63rd SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ___________________ Check Against Delivery ___________________ Statement by Ambassador Gabriela Shalev Permanent Representative General Assembly Agenda Item 16 “Question of Palestine” United Nations, New York 25 November 2008 Mr. President, Some may feel satisfaction at repeatedly passing General Assembly resolutions or holding conferences that condemn Israel’s behavior. But one should also ask whether such steps bring any tangible relief or benefit to the Palestinians. There have been decades of resolutions. There has been a proliferation of special committees, sessions and Secretariat divisions and units. Has any of this had an effect on Israel's policies, other than to strengthen the belief in Israel, and among many of its supporters, that this great Organization is too one-sided to be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process? Even worse, some of the rhetoric used in connection with the issue implies a refusal to concede the very legitimacy of Israel’s existence, let alone the validity of its security concerns. Mr. President, Although I identify and agree with what I have just stated, I must confess those are not my own words. They belong to someone else. They belong to someone within this organization, none other than Mr. Kofi Annan. As the former Secretary-General himself described, we are gathered for this annual debate on the Question of Palestine and the Situation in the Middle East to hear speeches that are similar to the ones we have heard for so many years. The General Assembly will then adopt numerous resolutions, many of which have remained unchanged for decades. Yet as we consider this repetitious exercise, I call on my distinguished colleagues and their governments to engage in soul searching. Let us ask ourselves if we address the situation in the Middle East and the question of the Palestinians in a fair manner. Does your work contribute to the cause of peace? Does it help anyone in our beleaguered region? I sadly believe that the answer is self-evident. I stand here today to ask my fellow colleagues: do you wish to continue holding one-sided debates and passing biased resolutions that reflect nothing more than the negative political dynamics of this organization, dynamics that are hostage to an automatic majority? Will you, yet again, adopt the same resolutions on the Middle East that are irrelevant at best, and damaging at worst? My answer to these questions is clear. While this assembly will likely adopt the resolutions before us, their relevance, as well as their contribution, is of negative value. Mr. President, If we wish to address the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East in an honest, substantive and genuine manner; if we truly wish to help promote the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace, I call on this body to reject the approach that has become a yearly ritual, and adopt a fresh outlook. Let us acknowledge that many facts on the ground have changed while so many of the resolutions we consider have not. Let us acknowledge that Israel is at peace with two of its neighbors, Egypt and Jordan. Let us acknowledge that Israel and the Palestinians are currently engaged in substantive peace negotiations. Let us talk, for a moment, about the real situation in the Middle East. The wave of extremism that spreads across the Middle East remains deeply alarming, endangering regional stability and threatening the many moderate forces in the region. Iranian President Ahmadinejad continues to incite Israel’s destruction while offering openly anti-Semitic rhetoric from the podium of the United Nations. The Iranian government develops nuclear capabilities, supports and funds terrorist movements including Hamas and Hizbullah, and denies the historical realities of the Holocaust. At the same time, Syria continues to offer safe haven to terrorists and facilitates the transfer of weapons, men, and materiel to groups committed to violence and hostility. Hamas launches incessant rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, and Hizbullah builds a massive arsenal of weapons that threatens Israel, Lebanon, and the entire region. These are critical issues related to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East that must be addressed. Yet this debate –– like many others in this building –– reflects a commitment to an old narrative, to resolutions rooted in the past. This body must embrace a new paradigm. We can no longer accept the agenda of the automatic majority that obstructs progress in our region. We cannot let the common denominator of bashing Israel continue to dictate these debates. Mr. President, In these halls, Israel has only one vote. Israel’s ability to influence the agenda of the UN is limited, especially compared to powerful political blocs. But on the ground, we are an equal and committed party to the peace process. There is no peace process without Israel. We cannot accept the 29th of November as a day of solidarity with the Palestinian people without simultaneously acknowledging that on that date, the UN proposed a two-state solution. Why is November 29th not celebrated as the day when the UN embraced the creation of an Israel and a Palestine, a solution that Israel accepted while the Arab countries rejected and launched a war? How can it be that November 29th has become a day of mourning and grief, a day that, in practice, laments the very birth of the state of Israel and the international endorsement of a two state solution? Such one-sided days of solidarity, or other exhibitions, films, and media campaigns do not promote a culture of peace. Mr. President, While today’s debate repeats old ideas that have remained static for years, Israel and the Palestinians are making advances towards the establishment of a Palestinian state in peace and security alongside Israel. The peace process is definitely progressing, and the meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh three weeks ago produced additional developments. After the Sharm el-Sheik summit, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the meeting “substantial and promising”, while Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni confirmed again Israel’s commitment to the ongoing peace process and to the establishment of a Palestinian state. For us in Israel, the question is not whether to achieve a two state solution, but how to do so. Yet progress between us and the Palestinians is made through thoughtful, genuine consultation; through bilateral negotiation and agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The international community has an important role to support such bilateral negotiations, primarily to strengthen the moderates in the region, strengthen those who want to bridge the gaps that exist. And so on this day, the United Nations stands at a critical juncture in the Middle East. It can continue to repeatedly adopt the same narrative. Or, the General Assembly can support the parties in their quest for peace. We in Israel wish that the UN will choose to discard politics of blame, and engage in politics of hope. Thank you, Mr. President.