https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm
United
Nations
Security
Council SC/12657
7853rd
Meeting (PM) 23 December 2016
Israel's
Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation
of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms
14
Delegations in Favour of Resolution 2334 (2016) as United States Abstains
The
Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel's establishment
of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including
East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation
under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two
States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally
recognized borders.
Adopting
resolution 2334 (2016) by 14 votes, with the United States abstaining,
the Council reiterated its demand that Israel immediately and completely
cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory,
including East Jerusalem. It underlined that it would not recognize
any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem,
other than those agreed by the two sides through negotiations.
The
Council called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence
against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of
provocation and destruction. It further called for the strengthening
of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing
security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism.
The Council called on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and
to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric
in order to de-escalate the situation on the ground and rebuild trust
and confidence.
Also
by the text, the Council called on all parties to continue to exert
collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final-status
issues in the Middle East peace process, and within the time frame
specified by the Middle East Quartet (European Union, Russian Federation,
United Nations, United States) in its statement of 21 September 2010.
It called upon all States to distinguish, in their relevant dealings,
between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied
since 1967.
Explaining
her delegation's abstention, the representative of the United States
said it had been a long-standing position of her country that settlements
undermined Israel's security and eroded prospects for peace and stability.
She emphasized, however, that her vote today had not been straightforward.
Explaining that Israel had been treated differently from other States
for as long as it had been a member of the United Nations, she noted
that during the course of 2016, 18 resolutions adopted in the General
Assembly and others in the Human Rights Council had all condemned
Israel. It was because of that bias that the United States had not
voted in favour of the resolution, she said, emphasizing that her
delegation would not have let the resolution pass had it not addressed
terrorism and incitement to violence.
Malaysia's
representative said effective Council action must be taken without
further delay to reverse dangerous trends on the ground that were
threatening any possibility of a two-State solution. Settlement activity
constituted the single biggest threat to peace, and had led to settler
violence, home demolitions and denial of development. Decades of human
rights violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, leading
to acts of violence, she said, adding that the resolution could give
hope to the people of Palestine and Israel, the majority of whom still
wanted peace and a two-State solution.
Israel's
representative said those who had voted "yes" to the resolution
had voted "no" to negotiations, to progress and to a chance
for better lives for both Israelis and Palestinians, and to the possibility
of peace. The resolution would continue to provide excuses for the
Palestinians to avoid recognizing Israel's right to exist, he said,
adding that the Council had voted to condemn the State of Israel and
the Jewish people for building homes in the land of Israel, and to
deny "our eternal rights" in Jerusalem. "We will continue
to be a democratic State based on the rule of law and full civil and
human rights for all our citizens," he declared. "And we
will continue to be a Jewish State proudly reclaiming the land of
our forefathers."
The
Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine said the Council's action,
while long-overdue, was timely, necessary and important. The resolution
required vigilant follow-up if it was to be meaningful and salvage
a two-State solution from relegation to history's archives. Israel's
illegal settlements and its wall had undermined the contiguity of
Palestinian land and isolated East Jerusalem. To claims of bias, he
said the only bias was against law, reason and the vision of two States
as the most viable solution.
Egypt's
representative said the text expressed the painful reality of illegitimate
settlements and confiscation of Palestinian land. Noting that his
delegation had been compelled to withdraw its own draft resolution,
he emphasized that it was unacceptable for some Council members to
have warned Egypt, recalling that his country had been the first to
make peace with Israel.
Also
this afternoon, Council President Román Oyarzun Marchesi (Spain)
expressed appreciation for the contributions of Council members whose
term would expire at the end of 2016 - Angola, Malaysia, New Zealand,
Spain and Venezuela.
Also
speaking today were representatives of New Zealand, Venezuela, France,
China, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Russian Federation, Japan, Angola
and Senegal.
The
meeting began at 2:07 p.m. and ended at 3:50 p.m.
Action
on Draft Resolution
RAMLAN
BIN IBRAHIM (Malaysia), noting that he was a sponsor of the draft,
recalled numerous calls over the years for urgent Council action to
end illegal settlement construction, and said that a recent attempt
to legalize settlements on Palestinian-owned land added to the urgency.
Effective Council action must be taken without further delay to reverse
dangerous trends on the ground that threatened any possibility of
a two-State solution. While Malaysia would have preferred a more transparent
and normal process of submitting the text to the Council, the present
situation was unique, he emphasized, appealing to fellow Council members
not to lose the opportunity to advance the peace. The time to show
that a two-State solution was not an empty slogan was now, he added.
