Defeated resolution called for end to Israeli occupation within three years and for independent state of Palestine to be established within 1967 borders

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

The United Nations Security Council has rejected a Palestinian resolution demanding an end to Israeli occupation within three years, in a setback for efforts to get the UN’s most powerful body to take action to recognize an independent state of Palestine.

The United States, Israel’s closest ally, had made clear its opposition to the draft resolution and would have used its veto if necessary. But that proved unnecessary because the resolution failed to get the minimum nine “yes” votes required for adoption by the 15-member council.

The resolution received eight “yes” votes, two “no” votes — one from the United States and the other from Australia — and five abstentions.



United Nations (@UN) Security Council draft resolution on Palestinian question not adopted. Vote: 8 in favour; 2 (USA, AUS) against; 5 abstentions

Until shortly before the vote, council diplomats had expected the resolution to get nine “yes” votes. But Nigeria, which had been expected to vote “yes,” abstained.

The defeated resolution would have affirmed the urgent need to achieve “a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution” to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within 12 months and set a 31 December, 2017 deadline for Israel’s occupation to end.

It also called for an independent state of Palestine to be established within the 1967 Middle East borders – before Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem – and demanded “a just solution” to all other outstanding issues, including Palestinian refugees, prisoners in Israeli jails and water.

Jordan’s UN Ambassador Dina Kawar, the Arab representative on the Security Council, said after the vote: “The fact that this draft resolution was not adopted will not at all prevent us from proceeding to push the international community, specifically the United Nations, towards an effective involvement to achieving a resolution to this conflict.”

US Ambassador Samantha Power said: “We voted against this resolution not because we are comfortable with the status quo. We voted against it because ... peace must come from hard compromises that occur at the negotiating table.”