A/HRC/25/15 29. On a point of clarification, the State of Palestine stated that the presence of Israel that day was partial and had no value; there could be no selectivity for any country or any member and therefore Israel was obliged to comply with the resolution establishing the Human Rights Council. It stated that the report submitted by Israel had no value, since it failed to address at all human rights in the land of the State of Palestine which was under occupation by Israel. Turning to the review, it asked about the legal basis for the confiscation of the identity cards of Palestinians residing in Jerusalem and where the border of Israel was located. 30. In response, Israel indicated that the statement made by the Palestinian representative was neither a point of clarification nor a procedural motion, but rather the use of extra time to make his statement. Israel had come to the meeting in the spirit of dialogue and the delegation was prepared to answer all questions regarding the territories under the State’s control. 31. Poland welcomed the national report and the return of Israel to the Human Rights Council. 32. Portugal expressed concern about discrimination and inequality, inter alia, the distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens, and discrimination against women. 33. Qatar referred to the failure by Israel to cooperate with the Human Rights Council and the United Nations mechanisms responsible for monitoring the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. 34. The Republic of Korea noted that the promotion and protection of human rights was ensured in institutional and practical terms. 35. The Russian Federation drew attention to the human rights concerns in the occupied Palestinian territory. 36. Morocco referred to issues such as the lack of measures to protect Palestinian civilians and attempts to change the nature of Jerusalem. 37. Saudi Arabia made only recommendations. 38. Slovakia encouraged Israel to ensure a balance between the rights of migrants and national interests and legislative measures related to freedom of religion. 39. Slovenia welcomed progress made regarding children in Israeli military detention. 40. While acknowledging the Government’s efforts to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights, South Sudan also called for strengthened efforts to protect the rights of all citizens. 41. South Africa expressed support for the mediation efforts and welcomed the reestablishment by Israel of normal relations with the Human Rights Council. 42. Spain welcomed the participation by Israel in the review. 43. The Sudan noted the negative consequences that the State’s nine-month period of non-cooperation had on the work of the Human Rights Council and the UPR. 44. Sweden asked about measures to limit the use of administrative detention, and requested more information about efforts to protect women and girls from gender-based violence. 45. Switzerland referred to the situation of minorities, asylum-seeking procedures, the settlements and the blockade affecting the civilian population in Gaza. 6