened peace and security.  In the biological and chemical areas, there were numerous reports that Israel had such programmes.  Israel’s refusal to join the conventions on weapons of mass destruction was of deep concern.

 FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria), speaking in right of reply, said that, at the beginning of this session, the General Assembly had listened to another Israeli statement that distorted the truth and reflected the aggressive Israeli logic.  The Israeli representative had papered over his numerous threats with expressions of peace, as if Israel were the country that sought true peace.  The Israeli representative did not talk about the occupation of Arab land or Israel’s refusal to implement legitimate international resolutions.  He did not talk about the settlements that had spread like cancer in Arab lands.  The Israeli representative believed that he was capable of hoodwinking the representatives in the General Assembly.  He had tried to give the impression that the Arab leadership was not sincere in the pursuit of peace, whereas, in fact, Syria was the country that had opened the road before the peace process in Madrid. 

 Everyone in the General Assembly had the right to talk about the implementation of Security Council resolutions -- except for the Israeli representative.  As was mentioned by Lebanon, Israel had not implemented resolution 425 in full, and had not fully withdrawn from southern Lebanon.  The Israeli occupation continued.  If Israel wanted peace, why had it waited 23 years to withdraw even incompletely from Lebanon?  The peace sought by Syria was a peace which would restore the rights of their owners.  Israel had blocked the peace process on all tracks.  When Israel was ready to achieve peace, then the peace process could succeed.  But as long as Israel had not withdrawn from all occupied Arab lands, the ball was in the Israeli court. 

 MOHAMMED AL-HUMAIMIDI (Iraq) said that that the Zionist entity represented the most brutal occupying force in the modern age, perpetrating crimes against international humanitarian law and human rights.  The last two months were the best testimony of the bloodiness of the regime -- a regime now speaking with the tongue of a victim.  The executioner was speaking as a victim.  If such methods had ever been successful, they certainly would not convince anyone these days.  The delegation of the Zionist entity had expressed a number of falsifications which they were trying to market in this forum.  Their methods were quite clear to everyone, and the Zionist entity had never been committed to the resolutions of the Security Council or the General Assembly. 

 With regard to weapons of mass destruction, he said that the Zionist entity had the largest arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and more than 200 nuclear warheads, targeting all Islamic nations.  Its acquisition of such weapons had taken place outside the international safeguard regime.  Furthermore, those weapons were acquired in cooperation with a State that was permanent member of the Security Council. 

 The Zionist entity’s charges against Iraq were easy to understand.  The inspectors who came to investigate Iraqi weapon arsenals were actually spies reporting to Mossad and the Central Intelligence Agency.  If the representative thought that those spies would be allowed to return to Iraq, he was under huge illusions, on a par with the illusion that Israel could abolish the Palestinian identity.  The Palestinian State would be created, ranging from the sea to the River Jordan. 

 Mr. LANCRY (Israel), exercising his right of reply, noted that the representatives of Iran and Iraq were struck with paralysis on hearing the word Israel.  They always used the term “Zionist entity”.  He was proud to be part of that entity.  He said the reputations of the Iraqi and Iranian regimes were well established since the conflict between the two countries and the occupation of Kuwait.  Nothing needed to be added to that. 

 The Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, last May, was intended to calm an area with a high risk of tension, in full respect of Security Council resolution 425.  At the time of the withdrawal, there was a certain amount of incomprehension on the part of Syria and Lebanon.  The Syrian President had warned Israel not to withdraw at that time, because it could transform the region into a powder keg.  Could anyone imagine such a paradox?  The Israeli withdrawal left the Lebanese Government in a state of confused indifference regarding its sovereignty over its own territory.  The resolution had called for Lebanon to extend its army to the “Blue Line”, among other things.  Lebanon’s indecision was, no doubt, related to its imposed cohabitation with Syria, still present in Lebanon.  That was a very risky proposition in the border region.  Lebanon and Israel had no divergence of any nature. 

The representative of Lebanon said that Israel was carrying out actions against Lebanese civilians on their way to work.  He invited the representative to look at pictures of his own civilians throwing rocks at legitimate Israeli officials along the Blue Line.  Speakers had asked what Israel was doing in Shabaa.  That zone was subject to negotiations between Israel and Syria.  It was not Lebanese.  When it became Lebanese through international treaty, Israel would take note of it and act appropriately.  He called upon Lebanon to shoulder its responsibilities and prevent an escalation of violence. 

 He asked the Syrian representative to listen carefully to the voices rising in Lebanon itself.  On the basis of which Security Council resolutions was Syria occupying Lebanon?  It should leave that country, and put an end to the escalation of tension in the region. 

