My. Org and listen on the free cspan radio app. On friday, the Un Security Council passed a resolution that calls for an end to israeli settlements in the bank. The u. S. Was the only country to abstain while the rest of the Council Voted in favor. The resolution which was put forward by new zealand, malaysia and senegal is the first on israel to be adopted nearly eight years. And now, members of the council who wish to make statements after the vote. I give the floor to the ambassador of egypt. Mr. President , ladies and gentlemen, since the beginning , sinceconflict in 1948 the rise of the Palestinian People to an independent sovereign state which is not met a lateral life of dignity and freedom. Despite silence in the International Community and dozens of resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United StatesUnited Nations that egypt has taken on its duties. It has confronted many challenges. We have had many roles on the ground and in diplomacy in defense of palestinian rights to move forward to the creation of an independent state of palestine with its East Jerusalem. A peaceful settlement in the middle east. Ladies and gentlemen, the resolution on israeli settlements adopted by the council today undoubtedly expresses a painful reality of illegitimate settlement. Land also palestinian against a clear principle adopted by the international inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by armed forces. This requires all of us to be wise, to be politically realistic in order to take up excessese without any from any party just as we have seen during our deliberations on the resolution. I mean specifically settlements because an issue that is related to one of the most important components of the final summits, the issue of borders. And the timing of the vote in the past few hours have showed that some International Parties want to intervene directly to resolve the question of palestine finally, in accordance with relevant Security Council resolutions, most notably 242 of 1967 and 338 of 1973, and 446 of 1997. Any opportunity for future steps can in no way mean that we can stay away from the fundamental requirements of a settlement to the question of palestine including the issue of settlement. These are well known, they are set out in Previous International resolutions. Of this Security Council as well as positions of International Powers and the palestinian leadership. Ladies and gentlemen, egypt found itself today compelled to withdraw its own draft resolution. This was procedural because of the pressures that the draft has meant since it was table. This led to even a warning by some members of the Security Council. This is utterly an acceptable, in formed and substance of positions that cannot be placed in doubt pertaining to legitimate palestinian rights. But it also be noted that those pressures let it also be noted that these pressures took place in the absence of egypts political efforts, 24 hours a day ever since the draft was set up in blue. In order to maintain legitimate palestinian rights through a just and durable settlement in accordance with the International Resolutions relevant to the issue we did so. , nevertheless, egypt has voted in favor of the draft resolution just voted on. This is based on a firm principled positions that cannot be put in doubt. It ought not to be subject to negotiation or pressures from any. We were the first to make peace with israel as we believe in peace rather than armed conflict. Egypt has been and continues to be one of the strongest believers in the possibility of just, durable peace in the middle east, based on the principles of a twostate solution and land for peace recognized by international legitimacy. I thank you. Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to the ambassador of the United States. Ambassador let me begin with a quote the u. S. Will not support use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period. The immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by israel could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of israel and only diminishes the confidence of the arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated. That is the end of the quote. This was said in 1982 by president ronald reagan. He was speaking about a new proposal that he was launching to end the israelipalestinian conflict. While ultimately, president reagans proposal was not realized, his words are illuminating in two respects. They underscore the commitment to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace between the israelis and palestinians. That has been the policy of every administration, republican and democrat, since before president reagan and all the way to the present day. Second, because president reagans words highlighted the u. S. s longstanding position that israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 undermines israels security, harms the viability of a negotiated twostate outcome, and erodes prospects for peace and stability in the region. Today, the Security Council reaffirmed its established consensus that settlements have no legal validity. The United States has been sending the message that the settlements must stop, privately and publicly, for nearly five decades. Through the administrations of president lyndon johnson, richard nixon, gerald ford, jimmy carter, ronald reagan, george h. W. Bush, bill clinton, george w. Bush, and now, barack obama. Indeed, since 1967, the only president who had not had one israelipalestinianrelated resolution passed during his tenure is barack obama. So our vote today is fully in line with the bipartisan history of how american president s have