Israel is the Greatest!

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

You keep mentioning this vote. When does this vote take place? What are the details? If I want to look up this vote what would I type in? Did this vote ask the members of the UN to vote on the proposition that "Israel is an apartheid state?" Cause otherwise you can't logically use this vote as a means of arguing that Israel is an apartheid state. Plus there is still the philosophical problem of defining the term "apartheid" by the feelings of a hundred+ UN representatives, or I suppose the governments of the countries they represent, because we all know that governments always make decisions for perfectly pure reasons (except, of course, Israel and the U.S.).

Yeah, yeah, yeah, keep struggling to wriggle out of the fact that Israel is an Apartheid state. I've proved it above in more ways than one, and your squirming efforts to avoid the facts make no difference.

As for the U.N 242 vote, it's not easy to find the details online, probably because some people would rather brush the vote count under the table.

Here's what I did find though which gives you an idea of who the rejectionists are:


http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/ga10809.doc.htm

16 January 2009

General Assembly Plenary

Tenth Emergency Special Session

34th & 35th Meetings (AM & PM)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEMANDS FULL RESPECT FOR SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1860

CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE GAZA CEASEFIRE, AS EMERGENCY SESSION CONCLUDES

Resolution Adopted by Vote of 143-3-9, After Two-Day Debate;

Expresses Grave Concern about Developments on Ground since Council Text’s Adoption

The General Assembly, gravely concerned about the intensified military operations in the Gaza Strip and heavy civilian casualties since last week’s adoption of resolution 1860 by the Security Council, this evening demanded full respect for that text, including its urgent call for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces and unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance.

Following a two-day emergency special session convened to address the three-week old crisis, the Assembly adopted its own resolution on the issue by a vote of 143 in favour to 3 against (United States, Israel, Nauru), with 9 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Venezuela).


http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/ga10896.doc.htm

2 December 2009

Sixty-fourth General Assembly

Plenary

54th Meeting (AM)


The report also contains the observations of the Secretary-General on the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and international efforts to move the peace process forward. In the report, which covers the period from September 2008 to August 2009, the Secretary-General says the United Nations will continue to work towards the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine. The framework for peace remains unchanged: the creation of two States, an independent and viable Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel, on the basis of the principle of land for peace, and a just and comprehensive regional peace consistent with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008), as well as the Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative.


Following Two-Day Debate, General Assembly Adopts Six Draft Resolutions on Question of Palestine, Middle East

Address: Peaceful Settlement, Palestinian Rights Committee, Jerusalem,

Special Information Programme, Palestinian Rights Division, Syrian Globe

Fresh from observing the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, the General Assembly this morning concluded two days of plenary debate on the question of Palestine and the broader situation in the Middle East with the adoption, by recorded vote, of six resolutions aimed at promoting the inalienable rights of Palestinians -– particularly to statehood –- and permanently ending Israel’s “illegal” actions in Jerusalem and Syrian Golan.

In early action, the Assembly turned its attention to Palestine with the adoption of four texts. It first adopted, by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 55 abstentions, a resolution on the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” (document A/64/L.20) (for voting details, see Annex I). By that text, it asked the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of Palestinians’ inalienable rights, including to self-determination.

By a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, New Zealand, United States) with 54 abstentions (Annex II), the Assembly next adopted a resolution on the “Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat” (document A/64/L.21), by which it requested the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources and ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work.

Next, by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga) (Annex III), the Assembly adopted a resolution on the “Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat” (document A/64/L.22), by which it requested the Department to continue its special information programme for the 2010-2011 biennium.

The Assembly also adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Fiji, Tonga) (Annex IV), a resolution on the “Peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine” (document A/64/L.23), by which it reaffirmed the illegality of a host of Israeli actions aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of Jerusalem and the territory as a whole, among them, Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.

More broadly by the text, the Assembly reaffirmed its full support for the Middle East peace process, based on relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Quartet Road Map and existing agreements between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. It urged the parties to take immediate steps in follow-up to their joint understanding reached at the 2007 Annapolis Conference, and encouraged the convening of an international conference in Moscow, as envisioned by Security Council resolution 1850 (2008).

Speaking before the votes, the United States representative said his Government was deeply saddened to be presented with unbalanced resolutions, which unlike the Assembly’s actions vis-à-vis other States, placed demands on Israel and failed to acknowledge that both sides had obligations. While the United States accepted the principle that the Assembly might look into the practices of States, resolutions under this item formed a clear pattern of institutional bias directed at one Member State.