GERARD
VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) also noted his delegation's sponsorship
of the draft, expressed frustration that no draft on the Middle East
had been adopted in the past eight years. He surveyed the draft's
drafting and negotiation history, saying what was needed was a text
that moved the peace process forward by building on the broad consensus
that settlements were a major obstacle and that all violence must
end.
RAFAEL DARÍO RAMÍREZ CARREÑO (Venezuela), a third
sponsor, said today's action could be historic. The decision to table
the draft was important due to the ongoing expansion of settlements
and in order to safeguard the Palestinian people and salvage the peace
process. The draft resolution reaffirmed the right of both Israelis
and Palestinians to live within secure borders, on the basis of the
1967 lines. At the same time, it addressed the settlement problem
and condemned violence. There was wide consensus among Member States,
the Secretary-General, other members of the Middle East Quartet and
other stakeholders, he noted, urging adoption of the text.
The
Council then adopted the draft resolution by 14 votes in favour with
1 abstention (United States).
Statements
AMR
ABDELLATIF ABOULATTA (Egypt) said the text adopted today expressed
the painful reality of illegitimate settlements and confiscation of
Palestinian land. The settlement question was one component of the
final-status issues - that of borders. Noting that his country, had
been compelled to withdraw its own draft, he stressed that it was
unacceptable for some Council members to have warned Egypt. Recalling
that Egypt had been the first Arab country to make peace with Israel,
he said it believed in peace based on a two-State solution and the
land-for-peace initiative.
SAMANTHA
POWER (United States) said the immediate adoption of a freeze on settlements
could create confidence, adding that further settlement activities
were not necessary for Israel's security. President Ronald Reagan
had said that in 1982, she recalled, noting that his words underscored
her country's commitment to a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians
and highlighted its position that settlements undermined Israel's
security and eroded prospects for peace and stability.
She
said that while her vote today was in line with her country's bipartisan
tradition, the vote itself had not been straightforward. Explaining
that Israel had been treated differently from other States for as
long as it had been a member of the United Nations, she pointed out
that in the course of 2016, 18 resolutions had been adopted in the
General Assembly and others in the Human Rights Council, all condemning
Israel. Because of that bias, and some factors not included in the
resolution, the United States had not voted in favour of the resolution,
she said, explaining that her delegation would not have let it pass
had it not addressed acts of terrorism and incitement to violence.
The
issue of settlements was now putting a two-State solution at risk
too, she continued. The number of settlers had increased dramatically,
and legislation now before the Knesset would legalize most of their
outposts. Emphasizing that one must make a choice between settlements
and separation, she said her delegation had not supported the resolution
because it was focused too narrowly on settlements.
She
went on to stress that Palestinian leaders must recognize that incitement
for violence eroded prospects for peace. There had been hundreds of
attacks, but rather than being condemned, the attackers were upheld
as heroes. Israel faced threats in a difficult neighbourhood, and
the United States would not waver in its commitment to its security,
she said, underlining that a two-State solution was the only path
to peace for the people of Israel and Palestine. It was up to them
to choose that path.
FRANÇOIS
DELATTRE (France) described the resolution's adoption as an important
and historic event, noting that it marked the first time that the
Council had clearly stated the obvious: settlement activities undermined
a two-State solution. Israel's settlement building had accelerated,
fuelling tension on the ground, and it was now part of a deliberate
policy aiming to create facts on the ground in the West Bank and east
Jerusalem. Acts of violence, incitement and terrorism also undermined
the chances for a two-State solution, he said, pointing out that the
resolution strongly reiterated its condemnation of all acts of terrorism
and called on the Palestinian Authority to discourage them. The resolution
was also meant to create the conditions for a resumption of negotiations.
Emphasizing that peace could only be based on a two-State solution,
he said France would organize an international conference in Paris
to re-launch the negotiation process. Today's resolution and the Paris
conference were both aimed at reiterating support for a two-State
solution, he added.
RAFAEL
DARIO RAMÍREZ CARREÑO (Venezuela), welcoming the resolution's
adoption, said it allowed the Council to emerge from inaction and
work for the resumption of negotiations towards a two-State solution.
Of course that was just one step towards that goal, but it was necessary
because it seriously affected both the Palestinian people and the
prospects for peace, he said. Israel must now end all illegal practices
of the occupation, including its blockade on the Gaza Strip and all
settlement activity. Reiterating condemnation of all terrorism as
well as all violations of the human rights of Palestinians, he said
he was pleased that, as his country ended its term, the Council had
finally acted on the settlement issue.
