2. Action taken by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in January and February 1980
3. The Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign
At the request of Tunisia the Council invited the Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron), Fahd Qawasmah to attend the Security Council debate. The President of the Council asked the Secretary-General to bring the matter to the attention of the Israeli Government. Replying to the Secretary-General, the Representative of Israel said his Government could not allow the Mayor to travel at this time. The Mayor sent a message to the President of the Security Council, the text of which appears on page 12.
The Representative of Portugal in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission established by the Council resolution 446 (1979) presented the second report of the Commission. (Document S/13679).* The Chairman of the Commission deplored Israel's refusal to co-operate with the Commission. He said the Commission's appeal to Israel to cease its policy of establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem had been ignored. He went on to say that Israel's policy had contributed to a dangerous deterioration in the situation in the occupied territories and had increased tension. - He further stated that Israeli action was incompatible with the restoration of peace in the region.
* The conclusions and recommendations of the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979) appear on page l6.
The Representative of Morocco in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of Islamic States said that world Zionism was attempting to establish some 46 new settler colonies in the occupied Arab territories by 1963. He further stated that this policy of colonization was the official policy of the Israeli Government and was aimed at altering the nature of the region and struck at the very roots of the personality of the Palestinian and Arab population. He said the Moslem world appealed to the Security Council to put an end to the situation and to take effective measures to prevent Israel from violating the norms of international law.
The Representative of Jordan said Israeli Authorities had embarked on an "unprecedented and staggering acceleration of its colonization of Arab land". The colonizers were housed in 87 illegal settlements of which 18 were in or around Jerusalem and recently they had allowed Jews to settle in Al-Khalil (Hebron). He went on to say that the aim of Israel was to alter the geographic, demographic and historical legacy of a whole people. He also stated that Israeli Authorities had seized five-sixths of the water resources of the West Bank for exploitation in the Israeli settlements and Israel itself. Unless, he said, the Security Council applied the punitive measures provided for in the Charter, the Israelis would persist in their aggressive and defiant attitude.
The Representative of Israel stated that like previous occasions, the Security Council was being mobilized again by the opponents of peace in the Middle East. He vent on to say that whenever there was tangible progress in the peace process or negotiations reach to a significant stage, "Jordan and its allies rush to the Security Council in an attempt to extract from it support for their own diversionary and belligerent purpose". He went on to say that the Israeli Government had restated the principle that Jews had the right to "live in any part of the land of Israel", and this was why this urgent Council meeting was convened.
The Representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization hoped that the Commission established under resolution 446 (1979) would be requested to consider measures aimed at investigating the matter of water resources, with a view to ensuring the protection of ,the important natural resources of the territories under occupation.
He further stated that there was ample evidence to prove that the Zionist plan was to force the evacuation of Palestinian Arabs, both Moslem and Christian, from Jerusalem and to demolish the historic buildings in the Old City.
He said that recently the Israeli Government had announced a decision supporting what was described as the right of Jews to live in the occupied Palestinian town of Al-Khalil and some Palestinians in the town had been forced out of their homes. He hoped that the Council would not stop at condemning the atrocities perpetrated and calling for the rescinding of legislation in violation of conventions, Charter principles, resolutions, but would designate a time-limit after which it would consider applying the provisions of the Charter.
The Representative of Egypt said that the intensification of Israel's policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories was of great concern to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region. This had been confirmed in the report of the Commission. By doing so Israel had ignored United Nations resolutions with respect to the occupied territories. Egypt was committed to strive for the achievement of a comprehensive, just and durable peace in the region, he said. He went on to say that Israel's policy conflicted with the Camp David agreements in letter and spirit, and therefore affected prospects for conclusion of current efforts to establish full autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza towards a just solution of the Palestinian question.
The Representative of the League of Arab States, said it had been argued that the Camp David agreements would make Israel more amenable to the norm of international standards of behaviour. On the contrary, since the treaty had been signed under the protective cover of the United States. Israel had established new colonies, pursued vigorously its policy of annexation and initiated programmes, policies and legislation that would make the so-called autonomy talks a mockery.
The Representative of Senegal in his capacity as Acting-Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People made a statement the text of which appears on page 18.
The representative of Tunisia said that besides the decision of the Israeli Government to authorize Jews to settle in the Arab City of Al-Khali1 (Hebron), collective sanctions had been imposed on the population which were similar to treatment of the Jews by Nazis in the Second World War. He went on to say that an official policy of colonization was being pursued by Israel. Land had been expropriated, water resources diverted and Palestinians expelled from their homeland.
The Representative of Yugoslavia said that Israel continued to pursue its policy of occupation and annexation as well as systematic expulsion of a whole people from its homeland. He went on to state that all was aimed at legalizing a policy of faits accomplis in order to prevent the Palestinians from realizing their legitimate and inalienable rights and as a result the settlement of the Middle East crisis as a whole was impeded.
