tv House Rules on Government Funding Deadline CSPAN December 18, 2017 11:53pm-12:42am EST
the 8,139th meeting of the security council is called to order. the provisional agenda for
this meeting is frustration in the middle east including the palestinian issue. the agenda is adopted. in accordance with rule 37 of the provisional rules and procedures i invite representative of israel to participate in this meeting. >> it is so decided. >> i propose that the council invite the permanent observer of the state of palestine to the united nations to participate in the meeting in accordance with the professional group and procedure as the previous practice in this regard.
with there being no objection if it so desired. the security council will now begin
its consideration of item number two of the agenda. members of the council have before them document 217-1060 the draft resolution submitted by egypt. i no now give the floor to those members of the council who wish to make statements before the vote and to give the floor to the representative of egypt. >> mr. president, your help today to consider the draft resolution procedure. according to the resolution of the emergency meeting of the
arab ministerial meeting that was held the night of decembe december 2017. the craft resolution was submitted for emergency situations at a crossroads of the palestinian question and while the security council is addressing the gibbons bearing in mind the scariest situations to recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel and to remind you here of the open briefing of the security council held in december how many members of the council objected to that the liberal position and there are no legal implications on such a position. it is an issue that lies in the
heart of many people around the world undoubtedly addressing this issue must take into consideration this very sensitive topic. however, we are well aware that the only path towards the issue is to rely on the one pillar of international law away from any religious or other beliefs or else there will be repercussions in the situation in the times of chaos which has gone beyond development. >> one of the final issues that must be settled between the palestinian and thpalestinians s any attempt at changing the facts on the ground is considered a unilateral measure that would have no legal impact
whatsoever if it is in violation of the international law and the resolutions of international legitimacy including general assembly resolution 181 which established two states and one that lies in the international system in addition to the security resolution, 383 which did not recognize any measures related to including the famous alum to the violation of the un charter and in addition in
violation of poor and 76 and 478 which didn't recognize any measure that will change the status quo in jerusalem. both resolutions refused any israeli wall that wanted to consider it. security council resolution 23342016 renewed express to a very clear legal language that is clear that it denied any attempt offering the demographic or geographic nature of the occupied territories since 1967 including east jerusalem. it also stressed that it doesn't like any change to 1967
including the exception of the alterations that come between the two parties. the security council resolution stresses any attempt to add a change in the characteristics have no affect and must be rescinded that we have to object to such with the relevant security council resolution that calls upon all countries in the holy city of jerusalem and in compliance with security council resolution 478 of 1980.
the resolution demands that all comply with security council resolution regarding the city of jerusalem and not recognizing actions were measures contrary to those resolutions. it also calls for the reversal of the negative trend on the ground that are imperiling the two state solution and for the international and regional efforts in support of achieving the basis of the relevant united nations resolutions security council resolution and in addition to the terms including the principles of the arab peace initiative, the roadmap and the occupation that began in 1967. egypt was one of the first who
supported and we will continue twe'll continue tofollow suit ue reach full and durable peace. in light of what has been said i call upon all members to implement the international law which is our main term related to the rights and duties concerning this topic and othe others. i want to thank the representative of egypt for his statement and i now give the floor to the representative of uruguay. >> thank you mr. president. we asked for prior to devote to make two comments one with regard to the procedure mr. president.
with the exception of the meeting that has just concluded where there was no discussion of the detail on the substance and so it was on the previous occasions we've criticized the members of the security council for similar practices which remove strict transparency to take a position without the ability to participate in the draft of the text. we have to reaffirm that this isn't the correct way to work in the council. with regards to substance we reaffirm the special status in the city of jerusalem in accordance with the resolution of the general assembly and in
particular 181 of 1947 in the security council. resolution 181 which we support to this day recognizes the two states, and it establishes jerusalem and in international special regime that is ministered by the united nations. this is the basis for the special status of jerusalem and the united nations or international law and as such it should have been used as a reference in the text of the resolution. so i aa while ago at the previos meeting we were saying that we express our satisfaction at the fact that so many countries today recognize the foundational character of the resolution 181
by referring so much to palestine and into the one and the two states with a special status of jerusalem it is important because at the time a lot of countries did not support resolution 181. mr. president, the final status of traverse one is a question that still has to be resolved. the sovereignty and the limits of jerusalem have to be agreed by israel and palestine by the bilateral negotiations therefore any decision measure or action ... he is or any state would take contrary to this resolution that would change the status of jerusalem will affect the peace process and the search for a two state solution a goal to be shared by virtually the entire international community and has
been for decades now uruguay has been attempting to find a just solution to the conflict based on the rules of international law and for these reasons and despite a process my delegation supports a draft resolution that is being added to the council. >> i think that representative for the statement. the council is now ready to proceed on the draft resolution before it. i shop at the draft resolution to devote no. will those in favor of the draft resolution contained in the document please raise their ha hand.