Speaking after the votes, the representative of Israel said his Government had voted against the resolutions, which reflected a one-sided agenda that had been repeated year in and year out. People in the region did not need another biased General Assembly resolution; they needed peace based on mutual recognition, which would result from negotiations.

Following that action, the Assembly adopted two texts on the situation in the Middle East.

By a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 7 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the Assembly then adopted the resolution on “Jerusalem” (document A/64/L.24) (Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any action taken by any body -- Governmental or non-governmental -- in violation of resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001) and 478 (1980).

Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 51 abstentions, the Assembly adopted a resolution on “The Syrian Golan” (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. Continued occupation of the Syrian Golan was a stumbling block to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. It called on Israel to resume talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and demanded its withdrawal from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967.

Speaking after action, the observer of Palestine said the resolutions sent a strong signal on the importance of upholding the clear principles of international law. The building of illegal settlements, the building of an illegal wall, and the annexation of East Jerusalem were all obstacles to peace. The resolutions were not one-sided. “We could not all of us be wrong”, he said. Israel was acting as if it was above international law and it was high time to bring it into compliance.

Also speaking in explanation of vote after the vote on the resolutions related to Palestine were the representatives of New Zealand and Sweden (on behalf of the European Union).

Also speaking in explanation of the vote after the vote on the resolutions related to the Middle East were the representatives of Argentina (also speaking for Brazil), Iran and Syria.

The General Assembly will reconvene at 3 p.m. Wednesday, 2 December to take up the reports of its First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

Background

The General Assembly met today to take action on draft resolutions relating to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East. (For summaries of the resolutions and debate, please see press releases [GA/10894] and [GA/10895]).

Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 16 on Question of Palestine

Resuming its consideration of the question of Palestine, the Assembly first turned to a draft text on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/64/L.20).

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the United States representative said, on the situation in the Middle East, his Government had clearly stated that there should be two states living side by side in peace and security. The United States was deeply saddened to be presented with unbalanced resolutions, which unlike the Assembly’s actions vis-à-vis other States, placed demands on Israel and failed to acknowledge that both sides had obligations. While the United States accepted the principle that the Assembly might look into the practices of States, resolutions under this item formed a clear pattern of institutional bias directed at one Member State. Of particular concern were three resolutions on the entities established more than a generation ago that perpetuated that bias.

He said the millions of dollars spent on the Division of Palestinian Rights, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices could be better directed towards other issues, including direct assistance to needy Palestinians, as could staff resources. The United States had provided significant financial support to the Palestinian Authority and to Palestinian refugees. The United States was the largest single donor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). He reiterated the call for all to review the continued existence of those bodies with a sharp focus on what, if anything, they contributed to finding a solution to the Middle East conflict.

In addition to those three resolutions, the Assembly would consider others that would prejudge the outcome of permanent status issues, he said. They called into question the United Nations’ credibility. Through good faith negotiations, parties could agree on an outcome that reconciled the goals of a viable Palestinian state, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state living in secure and recognized borders. The United States’ commitment to achieving a solution of two states living side by side in peace was unwavering.

By a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 55 in abstention, the Assembly then adopted the text on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/64/L.20) (Annex I), by which it asked the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. It authorized the Committee to adjust its approved work programme after considering developments and report to the Assembly.

Further by the text, the Assembly requested the Committee to continue its cooperation and support to Palestinian and other civil organizations, as well as involve additional civil society organizations and parliamentarians in its work to mobilize support for the Palestinian people. It requested the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, and other United Nations bodies associated with the question of Palestine, to cooperate fully with the Committee. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to circulate the report of the Committee to all competent bodies of the United Nations and urge them to take the necessary action, as appropriate.

The Assembly then adopted by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, New Zealand and United States) with 54 in abstention, a resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/64/L.21) (Annex II), by which it requested the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the necessary resources and ensure that it continued to carry out its programme of work. It requested the Division, as part of the observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on 29 November, to continue to organize an annual exhibit on Palestinian rights or a cultural event in cooperation with the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine.

By a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States) with 5 in abstentions (Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Tonga), the Assembly next adopted a resolution on the Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine (document A/64/L.22) (Annex III), by which it requested the Department of Public Information, in full cooperation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to continue its special information programme for the biennium 2010-2011. It encouraged the Department to find ways for the media and civil society to engage in open and positive discussions to explore means for encouraging people-to-people dialogue and promote peace and mutual understanding in the region.