The Representative of Syria said Israel claimed the right of a few Jewish families to return to Al-Khalil under the pretext they had lived there 50 years ago while at the same time denying the right of millions of Palestinians to what had been their homeland for centuries. He went on to say that now Israeli Authorities were talking of establishing new settlements in the Golan Heights. He urged the Council to adopt effective measures to cease establishment of settlements in the occupied territories and to dismantle the existing settlements. He further stated that no measure could be effective except the application of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter against Israel.
The Representative of Cuba speaking for the Non-Aligned Countries, said the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries had decided that all measures adopted by Israel in the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories since 1967 should be declared illegal, null and void. He also said the colonies established in the Palestinian territories constituted an illegal act and were an obstacle to peace, therefore they ought to be immediately dismantled and no new ones should be established. He went on to say that the Conference had denounced the exploitation by Israel of the natural resources of Palestine and the occupied Arab territories. The Conference, he continued, had invited the Council to impose sanctions against Israel under Chanter VII of the Charter.
The representative of Viet Nam stated that a significant number of resolutions and declarations had been adopted but the situation in the occupied territories had not modified. On the contrary, the situation had worsened with new measures of colonization taken by the Israeli authorities, notably in Al-Khalil. He further stated that the Security Council had to assure its responsibilities in this regard.
The Representative of Bangladesh said that Israel's ultimate aim was permanent annexation of the occupied Arab territories. He also stated that the Council must adopt effective measures against Israel and should go beyond reiterating general principles, so that it would abandon establishment of more Jewish settlements and dismantle those already existing or under construction. He also said that effective measures should be taken to ensure the protection from Israeli exploitation and expropriation of vital and scarce natural resources of the territories under illegal occupation.
The Representative of Zambia stated that Jewish people from all over the world were invited to settle in a foreign land which belonged to Palestinians. In addition to their colonization, the Israeli Authorities were exploiting land, natural resources and the vital water supplies in the occupied territories. He went on to say that colonization of the Arab lands would not lead to peace in the area.
He said the Security Council should take effective enforcement measures on the basis of the Charter to ensure that Israel withdraws from the occupied territories.
The Representative of France said Israel's policy of planning and enlarging settlements in the occupied territories was contrary to the norms of international law, and the occupying power was obliged to preserve the demographic, economic and cultural nature of the occupied areas. He went on to say that the decision of the Israeli Authorities to establish settlements in Al-Khalil (Hebron) was alarming.
The Representative of China said that Israel had defied unanimous international condemnation and consistently refused to implement United Nations resolutions on the occupied territories. The "criminal acts" of Israeli Authorities in the territories occupied including recent settlements in Al-Khalil (Hebron) could only arouse Arab indignation, therefore the day of recovery of last territories would come sooner. The crux of the problem lay in Israel's occupation of the Arab land and the Palestinian question. It was imperative to do away with super-power interference in the area and the Security Council should condemn Israel for its crimes of aggression and expansion.
The Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the Council stated that the Camp David agreements and Egypt-Israel peace treaty, were only attempts to camouflage the policy of aggression and expansion pursued by Israel against the Palestinian people and the neighbouring Arab lands. The so-called Palestinian autonomy talks, he said, were disguising Israel's policy of "bantustanization" with the exploitation of cheap Arab labour and other natural resources and making Arabs landless peasants. The situation must be ended, for the sake of peace in the area and for the sake of Israel itself. Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories and allow the Palestinian people the right to self-determination including their right to have a state of their own.
The Representative of the Philippines called on Israel to make a positive gesture before it was too late" to end its settlements. He went on to say that the larger problem was to restore a permanent homeland for the Palestinian people without "a corresponding threat to the Israeli homeland". He further mentioned that Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 were the basis for a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East.
The Representative of Jamaica said that Israel's continued policy of encouraging settlements in the occupied territories was "most provocative" and detrimental to the achievement of a Just, comprehensive and durable peace in the Middle East. He went on to say that it was above all a "gross injustice to the people of Palestine whose inalienable rights, including their right to establish an independent homeland, has been recognized by an overwhelming majority of member states." He urged an end to such settlements.
The Representative of the United Kingdom said there was no doubt that Israel's settlement policy was illegal. He deplored Israeli Authorities decision to allow Israeli citizens to buy land in the occupied territories and stated that its claim to ultimate sovereignty over these territories was incompatible with resolution 242. He went on to say that Israel's decision concerning Hebron (Al-Khalil) were "provocative and ill-conceived".
He also said that the U.K. opposed unilateral modification in the demographic and physical nature of the occupied territories, including the status of Jerusalem and the Holy Places.
The representative of Algeria said that the events in Al-Khalil were neither spontaneous nor isolated. The intensified colonization in occupied Arab territories had not violated the Camp David Accords, and it was a logical outflow from them. He went on to say that the Camp David Accords had not recognized the question of Palestine as the heart of the crisis in the Middle East.