those against? the result is as follows. the draft resolution has been adopted. i now give the floor to the members who wish to make a statement after the vote. i get the floo give the floor te representatives of the united states. thank you mr. president. i've been a proud representative of the united states at the united nations for nearly a year now. this first time i've exercised the american right to veto resolution in the security council. the exercise of the toe isn't something the united states has
often. we haven't done it in more than six years. we do it with no joy about with no reluctance. the fact that this veto is being done in defense of american sovereignty and independence of america's role in the middle east peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us. it should be an embarrassment for the remainder of the security council. as i pointed out when we discussed the topic ten days ago, i will once again note the features of the president's announcement on jerusalem that are the most relevant. the president took great care not to prejudge final status negotiations in any way including the specific boundaries of the sovereignty in jerusalem. that remains the subject to be negotiated only by the party. the position is fully in line with the previous security council resolution. the president was also careful to state that we support the status quo regarding jerusalem
and we support a two state solution if that is what the parties agree to. again, these positions are fully consistent with the previous security council resolution. it is regrettable that some are trying to distort the president's position to serve their own agenda. what is troublesome to some people is not that the united states has harmed the peace process. we have in fact done no such thing. rather what is troublesome to some people is that the united states has the courage and honesty to recognize a fundamental reality. jerusalem has been the political, cultural and spiritual homeland of the jewish people for thousands of years. they've had no other capital city. the united states recognition of the obvious that drusilla missed the capital of the modern israeli government is too much
for some. first, some have threatened violence on the street as if it would somehow improve the prospect of peace. not today. in diplomatic jargon, some presumed to america where to put our energy. the united states as a sovereign right to determine where and whether wwhat the reestablishinf embassies. i suspect very few member states would welcome the security council pronouncements of the sovereign decisions and i think of some who should fear it. it's worth noting that this is not a new american position. back in 1980 when jimmy carter was an american president of the security council vote on the resolution 478, which called upon diplomatic missions to relocate from jerusalem. the united states to support the
resolution 470. in his remarks, then secretary of state said the following. the draft resolution before us today is illustrated with a preoccupation that has produced a series of unbalanced and unrealistic text on middle east issues. specifically regarding the provision on diplomatic missions the secretary said in our judgment this provision is not binding on it is without force and we reject it as a disrupted attempts to dictate to other nations. it does nothing to promote a resolution of the difficult problems facing israel and its neighbors. it does nothing to advance the cause of peace. that was in 1980. it is equally true today. the united states will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy. buried even deeper in the jargon
of the resolution is the accusation that the united states is setting back the prospect of peace in the middle east. that is a scandalous charge. of those who are making it should consider that it only harms the very palestinian people they claim to speak for. what does it again the palestinian people for their leaders to throw up roadblocks to the negotiations? a peace process that is damaged by the simple recognition that jerusalem is the capital of israel is not a peace process. it is a justification for an endless stalemate. what does it gain the palestinian people for some of their leaders to accuse the united states of being hostile to the cause of peace? it gains them nothing but it risks costing them a great deal. the united states has done more than any other country to assist the palestinian people, by far.
since 1994, we've given over $5 billion to the palestinians in economic assistance, security assistance and humanitarian assistance. the united nations worked for the palestinian refugees operating at schools and medical facilities throughout the region. it is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. last year the united states voluntarily funded almost 30% of the budget. that's more than the next two largest donors combined. and it's vastly more than some of the members of this council that have considerable financial resources of their own. i will be blunt, when the american people see a group of countries whose total contribution to the palestinian people is less than 1% of the budget, when they see the countries accused the united
states of being insufficiently committed to peace, the american people lose their patience. i've been to the palestinian refugee camps, the united states supports the contributions. i've met with men, women and children. i've advocated on their behalf. i can tell you that their leaders do them no favors by being open to abandoning peace negotiations than to doing the hard work of seeing them through to completion. the united states has never been more committed to peace in the middle east. we were committed to that before, the president announced the recognition of jerusalem as the capital of israel and we are committed to it today. what we witnessed today in the security council is an insult. it will not be forgotten. it's one more sample of the united nations doing more harm than good in addressing the palestinian conflict. today for the simple act of
deciding where to put our embassy, the united states was forced to defend its sovereign sovereignty. the record will reflect that we did so probably. today for acknowledging basic truth about the capital city of of israel, we are accused of harming peace. the record will reflect that we reject that outrageous claim. for these reasons and with the best interest of both the israeli and the palestinian people firmly in mind, the united states votes no on this resolution. thank you. >> i think the representatives of the united states of america for the statement and i now give the floor to the representative of the united kingdom. >> thank you mr. president. the united kingdom voted in favor of the draft resolution before us today because it had been lined withasbeen lined witn security council resolutions including 242-47-6478 and 2334.
