To no one's surprise, 150 member countries in the United Nations General Assembly voted last night to accept the ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, calling for Israel to take down its anti-terrorism partition. The UN also demanded that Israel make compensatory payment to PA residents. The draft resolution passed by a 150-6 vote, with 10 abstentions.
The countries voting against were the United States, Australia, Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Israel. Abstaining were Canada, Cameroon, El Salvador, Uruguay, Uganda, Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Nauru and the Solomon Islands.
The Foreign Ministry expressed disappointment that the UN had once again taken the opportunity to adopt a unilateral political decision against Israel. Foreign Ministry officials stated, "The solution to the Mideast conflict does not lie in The Hague court, nor in the UN in New York, but rather in Ramallah and Gaza, where the terror originates."
Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, stated after the vote, "Thank G-d that the fate of Israel and of the Jewish people is not decided in this hall." He showed charts portraying a 70-90% decline in successful terror attacks and casualties in areas where the barrier has been completed. Israel does not plan to stop building the fence.
Deputy American ambassador James B. Cunningham explained that the U.S. voted against the measure because it was "unbalanced." Repeating the U.S. position in favor of a Palestinian state, Cunningham said, "The resolution diverts attention from where it should be - on the practical efforts to move the parties towards realization of the ultimate goal of two states living side by side in peace and security." Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said, "Israel must find ways of defending itself against terrorists, and it isn't reasonable to tell the Israelis that they can't erect a security barrier to protect the people of Israel from suicide-homicide bombers."
Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian Authority's observer to the United Nations, called the outcome "magnificent," the New York Times reported. Al-Kidwa said, "The debate is completed. It is now time for implementation and compliance, and at a later stage for additional measures" - including a binding Security Council resolution.
Many European nations would have abstained had two paragraphs not been added at the last minute. The first called on the PA "to undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks," and called on Israel "to take no action undermining trust." The second added paragraph stated that countries "have the right and duty to take action in conformity with international law and international humanitarian law to counter deadly acts of violence against the civilian population in order to protect the lives of their citizens."
The Times reported that Gillerman disparaged those additions as "grudging references to terrorism" and "carefully crafted, often constructively ambiguous phrases." He said adopting the resolution was "pandering to an agenda that seeks to focus on the response to terrorism but to marginalize the gravity of terrorism itself."
The American Jewish Congress responded to the UN debate by characterizing it as a way for the "Palestinians and their allies" to fight the veto right of the United States and the other permanent Security Council members. "Without the veto reserved for the founding great powers," the ACJ statement reads, "the U.N. will be incapable of containing the actions of the General Assembly, where non-democratic states, dictatorships and religious tyrannies invariably prevail over its democratic members. Put another way, Israel's security fence now guards against not only Palestinian suicide bombers, but also the attempt to reinvent the U.N. in order to eliminate the ability of the five major powers that founded the United Nations, which includes the United States, to maintain international peace and security and fully conduct the war against terrorism."
The countries voting against were the United States, Australia, Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Israel. Abstaining were Canada, Cameroon, El Salvador, Uruguay, Uganda, Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Nauru and the Solomon Islands.
The Foreign Ministry expressed disappointment that the UN had once again taken the opportunity to adopt a unilateral political decision against Israel. Foreign Ministry officials stated, "The solution to the Mideast conflict does not lie in The Hague court, nor in the UN in New York, but rather in Ramallah and Gaza, where the terror originates."
Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, stated after the vote, "Thank G-d that the fate of Israel and of the Jewish people is not decided in this hall." He showed charts portraying a 70-90% decline in successful terror attacks and casualties in areas where the barrier has been completed. Israel does not plan to stop building the fence.
Deputy American ambassador James B. Cunningham explained that the U.S. voted against the measure because it was "unbalanced." Repeating the U.S. position in favor of a Palestinian state, Cunningham said, "The resolution diverts attention from where it should be - on the practical efforts to move the parties towards realization of the ultimate goal of two states living side by side in peace and security." Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said, "Israel must find ways of defending itself against terrorists, and it isn't reasonable to tell the Israelis that they can't erect a security barrier to protect the people of Israel from suicide-homicide bombers."
Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian Authority's observer to the United Nations, called the outcome "magnificent," the New York Times reported. Al-Kidwa said, "The debate is completed. It is now time for implementation and compliance, and at a later stage for additional measures" - including a binding Security Council resolution.
Many European nations would have abstained had two paragraphs not been added at the last minute. The first called on the PA "to undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks," and called on Israel "to take no action undermining trust." The second added paragraph stated that countries "have the right and duty to take action in conformity with international law and international humanitarian law to counter deadly acts of violence against the civilian population in order to protect the lives of their citizens."
The Times reported that Gillerman disparaged those additions as "grudging references to terrorism" and "carefully crafted, often constructively ambiguous phrases." He said adopting the resolution was "pandering to an agenda that seeks to focus on the response to terrorism but to marginalize the gravity of terrorism itself."
The American Jewish Congress responded to the UN debate by characterizing it as a way for the "Palestinians and their allies" to fight the veto right of the United States and the other permanent Security Council members. "Without the veto reserved for the founding great powers," the ACJ statement reads, "the U.N. will be incapable of containing the actions of the General Assembly, where non-democratic states, dictatorships and religious tyrannies invariably prevail over its democratic members. Put another way, Israel's security fence now guards against not only Palestinian suicide bombers, but also the attempt to reinvent the U.N. in order to eliminate the ability of the five major powers that founded the United Nations, which includes the United States, to maintain international peace and security and fully conduct the war against terrorism."