Mr. MEKDAD (Syria), exercising his second right of reply, said he wished that the Israeli representative would have drawn the right conclusions from the vote he had witnessed, and had not exercised his right to reply.  After Israel had been indicted and condemned by the crimes it committed every day, it should not continue to falsify facts.  Syria had said yesterday and on every other occasion that Israel must withdraw from all occupied Arab territories.  Full withdrawal, particularly from all Lebanese territories, and in particular the Shabaa Farms, was essential.  Syria had sent letters to the Secretariat and the Security Council affirming that Shabaa was Lebanese territory.  Whatever the issue, he said, why did Israel want to stay in Shabaa and the Syrian Golan?  If there were truly an Israeli desire for peace, then why stay there -- and until when?  Those were the questions that Israel must answer, together with the question of when the daily killings that were taking place against Palestinians and others in the occupied Arab territories would stop.

 Mr. TADMOURY (Lebanon) said he could not accept what he had just heard -- that apparently, even though the Lebanese had continued to struggle against Israel for 22 years, the Israeli representative believed Lebanon had refused to let Israel withdraw.  Did that sound reasonable or even logical?  With regard to the Lebanese reaction to recent events, he explained that Lebanon was not an island; its people reacted to and interacted within the region.  Having observed events in the Palestinian occupied territories, of course, stones would be thrown.  What did Israel expect after 22 years of occupation -- that the people of Lebanon would throw roses and rice?

Mr. LANCRY (Israel) said the litany about 23 years of occupation was worth defining with more clarity.  That occupation corresponded exactly with the years of attacks from southern Lebanon against northern Israel.  He had personally witnessed decades of attacks.  Later, that region had become the Hezbollah stronghold from which rocket attacks were launched, targeted at Israeli towns and villages along the border.  There had been aggression for 22 years, and that aggression continued.  A recent example was last Sunday’s attack against Israeli soldiers. 

Israel had been asked to withdraw from all Lebanese territories.  The Security Council had confirmed that Israel had done so.  Double standards could not be applied, and selective application of resolutions could not be used.  Israel had implemented Council resolution 425 fully.  The Security Council had recognized that the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers was a violation of its resolution 425.  The report of the Secretary-General praised the actions of Israel.  If there was still a foreign Power in Lebanon, if there was occupation in Lebanon, it was not Israeli occupation, he said.

Mr. Al-HUMAIMIDI (Iraq) said that what the General Assembly had heard from the Israeli representative was sickening.  The occupation by the Zionist entity of southern Lebanon was not an occupation, but a matter of self-defence?  What a lie!  It was an attempt to hoodwink the delegates in the General Assembly, to make them look stupid.  Every delegation present knew how ugly the Israeli occupation had been.

 Mr. GARDNER (United States), explaining his vote on the question of Palestine, said the United States Government opposed the resolutions grouped under agenda item 41.  The first three of those resolutions supported institutions whose activities and approach to the issues continued to be unbalanced and outdated.  The Assembly should focus on creating a positive atmosphere, one where the two parties were encouraged to return to negotiations. 

 The current cycle of violence must end, he said.  The tragic loss of life, Palestinian and increasingly Israeli, could only do more harm to a process that was until recently a source of hope for the parties and the region in general.  The Assembly should be in the business of supporting the process of negotiation, supporting the attempt to reach agreements that could lead to a peaceful settlement of disputes.  It should not be in the business of issuing one-sided criticism or authorizing the wasteful expenditure of funds for anachronistic committees and reports.  The resolution entitled “peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” laid out the position of one party to the negotiations -- a position that was obviously unacceptable to the other party.  It was not only unhelpful, it was counterproductive.

 The United States had worked hard --  and would continue to work hard -- to encourage achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.  Direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinians had yielded significant progress and could yield still further progress if they were resumed.  Today’s resolutions could only complicate the efforts of the parties to achieve a settlement.  The Assembly should ask itself whether those resolutions helped to advance, in any concrete and practical way, the real interests of the Palestinian people, including their desire for a Palestinian state.  The United States answer was clear and it would vote against the four texts. 

 Mr. LANCRY (Israel) said he would vote against draft resolutions L.45, L.46, L.47 and L.48.  The ritualistic recycling of those outdated texts reflected utter obliviousness to the burgeoning peace process and the new realities in the Middle East.  Draft resolutions L.45 and L.46 referred to what were termed the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat.  Since their inception, those bodies had obstructed dialogue and understanding through a preset, one-sided portrayal of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and had expended valuable resources which could be better invested in responding to the real needs of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

 Draft L.47 endorsed the special information programme on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information (DPI).  That programme also promoted a distorted and one-sided perspective of the conflict.  Draft L.48 claimed to support a “peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”, just as it made reference to Israeli-Palestinian agreements, beginning with the Israeli-Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Declaration of Principles of 13 September 1993.  Yet, the draft resolution, in content and purpose, actually went against those agreements and undermined the peace process it professed to support.  The Declaration, as well as the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, directly prohibited the use of such extraneous and prejudicial instruments as that resolution.

 He recalled that all diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East, beginning with the Camp David Accords, through the peace treaty with Jordan, right up to the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum of last year, were arrived at exclusively through direct negotiations between the parties.  However, the draft openly sought to predetermine the issues to be resolved by those negotiations.  Therefore, the draft both violated existing agreements and undermined the integrity and the foundations of the peace process. 