approached both the issue and the role of this body. Given the consistency of this position across u. S. Administrations, one would think it would be a routine vote for the u. S. To allow the passage of the resolution with the elements in this one, reaffirming the longstanding u. S. Position on settlements, condemning violence and incitement, and calling for the parties to start taking constructive steps to reverse Current Trends on the ground. These are familiar, well articulated components of the u. S. Policy. But in reality, this vote for us was not straightforward because of where it is taking place, at the United Nations. For the simple truth is that for as long as israel has been a member of this institution, israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations. Him and not only in decades past such as the infamous resolution the General Assembly adopted in 1975 determining that zionism is a form of racism, but also in 2016, this year. One need only look at the 18 resolutions against israel adopted or the 12 adopted in the human rights council, more than those focused on syria, iran, north korea, and south sudan put together. To see that in 2016 israel continues to be treated differently from other Member States. Like u. S. Administrations before it, the Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to fight for israels right something to be treated like any other country. From advocating for israel to finally be granted membership to a u. N. Regional body, its something no other member state had been denied, to fighting that ensuring that israeli ngos are not denied accreditation because they are israeli and getting yom kippur officially recognized as he u. N. Holiday, to pressing this council to rake its indefensible silence in response to terrorist attacks on israelis. As the u. S. Has said repeatedly, such unequal treatment not only hurts israel, it undermines the legitimacy of the u. N. Itself. The practice of treating israel differently at the u. N. Matters for most like this one, for even if one believes the resolution proposed today is justified, or even more necessitated by events on the ground, one cannot completely separate the vote from the venue. And Member States that say they are for the twostate solution must ask themselves some difficult questions. For those states that are quick to promote resolutions condemning israel, but refuse to recognize when innocent israelis are the victim of terrorism, what steps will you take to stop treating israel differently . For those states that passionately denounce the closures of crossings in gaza as exacerbating the humanitarian situation, but say nothing of the resources diverted from helping gazas residents to dig tunnels into israeli territory so the terrorists can attack israelis in their homes, what will you do to end the double standard that undermines the legitimacy of this institution . Member states should ask themselves about the double standards when it comes to this council taking action. This morning we came together as a council and we were unable to muster the will to act to stop the flow of weapons going to killers in south sudan who are perpetrating mass atrocities that the u. N. Has said could lead to genocide. We could not come together just to stem the flow of arms. Earlier this month, this council could not muster the will to adopt the simplest of resolutions calling for a sevenday pause the savage bombardment of innocent civilians, hospitals, and schools in aleppo. Yet, when the resolution on israel comes through for this counsel, embers suddenly summon the will to act. It is because this forum continues to be biased against israel, because there are important issues that are not sufficiently addressed in this resolution, and because the u. S. Does not agree with every word in this text that the u. S. Did not vote in favor of the resolution. But it is the facts on the ground, and is consistent with u. S. Policy across republican and democratic administrations throughout the history of the state of israel that the United States did not veto it. The United States has consistently said we would block any resolution that we thought would undermine israels security or seek to impose a resolution to the conflict. We would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by the palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to violence which we have repeatedly condemned and repeatedly raised with the palestinian leadership and which of course must be stopped. Unlike some on the Un Security Council, we do not believe that outside parties can impose a solution that has not been negotiated by the two parties. Nor can we unilaterally recognize a future palestinian state. But it is precisely our commitment to israels security that makes the u. S. Believe we cannot stand in the way of this resolution as we seek to preserve a chance of attaining our longstanding objective, two states living side by side in peace and security. Let me briefly explain why. The settlement problem has gotten so much worse that it is now putting at risk the very viability of that twostate solution. The number of settlers in the roughly 150 authorized israeli settlements east of the 1967 lines has increased to medically. Increased dramatically. Since the 1993 signing of the oslo accords which launched efforts that made a comprehensive and lasting peace possible, the number of settlers has increased like 355,000. The total settler population in the west bank east in jerusalem exceeds 500,000. 