WU HAITAO
(China), welcoming the adoption, said the resolution reflected the
common aspiration of the international community. He urged Israel
to implement the resolution and called upon both sides to re-establish
mutual trust so that a just and lasting solution could be reached
in the form of two secure States coexisting peacefully. China would
continue to support efforts to achieve that goal, he pledged.
MATTHEW
RYCROFT (United Kingdom) said the adoption reaffirmed the belief that
a two-State solution was the only way to a just and lasting peace.
In that context, it was critical to end all terrorism and incitement,
he emphasized, adding that it was also necessary to end the expansion
of settlements. The United Kingdom rejected all efforts to de-legitimize
Israel, and it was as a friend of that country that it supported the
resolution text, since it was in the best interests of both sides
and renewed efforts for a peaceful two-State solution. He stressed,
however, that he did not anticipate an easy road to that goal.
LUIS
BERMÚDEZ (Uruguay) said the resolution represented a critical
effort to address negative trends in the conflict between Israel and
the Palestinians. Hopefully it would be a call for action towards
the resumption of negotiations on a peaceful, negotiated two-State
solution. Uruguay would continue to support that goal, he pledged,
noting that both Israelis and Palestinians deserved it, exhausted
as they were by many decades of conflict.
VITALY
I. CHURKIN (Russian Federation), explaining that he had been puzzled
by the process around the resolution and by the haste with which it
had been "pushed" to the vote, agreed with other speakers
that settlement activities undermined the chances for a two-State
solution, as did acts of terror and incitement to violence. Emphasizing
that his country had been involved in the peace process for a long
time, he said the work of the Middle East Quartet (European Union,
Russian Federation, United Nations, United States) remained important
and effective. Its July report was still relevant, and implementation
of its recommendations would help to return the process to the political
track, he added.
KORO
BESSHO (Japan) said he was deeply concerned about the current stagnation
in the peace process. Noting that settlement activities were in violation
of international law and had been eroding the viability of a two-State
solution, he emphasized the importance of the parties committing themselves
to the resolution. Peace in the Middle East could only be realized
through negotiations, he said, stressing that Japan would not recognize
any unilateral change by either party that might pre-judge the final
resolution of the conflict.
RAMLAN
BIN IBRAHIM (Malaysia) said that after decades of paralysis the Council
had finally taken effective action to reverse the negative trends
threatening peace and a two-State solution. Thanking Council members
who had voted in favour of the resolution, he said he was encouraged
by the restraint demonstrated by some permanent members. Settlement
activity constituted the single biggest threat to peace and a two-State
solution, and had led to settler violence, home demolitions, as well
as the denial of development. Decades of violations of human rights
violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, which had led
to acts of violence, he said. The resolution could give hope to the
people of Palestine and Israel, the majority of whom still wanted
peace under a two-State solution. The adoption was also a victory
for people in Israel who still believed in living side by side in
peace with the Palestinians and other Arab people. While emphasizing
the need to reflect on the collective failures of the past 50 years,
he also cautioned that today's resolution only addressed the symptoms
and not the root causes of the conflict.
ISMAEL
ABRAÃO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola), welcomed the resolution's adoption,
saying that the problem of settlements had continued for far too long.
It was disappointing that Israel disputed its illegality. Urging both
sides to refrain from unilateral actions that could hinder a two-State
solution, he said that such a solution would require unity on the
Council, among Palestinians and among Israelis. Angola hoped today's
action was a first step in the right direction.
GERARD
VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) said he was very pleased that during the
last meeting of 2016, the Council had been able to take a positive
step to save a two-State solution. Settlements were a threat to that
goal, but so were violence and terrorism, he said, adding that they
also created false expectations on the part of Israelis and resentments
on the part of Palestinians. Today's resolution confirmed principles
that had long been accepted in the United Nations, he said, adding
that, while more could have been done, the text was achievable "right
now".
GORGUI
CISS (Senegal), welcoming the adoption, affirmed that the settlements
were illegal under international law. They encouraged violence against
both Israelis and Palestinians, and harmed the aspirations of both
to a peaceful future. Renewing condemnations of all acts of terrorism
and violence while expressing support for initiatives that could move
the peace process forward, he called for the coordination of all such
initiatives.
ROMÁN
OYARZUN MARCHESI (Spain), Council President for December, said he
had voted in favour of the resolution because it would help to save
the prospects for a two-State solution, which must be negotiated between
the two sides. However, the Council must fulfil its responsibilities
and act on the basis of consensus and a balanced text that could move
the process forward. Spain had always affirmed the illegality of the
settlements and condemned incitement to violence, he recalled, noting
that today's resolution was consistent with both positions. Welcoming
the Council's breaking of its silence on the issue, he pledged that
his country would continue to make whatever contribution possible
to advance peace in the Middle East.
