Explanation of Vote by Amb. Gillerman at UNGA

20 Jul 2004

Tenth Emergency Special Session
Illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem
and the rest of the occupied territories;
Explanation of Vote after the vote by Ambassador Dan Gillerman
(20 July 2004 - 58th UN General Assembly)

Mr. President,

Allow me to start with a word of thanks. Thank God that the fate of Israel,
and of the Jewish people, is not decided in this hall.

Let there be no mistake - Israel has respect for the Assembly and for the
noble principles for which it stands. It is precisely because of this
respect that we cannot but be dismayed that harmful and politicized
interests too often seek to gain control of its mandate and activities. It
was that principled position that led many States to join Israel in
objecting to the abuse of the ICJ last December, and it is that same
position that should have led States to object to the resolution voted on
today. In this context, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to
those States that have decided not to support today's one-sided and
counter-productive resolution.

Sadly, the Assembly has missed yet another opportunity to make a relevant
contribution to the cause of peace. By pandering to an agenda that seeks to
focus on the response to terrorism but to marginalize the gravity of the
terrorism itself - and the responsibility of the Palestinians to end that
terror - this resolution cannot but embolden those who are the true enemies
of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

We recognize the efforts of certain states that have sought to introduce
some semblance of balance into the text of the resolution. But in our view
that was not the issue here. It is not about grudging references to
terrorism or carefully crafted, often "constructively" ambiguous, phrases.
It is about whether States will grant legitimacy to initiatives that at
their heart are at odds with the very spirit and letter of the Road Map. It
is about whether States will entertain, with polite diplomacy, efforts that
are so transparently designed to ensure than no genuine pressure is ever
brought to bear against the terrorism that made the security fence necessary
and that at this moment, and at every moment, sabotage the prospects for
peace. And it is about whether, in addressing an issue of direct relevance
to a country's national security - of direct relevance to the life and death
of its citizens - the Assembly can afford to show such little regard for
Israel's right and duty to protect its people.

There is a broader context, and a wider goal, that this resolution belittles
if not ignores. A central part of that context is the continuing threat to
peace and to lives posed by deadly violence that just today claimed the
lives of two Israeli soldiers, killed by yet another Hizbollah violation of
the Blue Line. Without a comprehensive approach to the obligations of all
parties, an approach that is so lacking in this myopic resolution, we cannot
move towards peace.

Those States that recognized the harmful and perverse nature of the Advisory
Opinion request, especially those that are members of the Quartet, are, in
our view, duty bound to demand an end to the Palestinian abuse of UN organs,
not to engage them. This ill-conceived draft resolution and the ones that
will no doubt follow only complicate the mutual implementation of the Road
Map and erode its central status.

To return to the path to peace, passing references to the Road Map and the
mutual obligations of both sides cannot be treated as bargaining chips for
which concessions are demanded and given. To return to the path of peace, a
total disregard for Israel's bold an courageous initiative to disengage from
Gaza, and parts of the West Bank, can only be interpreted as a decision by
those countries who supported this resolution to disengage themselves from
the reality in the region. It does not bode well and casts serious doubt on
the ability of those states to contribute to the peace process. To return to
the path of peace, we should not allow the misuse of the ICJ to take center
stage, while pushing the imperative of mutual recognition and mutual
compromise to the sidelines. And to return to the path of peace, we should
not be so detached from reality as to treat an Advisory Opinion as though it
is binding, and binding Palestinian obligations as though they were
virtually non-existent. This is not a recipe for progress, it is a recipe
for failure.

Regardless of actual events on the ground, we can all rest assured that a
new set of virtual reality resolutions will be presented in September, when
the Palestinian representative hopes more public attention can be drawn to
the matter. After all, as long as these self-serving Palestinian drafts are
viewed as the basis for negotiations rather than the basis for failure, we
should not expect anything different.

Mr. President,

We will not repeat any of our comments regarding the advisory opinion and
the tainted process that created it. We believe our statement on Friday
speaks for itself. Israel is not above the law. Israel will ensure that the
route of the security fence complies fully with the requirements of
international law, as detailed by its Supreme Court. We will continue our
thorough review of the entire route of the fence, subject to judicial
scrutiny. And we will ensure that the correct and legal balance is struck
between the quality of life of individuals living along the fence and the
right to life of the civilians protected by it.

But we reject absolutely the attempts to use the law as a political weapon,
as if the law applies to Israel but does not apply to anyone else. When all
is said and done, it is simply outrageous to respond with such vigor to a
measure that saves lives, and respond with such casual indifference to the
ongoing campaign of Palestinian terrorism that takes lives. This is not
justice, but a perversion of justice and people of conscience around the
world see it as such.

The price of the international community's indifference towards Palestinian
lawlessness has been painfully evident in the last few days. That
lawlessness and violence bred by Arafat's corrupt and repressive rule has
received none of this Assembly's attention but it is at the heart of the
problem. No doubt, the Palestinian representative will blame the recent
chaos in Gaza on Israel too. But this view is clearly not shared by many
ordinary Palestinians who actually live in the region. Anyone familiar with
the reality on the ground knows that Arafat and his henchmen, having
sponsored and tolerated terrorism for so long, and having refused to allow
security reform as required by the Road Map, have proved that they are
neither willing to be partners in peace nor ready to meet the
responsibilities of democratic leadership for their own people. Sadly, this
Assembly, by buying into a mock narrative that fails to genuinely demand
anything from the Palestinian leadership, as reinforced this sense of
impunity and done nothing to compel them to rethink their catastrophic
strategy.

Mr. President,

Last December a disservice was done by the Assembly not just to the
International Court of Justice, but to the balanced and non-selective
application of the rule of law. Today we believe that those that supported
this resolution have compounded that error. The reputation and credibility
of international judicial institutions are the worse for it, the claim of
this Assembly to legitimacy in dealing with this conflict is the worse for
it, and the Israeli and Palestinian peoples are the worse for it.

Thank you, Mr. President.