Next, the Assembly adopted by recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States) with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Fiji and Tonga), a resolution on the Peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/64/L.23) (Annex IV), by which it reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli actions intended at changing the status of Jerusalem, including measures such as the so-called E-1 plan [which aims to connect Jerusalem to the West Bank and settlement of Ma’ale Adumim].

It also reaffirmed the illegality of other unilateral measures that are contrary to international law and endeavour to alter the character, status and demographic composition of the city and the territory as a whole, among them, Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. It expressed deep concern at the continued Israeli policy of closures and restrictions on the movement of persons and goods, medical and humanitarian personnel and goods, continued establishment of checkpoints and imposition of a permit regime throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which had created a dire humanitarian crisis.

Also by the text, the Assembly reaffirmed its full support for the Middle East peace process, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, Madrid terms of reference, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Quartet Road Map and existing agreements between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. It encouraged continued regional and international efforts to promote the Arab Peace Initiative; urged parties to undertake immediate steps in follow-up to their joint understanding reached at the 2007 Annapolis Conference; and encouraged the convening of an international conference in Moscow.

The Assembly also stressed the need for advancing reconstruction in the Gaza Strip; called on Israel to comply with its obligations under international law; and reiterated the demand for complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian Golan. Reaffirming its commitment to the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on pre-1967 borders, the Assembly stressed the need for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

Finally by the text, the Assembly stressed the need for justly resolving the problem of Palestine refugees; called on parties to resume direct peace negotiations towards conclusion of a final peaceful settlement; urged States to speed provision of economic humanitarian and technical assistance to Palestinians; encouraged the Quartet’s Special Representative to strengthen Palestinian institutions and requested the Secretary-General to continue efforts towards the attainment of a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Israel said his Government had voted against the resolutions, as it had done in the past, because they did not reflect the reality of the region. They reflected a one-sided agenda repeated year in and year out. They did not help the conflict. People in the region needed peace based on mutual recognition, which would result from negotiations. They did not need another biased and one-sided General Assembly resolution. The Middle East required an agreement that would allow countries to live in peace.

Speaking in explanation of its vote on resolutions A/64/L.21 and A/64/L.22, the representative of New Zealand said his country had consistently supported negotiations toward a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict. New Zealand said it was essential to approach the issues raised in these resolutions with balance and regard for the intent of the text in question.

Regarding the resolution on the special information programme, New Zealand supported the dissemination of balanced information and welcomed this resolution’s focus on promoting dialogue between the two sides. While he voted in favour of this resolution, he called on the department’s special information programme to carry out its mandate in a manner that reflected the full spectrum of perspectives.

Regarding the resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights, New Zealand was not convinced that the Division was a constructive use of resources and it did little to contribute to the Middle East peace process. It voted against the resolution. But, that did not detract from its strong support for Palestinian self-determination.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Sweden explained its vote regarding the resolution of the “Peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine” (A/64/L.23). The Union urged the Palestinian Authority and Israel to enter into serious peace negotiations as soon as possible.

The European Union was deeply concerned about the continued settlement activities and evictions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem and reiterated that they were an obstacle to peace. It was also concerned about the recent developments in East Jerusalem and was closely following the situation around the Al Aqsa mosque and Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif.

It was gravely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and what was, in effect, a blockade. It consistently called for the immediate openings of crossings to let humanitarian aid, commercial goods and people go into and out of Gaza. Without that, reconstruction and economic recovery would not be possible.

Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 15 on Situation in Middle East

The Assembly then turned its attention to the situation in the Middle East.

By a recorded vote of 163 in favour, to 7 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5 in abstention (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the Assembly then adopted the resolution on Jerusalem (document A/64/L.24) (Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any action taken by any body -- Governmental or non-governmental -- in violation of resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001) and 478 (1980). It expressed grave concern at Israel’s continuation of illegal settlement activities, including the so-called E-1 plan, construction of the wall around East Jerusalem and restricted access to and residence in East Jerusalem.

Further by the text, the Assembly reiterated its determination that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem were illegal and, therefore, null and void. It called on Israel to immediately cease all such illegal measures and stressed that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both Palestinians and Israelis and should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure freedom of religion of its inhabitants. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to report back to it at its sixty-fifth session on the implementation of the resolution.

Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour, to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 51 in abstention, the Assembly adopted a resolution on The Syrian Golan (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. It reaffirmed its determination that all relevant provisions annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907 and Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War continue to apply.