DANNY
DANON (Israel) described today as a bad day for his country and the
peak of hypocrisy. The Council had wasted time to condemn Israel for
building homes in the Jewish people's historic homeland. Those who
had voted yes had voted no to negotiations, to progress and to a chance
for better lives for both Israelis and Palestinians, he said, adding
that they had voted no to the possibility of peace. The resolution
would continue to provide excuses for the Palestinians to avoid recognizing
Israel's right to exist, he said. There had been a disproportionate
number of resolutions condemning Israel and today's text would be
added to that shameful list.
He went
on to call upon the Council to turn a new page and end the bias against
Israel. Today it had voted to condemn the State of Israel and to condemn
the Jewish people for building homes in the Land of Israel. Asking
every voting member who had given them the right to issue such a decree,
denying "our eternal rights in Jerusalem", he expressed
full confidence in the justice of Israel's cause and the righteousness
of its path. "We will continue to be a democratic State based
on the rule of law and full civil and human rights for all our citizens,"
he emphasized. "And we will continue to be a Jewish State proudly
reclaiming the land of our forefathers."
RIYAD
MANSOUR, Permanent Observer for the State of Palestine, said that
the Council's action, while long overdue, was timely, necessary and
important. Over the years, the delegation of the State of Palestine
had made countless appeals for the Council to uphold its Charter duties,
insisting on the need to confront Israel's oppression of Palestinians
and its relentless colonization of their land under a half-century
of foreign occupation. Those appeals had been calls for the Council
to contribute to the cause of peace - for Palestine, Israel, the Middle
East and the world, he said.
The
resolution would require vigilant follow-up if it was to be meaningful
and if it would salvage the two-State solution from relegation to
history's archives, he said. Urgent efforts would be needed to reverse
the dangerous, negative trends on the ground and to advance collective
efforts to end the occupation that had begun in 1967. For five decades,
the occupation had persisted with full force, its illegal settlements
and wall having undermined the contiguity of Palestinian lands and
isolated East Jerusalem. In response to claims of bias, he said the
only bias taking place was bias against law, reason and the vision
of two States as the most viable solution.
Urging
the Security Council to stand firm by its decision, he expressed hope
that the global call for an end to Israel's settlement activities
and violations would compel its compliance with the law, de-escalate
tensions and bring an end to violence. That would be vital for salvaging
the prospects for peace and should be led by responsible Council action,
including follow-up to the reports requested of the Secretary-General
in relation to implementation of today's resolution. Recognizing the
efforts of Arab States in the context of the Arab Peace Initiative,
as well as those of France, the Quartet, Egypt and the Russian Federation,
he called for intensified international and regional efforts to end
Israel's occupation and build a just and lasting peace in an independent,
sovereign and contiguous State of Palestine, side by side with Israel
and within secure and recognized borders.
Resolution
The
full text of resolution 2334 (2016) reads as follows:
"The
Security Council,
"Reaffirming
its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973),
446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002),
1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),
"Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition
of territory by force,
"Reaffirming
the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously
by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time
of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered
on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,
"Condemning
all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character
and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including
East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion
of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land,
demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in
violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
"Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement
activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State
solution based on the 1967 lines,
"Recalling
the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution
1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including
"natural growth", and the dismantlement of all settlement
outposts erected since March 2001,
"Recalling
also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian
Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at
confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist
capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,
"Condemning
all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror,
as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,
"Reiterating
its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine,
live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
"Stressing
that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps,
consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are
urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse
negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State
solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the
conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing
the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,
"1.
Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in
the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,
has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international
law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution
and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
"2.
Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely
cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory,
including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal
obligations in this regard;
"3.
Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4
June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those
agreed by the parties through negotiations;
"4.
Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities
is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative
steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the
ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;
"5.
Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this
resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the
territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since
1967;
"6.
Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against
civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation
and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls
for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening
of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing
security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;
"7.
Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international
law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous
agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to
refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric,
with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground,
rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and
actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating
the conditions necessary for promoting peace;
"8.
Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the
promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch
credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East
peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in
its statement of 21 September 2010;
"9.
Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of
international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at
achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in
the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions,
the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for
peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end
to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this
regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace
Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international
peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the
efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;
"10.
Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout
the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;
"11.
Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means
to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;
"12.
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every
three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present
resolution;
"13.
Decides to remain seized of the matter."