and wit with our established positions on the status of jerusalem. position is clear and long-standing. the status should be determined through a negotiated settlement between the israelis and the palestinians and should ultimately be the share capital of the israeli and syrian states that the territories. as we said we disagree with the positions to recognized as one of the capital of israel and to move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem. as recent events have shown they are not helpful to the prospects in the region and all of us in the council remained committed.
the decisions and actions that purported to alter the status or composition of the city of jerusalem have no legal effect and deman demanded all complainf security council resolutions regarding jerusalem and acceleration of international and regional efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in the middle east without any delay. the positions have not changed. we recognize that if we reiterate the fundamental necessity. we continue to value the important role as the custodian of the holy site and remain
fully supportive of their efforts to maintain calm. we must now all look forward. we share the desire to bring an end to this conflict and we welcome his commitment to the two state solution negotiated between the parties. this includes the acknowledgment that the final includes the boundaries within the city that must be subject to the negotiations between the parties. our commitment to and position on the agreement has also not changed. it should be based on the lines on june 41967 to reflect the national security interest of the jewish and palestinian peoples. jerusalem shall be the share capital of the israeli and palestinian states and its status must be determined through the final agreement for
the realistic settlement of refugees that is needed and demographically compatible with the principle of the two states and two people. the position is consistent with the resolution before us. we now strongly encourage the administration to bring forward detailed proposals for the israeli-palestinian settlement and we call on all parties to act with restraint, reject violence and work together to ensure calm and stability. this will give the peace process the best chance of success. we remain fully supportive towards a lasting peace and we will do everything we can to achieve it. any peace effort needs to take account of the people, not just the land and of the holy sites. they've lived in fear of rockets and tear into this wreaks havoc in people's lives and peace is hard to achieve. it is to deny the ancient and a touch of legitimate connection to jerusalem.
palestinians living outside jerusalem many are effectively cut off from it. they have to wait in long lines through th the checkpoint in eat jerusalem with more than 320,000 palestinians the vast majority are permanent residents and permits can be revoked at any point. for both it is uniquely holy and will not be forgotten. i once again reaffirm our strong support for the renewed peace negotiations between the israelis and palestinians as soon as possible. they should be supported by the international community and realize the un general assembly resolution 181 per the 17th anniversary of the safe and secure israel, the homeland for
the jewish people living alongside a viable and sovereign palestinian state, the homeland for the palestinian people. thank you. >> i think the representative of the united kingdom press statement and i now give the floor to the representative repf france. >> france regrets the outcome of the vote today and thank you for the work that's accomplished and the approach that followed. the draft resolution confirms a consensus on to gross one that is being built over decades and today which is translated into
international law. the decisions announced by the president of the united states which we regret do not in any way modify the foundation. as said that concerns all of the international community's and it has been dealt with by several resolutions of the security council and it is therefore normal that the abcs of the issue today and reaffirmed the principles and framework through 476 and 478. it must be examined in the absence of an agreement and in accordance with the consensus
within the international community it doesn't recognize. we didn't recognize the annexation of east jerusalem which is part of the occupied territories under the international law through in 1980 we didn't recognize the act taken concerning jerusalem. before and after the council adopted resolutions 476-8478 which among other things stated to principles that the council has been called upon to pronounce itself from a decision or action aimed at altering the state of jerusalem were its geographic or historic characteristics is considered null and void and must be abandoned. all member states of the united
nations which have established diplomatic missions must report from the city. this is what happened following the resolution 478 without any exception. what was at stake is no more and no less than but also the political framework and parameters for the resolution to the conflict. the result o results of the voty translates the 14 members of the council to reaffirm its collective attachments to international law in particular the resolutions of the council on the status of jerusalem and desist for any prospect for peace an it underscores the willingness of the broad majority of the members of the council to not recognize any decision contrary to its resolutions and this is what is requested i and the draft
presented by egypt. with regards to the united states for their voice and position it has a particular impact and it is incumbent upon them to explain with an international consensus without which no credible effort of peace can be conducted because let's be under no illusion and this is my second point there will be no peace agreement. for the european union believe that jerusalem can become the capital of two states, israel and palestine according to the modalities that must be defined by the parties in the negotiation no unilateral decision can replace this. we all know that there is no other solution of that, the solution of the single state where the regimes of citizenship
would coexist is an illusion that would mark the ruin. neither the parties nor the international community could resign themselves to take this further and to be clear there is no solution to the two states and there's no solution without an agreement between the parties on jerusalem and there is none outside of the internationally recognized parameters. we noted the willingness expressed on the sixth of december the president of the united states to support the two state solution. he expressed the wish that this would open the way to the return of the united states to the consensus of the international community. my third point is the status of