Action on Draft Resolutions

 The Assembly was informed that Guyana and Togo had joined as co-sponsors of the draft resolution contained in document A/55/L.45 on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

 The Assembly approved the draft by a recorded vote, with 106 in favour, two against (Israel, United States), and 48 abstaining.

 It was then announced that Guyana had joined as a co-sponsor of the draft resolution contained in document A/55/L.46, on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat.  The Assembly adopted that text by a recorded vote of 107 in favour, two against (Israel, United States), and 48 abstentions.

 The draft resolution on special information programme on the question of Palestine of the DPI (document A/55/L.47), which Guyana joined as co-sponsor, was adopted by a recorded vote of 151 in favour, 2 against (Israel, United States), and 2 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands).

 Togo joined as co-sponsor of draft resolution A/55/L.48, on the peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question.  The Assembly adopted the draft by a recorded vote of 149 in favour, 2 against (Israel, United States), and 3 abstaining (Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru).

Explanation of Vote after Vote 

 Mr. BIGOT (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that important progress had been made in the Middle East peace process over the years.

The Israelis and the Palestinians had offered courageous gestures during the summit held at Camp David last summer.  They had never been so close to reaching an agreement.  Ever since, tragedy had overridden negotiation.  The European Union had expressed many times the extreme concern which the current situation inspired. 

 The European Union regretted that the mandate of the two United Nations entities in charge of the “Question of Palestine” did not adequately reflect the spirit of the peace process.  That was why the European Union, as in previous years, was abstaining in the vote on the two draft resolutions contained in documents A/55/L.45 and A/55/L.46.  He, nevertheless, wished to commend the work achieved this year by the division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat, and welcomed the ongoing dialogue with the Bureau of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

 PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said his delegation had voted in favour of draft resolution A/55/L.48.  However, he had some reservations regarding operative paragraph 3.  Mexico took note that one of the basic understandings in the peace process had been the exchange of land for peace.  That formula had proved its usefulness in this particular conflict, yet it would seem risky to make it a universal legal principle to be applied as a norm in all conflicts.  Higher than that basic understanding was the general principle of international law which held that conquest did not grant territorial rights.  Everyone recognized that the acquisition of land through the use of force was inadmissible.  As a corollary to that universal principle, it must be concluded that the entirety of any territory occupied during an armed conflict must be retuned to its legitimate owner without conditions.

 For those reasons, while his delegation recognized the political value of the basic understanding, it felt it would be unsound to raise it to the level of a general principle of international law.  Mexico would like to call for greater precision in the language used to describe a political understanding that was not, and could not be, a universal legal principle.  In the preambular section of draft resolution A/54/L.50 on Syrian Golan, the term used was “the formula of land for peace”.  The word “formula” was one that his country would prefer to see in all draft resolutions on the matter.

 NASSER AL-KIDWA, Permanent Observer for Palestine, expressed his thanks to all the Member States that had supported the resolutions adopted by such a large majority.  He particularly appreciated the support of the co-sponsors of the resolutions.  One representative had proposed that the Assembly question itself whether those resolutions served the interests of the Palestinian people.  He, as a representative of Palestinians, said that the answer was affirmative.  He appreciated that this was the answer that the majority had reached.  Those resolutions meant a lot to the Palestinian people and the Middle East region in general, and sent the right message to the concerned party. 

 The resolutions also sent a message of solidarity with the Palestinian people and a confirmation of the continuing responsibility of the United Nations vis-à-vis the Palestinians.  Finally, the resolutions sent a message to Israel that its practices were unacceptable to the international community.  The most important resolution was that on Jerusalem.  The voting results showed the importance that the international community attached to the Holy City and the Israeli position.  It was interesting to note that on that particular resolution, only Israel had voted against.  That showed that the world was on one side and that Israel was alone on the other.  That must lead Israel to review its position. 

 The draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A/55/L.49) was adopted by a recorded vote of 145 in favour to 1 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel.

Abstain:  Angola, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, United States.

Absent:  Albania, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Jamaica, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritania, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.
(END OF ANNEX I)

The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/55/L.50) was adopted by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against, with 55 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstain:  Andorra, Angola, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.

Absent:  Albania, Azerbaijan, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Jamaica, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritania, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

 (END OF ANNEX II)

 The draft resolution on the Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/55/L.45) was adopted by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 2 against, with 48 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstain:  Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Absent:  Albania, Angola, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Jamaica, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

The draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/55/L.46) was adopted by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to 2 against, with 48 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstain:  Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Absent:  Albania, Angola, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Jamaica, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

The draft resolution on the Special Information Programme on Palestine of the Department of Public Information (document A/55/L.47) was adopted by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstain:  Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands.

Absent:  Albania, Angola, Armenia, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Jamaica, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

 The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/55/L.48) was adopted by a recorded vote 149 in favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstain:  Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru.

Absent:  Albania, Angola, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.