590,000. Many are living east of the separation barrier that was created by israel itself. Since july 2016 when the middle there is new legislation that would legalize most of the outposts, a factor that propelled the decision by this resolution sponsors to bring it before the council. The israeli Prime Minister declared his government more committed than in israels history. And a leading Coalition Partner declared that the era of the twostate solution is over. At the same time, the Prime Minister has said that he is still committed to pursuing a two state solution but these statements are irreconcilable. One cannot simultaneously champion expanding israeli settlements and champion the twostate solution that would end the conflict. The conflict. One has to make the choice between settlement and separation. In 2011, the u. S. Vetoed a resolution that focused exclusively on settlement, as of settlements were the only factor harming the prospect of a two state solution. The circumstances have changed dramatically. Since 2011, settlement growth has only accelerated. Since 2011, multiple efforts to pursue peace through negotiations have failed and since 2011, president obama and secretary kerry have repeatedly warned publicly and privately that the absence of progress toward peace and continued Settlement Expansion was going to put the twostate solution at risk. This resolution condemns violence, terrorism, and incitement which also poses an extremely grave risk to the two state solution. This resolution reflects trends that will permanently destroy the hope of a two state solution if they continue on their current course. The United States has not taken the step of voting in support of this resolution because the resolution is too narrowly focused on settlements. When we all should know that many other factors contribute significantly to the tensions that perpetuate this conflict. Let us be clear. Even if every single settlement were to be dismantled tomorrow, peace still would not be attainable without both sides acknowledging uncomfortable truths and making difficult choices. That is an indisputable fact, yet it is one that is too often overlooked by members of the United Nations and members of this counsel. For palestinian leaders, that means recognizing the obvious, in addition to taking innocent lives, the growth of violent extremism erodes prospects for peace. The most recent wave of palestinian violence has seen terrorists commit hundreds of attacks including driving cars , into crowds of innocent civilians, and stabbing mothers in front of their children. Yet rather than condemn these factions haveal held them up as heroes and ordered others to follow in their footsteps. While president abbas and his leaders have made clear their violence and extremism, they have often failed to condemn specific tax or condemn the praise heaped on the perpetrators. Our vote did not in any way diminish the United Statess steadfast and unparalleled commitment to the safety of israel. Or to democracy in the middle east. We would not have let this pass unless it addressed counterproductive actions by the palestinians. We have to recognize that israel faces very serious threat in a very tough neighborhood. Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure there is not a new terrorist haven nextdoor. President obama and this administration have shown an unprecedented commitment to israels security because that is what we believe in. Our commitment to that security has never wavered and it never will. Even with the financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support israels military, and in september, the Obama Administration signed a memorandum of understanding to provide a 38 billion in Security Assistance to israel over the next 10 years, the largest single pledge of assistance in u. S. History to any country. As the israeli Prime Minister has noted, our military and intelligence cooperation is unprecedented. We believe that continued settlement building seriously undermines israels security. Some may cast the u. S. Of vote as a sign we have finally given up on a two state solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. None of us can give up on a two state solution. We continue to believe that solution is the only viable path to provide peace and security for the state of israel and freedom and dignity for the Palestinian People. We continue to believe the parties can still pursue this path if both sides are honest about the choices and have the courage to take steps that will be politically difficult. While we can encourage them it is up to the two parties to choose this path. As it always has been. We sincerely hope they begin making these choices before it is too late. I thank you. I would like to thank the ambassador of the United States for her statement and i would like to give the floor to the ambassador of france. Ambassador mr. President , the adoption of resolution 2334 is an important and in many ways historic event in the work of the Security Council. This is the first Resolution Council on the israelipalestinian conflict in eight years. It is important that the Security Council is making its position known as clearly in this to state what is obvious, and that is that israeli settlement building undermines little by little the possibility of having a viable and independent palestinian state living side by side with israel. Necessary for the Security Council to recall the collective and unanimous attachment of the International Community to the two state solution and to express its position clearly on the threats to that solution. Unless we act resolutely toward that end, the two state solution will disappear like a mirage in the desert. Even though there is no credible alternative that could meet the legitimate aspirations of both parties. Mr. President , ove