Source: http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20081126_343.html http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20081126_343.html Date: November 26, 2008 USUN PRESS RELEASE #   343(08) November 26, 2008 As Delivered Office of Press and Public Diplomacy United States Mission to the United Nations 140 East 45th Street New York, N.Y. 10017 Explanation of Vote by Karen House, U.S. Public Delegate, on the Question of Palestine, 26 November 2008. Mr. Chairman, The four resolutions under this agenda item -- in combination with over fifteen other resolutions that will come before the General Assembly this year, as every year -- form a clear pattern of institutional bias directed at one member state of the United Nations. The United States has clearly stated its policy that there should be two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. We back up our policy with substantial diplomatic support for both sides consistent with the process launched in Annapolis in November 2007. We also contribute very significant financial and programmatic support to the Palestinian Authority and to Palestinian refugees, for whom the United States is the largest single- state donor. We see no contradiction whatsoever between support for the Palestinian people and support for Israel. Both sides need support to be able to take the steps necessary for a just and lasting peace. Each year, therefore, we are distressed and discouraged as the UN General Assembly unhelpfully devotes a disproportionate number of resolutions related to the Middle East -- all unbalanced by their explicit or implicit one-sided criticism of Israel. Mr. Chairman, the resolutions discussed under this and other upcoming agenda items entitled the Situation in the Middle East, the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Effecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People, the Permanent Sovereignty of the Palestinian People and others are repetitive and—I repeat-- unbalanced. They are completely at odds with the General Assembly's action regarding any other member state, geographic area, or issue. They place demands on the Israeli side while failing to acknowledge that both sides have obligations and both must take difficult steps toward peace that can only be agreed through negotiations between the parties. The United States accepts the principle that the General Assembly may look into the practices of individual states. However, last year the Assembly adopted fourteen resolutions specifically criticizing Israel, and seven more expressing support for the Palestinian people vis-à-vis their relations with Israel. In that same year, the Assembly adopted only six resolutions specifically critical of any member state other than Israel; we supported some of these and opposed others. All together, the 21 resolutions addressing alleged Israeli violations and obligations stretched to 61 pages of text, compared with only 20 pages for resolutions critical of the six other nations. The Assembly is on a course to repeat that same pattern again this year. this matter simply does not warrant three-quarters of all the time and energy the General Assembly devotes to critical review of the actions of its 192 member states. Of particular concern to the United States are two resolutions adopted today -- the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, -- and one that will be considered under agenda item 30, the Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. These entities, established more than a generation ago, perpetuate and institutionalize the perception of inherent UN bias. By their very nature, they fail to properly demand actions from both sides and instead focus only on Israel. The millions of dollars expended on them and the significant staff contributions consumed by them could be better directed toward more pressing issues, including direct assistance to needy Palestinians. Consistent with the overall program for UN reform, the time has come for the assembly to review seriously these bodies with a sharp focus on what if anything they contribute towards a solution to the Middle East conflict. Mr.  Chairman, these institutional arrangements, backed by nearly two dozen one-sided resolutions, serve more to undermine than to advance ongoing negotiations. They also undermine the credibility of the UN, which, as a member of the Quartet, must be seen by both sides as an honest broker in facilitating a resolution of the Middle East conflict. They make no positive contribution to achieving a just resolution of the conflict. Indeed, these resolutions can have a serious corrosive effect on negotiations both by  convincing many on the Israeli side that Israel will be treated unfairly by the UN no matter what compromises it offers, and by convincing extremist Palestinians such as Hamas, that they will be spared criticism no matter what they do, even including terrorist attacks intentionally targeting civilians. Certainly, these resolutions add nothing to the far more detailed, up-to-date monthly discussions of the Security Council on the situation in the Middle East. Finally, these resolutions presuppose the outcome of permanent status issues, such as the return of refugees, checkpoints, and settlement activity, that properly belong in ongoing bilateral negotiations.  In the November 9 briefing to the Quartet, the Palestinian and Israeli negotiators pledged to continue bilateral talks until they achieve their goal of a comprehensive agreement on all issues, without exception, as agreed at Annapolis. Both sides attested that the negotiating structure is effective and productive and affirmed they intend to keep it in place. They noted--and I wish to emphasize this-- that third parties should not intervene in the negotiations absent their joint request. Mr. Chairman, the United States is acutely aware of the suffering of the Palestinian people. We have been and will continue to be at the forefront of international efforts to address the underlying causes. But it is impossible to see how supporting resolutions so detached from the reality on the ground, and so intrusive into the substance of sensitive, sustained negotiations, will either alleviate that suffering or contribute to a solution.  Therefore, we cannot support these resolutions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.