Human Rights Council
Forty-ninth session
Summary record (partial)* of the 58th meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 1 April 2022, at 3 p.m.
President: Mr. Villegas (Argentina)
Contents
Agenda item 7: Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories
/…
The meeting was called to order at 3.55 p.m
Agenda item 7: Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories (A/HRC/49/L.17, A/HRC/49/L.18 and A/HRC/49/L.19)
Draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.17: Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination
- Mr. Mehdi (Pakistan), introducing the draft resolution, said that the realization of the right to self-determination was key to upholding human dignity and advancing human rights. Draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.17 reaffirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and their rights to live in freedom, justice and dignity and to an independent State. While reaffirming the need for a just, comprehensive and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it called upon Israel to immediately end its occupation of the entire Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to reverse and redress any impediments to the political independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Palestine. The draft resolution expressed grave concern at the demographic changes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that had resulted from continued Israeli settlement activities. He hoped that the Council would adopt the draft resolution by consensus.
- The President announced that 12 States had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution, which had no programme budget implications. He invited the States concerned by the draft resolution to make statements.
- Ms. Eilon Shahar (Observer for Israel) said that her statement addressed all three draft resolutions submitted under agenda item 7. Days earlier, in March 2022, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Israel, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates, alongside the Secretary of State of the United States of America, had met in Israel for an unprecedented summit, at which the United Arab Emirates had called for an end to the narrative of hate in respect of Israeli-Arab relations. Now, her delegation called on the Council to reject the narrative of hate represented by agenda item 7, which was a relic of the past. It hearkened back to a time when singling out Israel and holding it to double standards was common practice. The Middle East was coming together and Israel was building new ties; it no longer stood alone. However, some members of the Council would continue to vote blindly for draft resolutions submitted under agenda item 7, ignoring the reality of the outside world. The previous day, at the Council’s 55th meeting, the Palestinian representative had stated that his delegation would be willing to negotiate with the Israeli delegation on draft resolutions. She wished to suggest that the negotiations should start with the abolishment of agenda item 7. Her delegation called on all States members of the Council to choose hope over hate by voting against draft resolutions A/HRC/49/L.17, A/HRC/49/L.18 and A/HRC/49/L.19.
- Mr. Khraishi (Observer for the State of Palestine) said that his statement addressed all three draft resolutions submitted under agenda item 7. The representative of the occupying Power had alluded to the idea that a new Middle East was being forged. However, the only vision for the region that should be aspired to was one in which the Israeli occupation had ceased and the Palestinian people were free to exercise their right to self-determination. Regarding his statement at the 55th meeting, his delegation was indeed willing to negotiate on draft resolutions. However, the abolishment of agenda item 7 was not on the table. Moreover, the preconditions for such negotiations would be for Israel to cease its abuses and for the representative of the occupying Power to state before the Council that she was willing to cooperate with the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations.
- The right to self-determination had been instrumental in helping countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa to put an end to colonialism and occupation. It was hard to believe that in the twenty-first century, some countries continued to refuse to recognize the right to self-determination of all peoples everywhere in the world. Such a position was tantamount to discrimination. In view of the continued division of the West Bank into enclaves, those countries that supported a two-State solution should ask themselves what would be left of the State of Palestine in the near future. Moreover, given the adoption by the Knesset, in 2018, of the Basic Law: Israel the Nation State of the Jewish People, under which only Jewish citizens enjoyed the right to self-determination, it should be clear to all that the occupation of Palestine was based on a system of apartheid. He urged all members of the Council to vote in favour of the right to self-determination for all peoples of the world and against colonialism.
- Ms. Taylor (United States of America), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that the United States strongly and unequivocally opposed the biased agenda item 7, the continued existence of which called into question the credibility of the Council. None of the world’s worst human rights violators, some of which were the subject of resolutions adopted at the current session, had their own stand-alone agenda item. Only Israel received such treatment. For that reason, the United States opposed the draft resolutions submitted annually under agenda item 7 and strongly rejected the characterization of the Israeli authorities’ actions as constituting apartheid. One-sided resolutions distracted from efforts to advance peace. The United States was committed to a negotiated two-State solution and believed that Israelis and Palestinians alike deserved to live safely and securely and enjoy equal measures of security, freedom and prosperity. It would continue to oppose every effort to delegitimize Israel. Her delegation called for a vote on draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.17 and urged all Council members to vote against it.
- At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a recorded vote was taken.
In favour: Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Libya, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).
Against: Marshall Islands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining: Cameroon, Honduras, Lithuania.
- Draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.17 was adopted by 41 votes to 3, with 3 abstentions.
Draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.18: Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan
- Mr. Mehdi (Pakistan), introducing the draft resolution, said that the text affirmed that any action by Israel to transfer parts of its own civilian population to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the occupied Syrian Golan constituted a grave breach of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) and relevant provisions of customary international law, and recalled that the International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004, had indicated that Israeli settlements were unlawful under international law. Such settlements seriously endangered the viability of the two-State solution. The operative part of the draft resolution called for the effective implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions; demanded that Israel should immediately cease and reverse all settlement activities; and requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the implementation of the draft resolution to the Human Rights Council at its fifty-second session. The violations committed in the territories under Israeli occupation were a not a relic of the past; they were the worst human rights tragedy of the modern era. Calling for accountability for crimes against Palestinians was not a narrative of hate. He hoped that the Council members would unanimously reject the Israeli Government’s illegal settlement policy and adopt draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.18 by consensus.
- The President announced that 11 States had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution, which had no programme budget implications.
- Ms. Imene-Chanduru (Namibia), making a general statement before the voting, said that her Government remained deeply concerned about the gross and persistent violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories was indicative of the colonial and apartheid system operated by Israel. Settler violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory also continued unabated. Despite the credible reports in that regard and the illegality of settlement activities under international law, some countries continued to shield Israel by attempting to block initiatives aimed at holding it accountable for its countless violations. As Namibia had experienced a similar struggle against occupation and apartheid, her delegation wished to reiterate that the cause of the Palestinian people would ultimately prevail and history would not look kindly upon those who continued to protect Israel.
- Mr. Baiou (Libya), making a general statement before the voting, said that occupation was the true relic of the past. It had no place in the twenty-first century. The countries of the world must rally together to condemn the continued occupation of the Palestinian territories.
- Mr. Manley (United Kingdom), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that it had long been clear to his Government that the Council’s disproportionate focus on Israel was unfair and only served to harden positions, rather than to encourage the Israeli Government to engage with the mechanisms and expertise of the Council. Agenda item 7 alienated Israel, and its continuation was an impediment to dialogue; it obstructed efforts for peace in the Middle East and damaged the prospects for a two-State solution. His Government supported scrutiny of the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory by the Council, so long as it was justified, proportionate and appropriate. It fully supported the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and called out the illegal expansion of Israeli settlements. However, his delegation called for a vote on draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.18, in order to take a stand against the Council’s persistent and disproportionate focus on Israel.
- At the request of the representative of the United Kingdom, a recorded vote was taken.
In favour: Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Libya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).
Against: Malawi, Marshall Islands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining: Brazil, Cameroon, Honduras, Lithuania, Ukraine.
- Draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.18 was adopted by 38 votes to 4, with 5 abstentions.
Draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.19: Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan
- Mr. Mehdi (Pakistan), introducing the draft resolution, said that the sponsors strongly condemned the grave human rights violations that had been committed in the occupied Syrian Golan, including the illegal imposition of Israeli citizenship on Syrian nationals, arbitrary arrests and the exploitation of natural resources. Reaffirming the illegality of the decision by Israel in 1981 to impose its laws on the occupied Syrian Golan, the draft resolution highlighted the established international legal practice of regarding the acquisition of territory by force as inadmissible. It also expressed hope for the resumption of peace talks on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). The operative part of the draft resolution called for the Government of Israel to implement all relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council; rejected the imposition of Israeli law and jurisdiction on the occupied Syrian Golan; and requested the Government of Israel to immediately cease all settlement-related plans and activities in that territory. Given that the draft resolution was based on the principles of international law, his delegation hoped that the Council would adopt it by consensus.
- The President announced that four States had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution, which had no programme budget implications. He invited the State concerned by the draft resolution to make a statement.
- Mr. Aala (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that his statement addressed draft resolutions A/HRC/49/L.18 and A/HRC/49/L.19. He condemned the disinformation and intimidation campaigns led by the Israeli delegation and its allies in the Council to silence those who criticized the violations committed by the Israeli authorities in the occupied Syrian Golan. The Council had a special responsibility to monitor and condemn such violations and to hold the occupying Power accountable for them. Contrary to the flimsy pretext employed by Western countries to justify their vote against the draft resolutions, the issues addressed under agenda item 7 were not related to the political targeting of any one country but rather to the human rights situation in the occupied territories and the grave violations committed by the occupying authorities, which continued to flout all United Nations resolutions calling for an end to the occupation.