jerusalem to take into account the reality on the ground. this is what the council did for the resolutions adopted which are reflected in the draft which we just voted. the reality of islam isn't limited to one single story. more than 300,000 palestinians with their presenting a 40% of the population of the city. it is an israeli city and palestinian city. in the future it should become the capital of two states that it's already the city of the two populations which coexist. the fourth point, the historic and religious accordance of jerusalem makes it a key part of solving the conflict but also important to reaching the international stability more than ever before there's a need to preserve the status quo and
more specifically the status quo of 1967 this must be reaffirmed. but over and above this, the question overall must avoid the focusing tensions in the city. the risks that we do have to be aware of is a political conflict which could be subject to compromise and such for a religious conflict whereby its very nature with the intractable only the radicals would go to the detriment of the moderates in the region. finally, this is my fifth and last point following with was concerned the situation on the ground we've seen ten days of confrontations which have led to the deaths with hundreds of
wounded in the west bank into several areas of troops along with the reprisal of rocket fire which we condemn. we must do everything we can to prevent an escalation of the situation on the ground. that's why we continue to call upon everyone to show restraint and deploy the efforts necessary to see the return. over and above this, there are the negative effects on the region caused by the announcement on the sixth of september and the way that this can be interpreted can be avoided and we would call upon all regional players to help calm the situation. in the context of the regional crisis it is indefensible for the collective attachments to the preservation of the parameters agreed on the status of jerusalem. the votes toda boats today has s
this opportunity despite its outcome. through the question of turkish islam we see not only the preservation of the solution of the two states but also the realization of the aspirations of both parties and also respect for international law, the resolutions of the security council and the legitimacy of the council. mr. president, allow me to conclude by stressing three points briefly. given its symbolism, jerusalem is the key for peace between israel and palestine. without an agreement on jerusalem, there cannot be a peace agreement. this is why the outcome of jerusalem and the situation in jerusalem can only be decided by the parties with the united nations and not through the
unilateral decision. now, today there is a body of international law and there is an international consensus on the two state solution with jerusalem and the capital for both the state and parameter that would be agreed upon before resolving the situation. it recalls the various elements. this is why france, of course, voted in favor of this text.
the issues of jerusalem and also to the entire world. this is simple with why we pay homage to jordan with their capacity as the guarantor of the holy sites. we have to preserve the international community with jerusalem and we need to consider the final status. we need to preserve the historic sentence of the jews so they can keep their identity in the spirit of tolerance and openness this is
parties to have the greatest restraint during this difficult moment the vote should not lead to desperation but to the contrary we should pierce on -- persevere over those long-standing parameters already existing initiatives including the peace initiative. so let's say very loudly the laudable efforts of the american administration. thank you. >> thanks for your opening statement. >> thank you mr. president. you are not bashful to the
israelis and palestinians and to always be persistent as much as we support the right of israel to be in peace we also support the right of the palestinian people as well as the right of the free and independent state that is consistent with those resolutions but also the decisions of the continental organization. with regard to the recent developments we have had the opportunity on the matter during emergency meeting of
the council on the eighth of december. we believe it is a final status issue with direct negotiations with a two-part piece of the general assembly resolutions with the concerns of both the palestinians and israelis say lung death sites. lung --dash so that is why we supported it. although the draft could not be adopted there is denying lung -- no denying the fact that once again to_without any
sort of delay. so to work towards easing patients in that frame for taking action all and above all which has hindered progress so far to create those necessary conditions for direct negotiations for the two parties this is from the two-step formula that is the only viable option for peace. that is why we supported and the international efforts to achieve the comprehensive lasting solution.
it is incumbent to discharge those responsibilities and peace in the broader middle east region. thank you. >> thank you for the representative of ethiopia to his statement now the russian federation. translator: thanks to the special coordinator from the middle east. for the informative briefing. we do support you if we in moscow follow very closely of the palestinian israeli trap we are convinced it is of fundamental importance for the
long-term normalization in the middle east. no other regional challenges can of skier this fact. there is a vacuum in the political process that gives rise to a deep concern and under these conditions a unilateral action strengthens the risk of a conflict to make it more difficult of the direct palestinian negotiations so that was a massive protest as a reaction and this is understandable that jerusalem is the cradle that is the most sensitive issue in the peace process architecture. so on this issue needs to be considered within the
framework of a bilateral dialogue and we call upon all powers -- howdy parties to show restraint. we cannot forget that that kind of methodology was approved and many by the security council which were passed over the past decade and remain fully enforced today. so with that rhetoric with that humanitarian situation so the prospect of the two state solution is diluted but at the same time we remain committed to provide for the existence with israel with the independent state and that is
the capital of the state of israel and with that leadership we think it is a movement in the right direction however we encourage all palestinian parties with comprehensive middle east is something that can only be obtained on the basis that includes resolutions on the security council and the key initiative. we will continue helping on the bilateral basis to will intensify the efforts of the current impasse in the middle east.