- The expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied Syrian Golan, the theft of natural resources, the confiscation of land and the transfer of persons to the occupied territories clearly constituted a policy of colonialism and annexation. The Israeli Government’s announcement, following its provocative meeting in the occupied Syrian Golan in late 2021, of its plans to spend over $300 million on two new settlements and the expansion of existing settlements was an example of its brazen disregard for its legal obligations, the rules of international law, the Fourth Geneva Convention and Security Council resolution 497 (1981). Such settlement activities and plans were tantamount to war crimes and required accountability. Draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.19 condemned such activities and warned of their devasting consequences for the human rights of the Syrians living in the occupied territory. It called on the Israeli Government to stop altering the demographic and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, cease its attempts to impose Israeli citizenship and identity cards on Syrian nationals and allow displaced persons to return to their homes. The adoption of draft resolutions A/HRC/49/L.18 and A/HRC/49/L.19 would send a strong message that the international community was monitoring the illegal activity of the Israeli authorities and that their violations of international law would not go unpunished. His delegation called on the Council to adopt draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.19 by consensus.
Statements made in explanation of vote before the voting
- Mr. Bonnafont (France), speaking on behalf of the States members of the European Union that were members of the Council, said that the European Union remained opposed to the annexation of the Syrian Golan by Israel and wished to reaffirm its commitment to the protection of human rights and the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the situation in the occupied Syrian Golan. The European Union had not been involved in discussions on the draft resolution, as the textual amendments it had suggested in the past had been systematically ignored. The current draft contained no substantive changes and did not in any way redress the imbalance inherent in a text that expressed deep concern about the suffering caused to Syrian citizens by the actions of Israel but failed to even mention the suffering caused by the Syrian regime to its own people. For those reasons, the States members of the European Union that were members of the Council would vote against the draft resolution.
- Ms. Stasch (Germany) said that, while the position of Germany on the illegality of annexation remained unchanged, the draft resolution distorted the realities of the situation in Syria: at a time when vast numbers of Syrians were suffering at the hands of the Syrian regime and its supporters, the text focused solely on Israel. Germany could not accept the draft resolution and called for a vote. It would vote against the draft resolution’s adoption and urged other members of the Council to do the same.
- Mr. Da Silva Nunes (Brazil) said that Brazil reiterated its recognition of the territorial integrity of Syria and of Syrian sovereignty over the occupied Golan, to which the Fourth Geneva Convention was applicable. Brazil remained committed to the protection and promotion of human rights in that territory. However, the current draft resolution was incomplete and unbalanced, failed to recognize that Israel had legitimate concerns about its security and did not effectively address the human rights issues affecting the Syrian people, including in the Golan. For those reasons, his delegation would abstain from voting on the draft resolution.
- At the request of the representative of Germany, a recorded vote was taken.
In favour: Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).
Against: Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining: Brazil, Cameroon, Honduras.
- Draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.19 was adopted by 29 votes to 15, with 3 abstentions.
- The President invited delegations to make statements in explanation of vote or general statements on any of the draft resolutions considered under agenda item 7.
- Mr. Staniulis (Lithuania) said that his delegation wished to note that it had voted in favour of draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.26 on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which had been adopted under agenda item 2. It remained deeply concerned about the continuing violence and instability in the region and strongly supported efforts to ensure accountability for perpetrators and justice for victims of human rights violations. However, with regard to the resolutions adopted under agenda item 7, Lithuania took the view that it was unfair to single out one country on the standing agenda of the Council. The Council should instead address the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory under agenda item 4, together with other country-specific situations. Although Lithuania was not therefore in a position to support any draft resolution submitted under agenda item 7, irrespective of its substance, it looked forward to continuing cooperation with the Palestinian delegation and would support all efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace on the basis of the two-State solution.
- Mr. Da Silva Nunes (Brazil) said that a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement that ensured a fair and equitable solution acceptable to both sides remained an attainable and desirable goal. Brazil remained ready to engage in constructive and balanced dialogue and considered it important that the Council should continue to monitor the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in a balanced way. While appreciating the decision to address the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory under agenda item 2, his delegation remained concerned about the unbalanced, partial and biased nature of draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.26, which, by singling out Israel while overlooking human rights violations attributable to other parties, was more likely to prompt polarization than cooperation. In addition, specific language on issues of accountability and international criminal justice and references to possible war crimes and crimes against humanity were misplaced. Such references were counterproductive and did not contribute to the goals advocated by the Council, which should be primarily to promote and protect human rights. For those reasons, his delegation had voted against draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.26. However, it stood ready to cooperate with all interested delegations in pursuit of their common objectives on that important issue.
/…
Document Type: Meeting record, Summary record, Voting record
Document Sources: Human Rights Council
Country: Brazil, France, Germany, Libya, Lithuania, Namibia, Pakistan, Syria, United Kingdom, United States of America
Subject: Annexation, Covenant: Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Fourth Geneva Convention, Golan Heights, Human rights and international humanitarian law, Inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, Internally displaced persons, Jerusalem, Occupation, Self-determination, Settlements, Statehood-related
Publication Date: 01/04/2022