The representative of Pakistan stated that the Israeli decision to violate the Arab character of the ancient City of Al-Khalil and its continuing efforts to confiscate Arab Land and property in the Occupied Arab territories had evoked criticism even among those who had long purported to side with Israel. He went on to say that Israel's policy of "creeping annexation", the collective punishments imposed on the Palestinian people and the insidious schemes to deprive them of a vital resource of their livelihood, was jeopardizing the very survival of Palestinian people, and the world community could not remain a passive witness to that continuing tragedy.
The representative of Kuwait said that the Israeli concept of "absolutism" meant absolute security for Israel at the expense of others. It meant the Israelis had the absolute right to settle anywhere in the Palestinian land. It was based on force, in the belief that the ultimate objective was the triumph of force. It even meant the right to divert water for the sake of Jews at the expense of Palestinians. He went on to say that the Palestinians under occupation should know that the Security Council and world public opinion were aware of their ordeal.
The Representative of Mexico stated that violation of principles of the right to self-determination and the inadmissibility of acquisition of territories by force were of concern to all, especially developing countries. He added that conquest conferred no rights. All countries in the region had to be guaranteed the right to live in peace. Israel could net claim that right if it ignored the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland.
The Representative of Niger said that Israeli action in the Arab town of Al-Khalil (Hebron) demonstrated Israel's policy of arbitrarily taking lands. Its policy was "everything for the Jews nothing for the Arabs", similar to South Africa's policy of "everything for the whites and nothing for the blacks". He added that Israel exploited for its own population and its Jewish colonies the traditional water resources of the Arabs which had been denounced by his country." He went on to say that Israel must return to its 1967 frontiers and dismantle all Jewish settlements.
The representative of Afghanistan said that any hopes of settling the problem without the Palestinians and the Palestine Liberation Organization were unrealistic and doomed to failure. He further stated that the separate peace treaty had encouraged Israel's policy of aggression and annexation. He condemned the acts- of provocation by Israel and hoped that the Council would take measures to prevent the annexation of Arab lands by Israeli aggressors.
The representative of Indonesia said that the Israeli decision to settle Jews in Al-Khalil was part of a process aimed at colonizing the West Bank. He went on to say that Israel's actions imposed severe suffering on the local inhabitants and had resulted in the illegal uprooting of the Palestinian people from their lands. The Council must put an end to the grave situation and prevent Israel from violating the Council's resolutions.
The Representative of Lebanon said there could be no peace without the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state on Palestinian soil. He added Israel's denial of Palestinian rights was creating a "Palestinian diaspora", especially in Lebanon. He went on to say that Israel was preventing the United Nations forces to fulfill its mandate in Lebanon and was also creating conditions which would mean the "amputation" of the south of Lebanon from the rest of the country, which was rejected by the Lebanese people.
The President of the Security Council (Representative of the German Democratic Republic) said Israel persisted in its aggressive, expansionist policies because the protection of the United States prevented the Council from taking action against it. He added that the Camp David agreements were constantly exacerbating the situation, although it was ostensibly aimed at peace, and taking advantage of those agreements, Israel was pursuing its settlements policy and forcibly expelling the Arab population from their lands.
Before the vote on the draft resolution contained in document S/13827, the Representative of Norway made a statement and said Norway had supported the process which had brought about the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and that it was important to bring the ongoing negotiations on the occupied territories to a successful conclusion. He added that the final status of those territories could only be established by a comprehensive solution negotiated by all the parties concerned, including the Palestinian people. He further stated that Norway deeply regretted the Israeli Government's policy of settlement in the occupied territories and its decision to establish further settlements in these territories.
The draft resolution contained in document S/13827 was then put to the vote and was adopted by 15 votes in favour, none against, with no abstentions, as resolution 465 (1980) (full text on page 9 )
After the vote the representative of U.S. stated that in the U.S. view one of the positive trends in the area was reflected in the current series of negotiations for a comprehensive settlement which resulted from the Camp David accords. A peace treaty had been signed and large areas of occupied Arab territory had been evacuated by Israel. He went on to say "as significant as these developments are, we recognize that there can be no comprehensive peace in the region until the Palestinian problem in all its aspects is resolved. The ongoing negotiations on the Vest Bank and Gaza are difficult and if successful, they will constitute a first step." He added that the U.S. regarded the settlements in the occupied territories as illegal under international law, and considered them an obstacle to the success of the current negotiations.
He said "we have supported the resolution, despite reservations with regard to certain of its provisions, which we consider to be recommendatory in character. We question the recommendation in paragraph 54 of the Commission's report (S/13679) as to the best means to deal with the settlements problem in the occupied territories. We do not read the reference in operative paragraph 5 of the resolution to changes in the institutional structure of the occupied territories as in any way prejudicing the outcome of the autonomy negotiations." He also mentioned that there were a number of factors of a practical character that make impractical the call, in operative paragraph 6 of the resolution, for the dismantling of existing settlements.
Full text of the Security Council resolution 465 (1960) is as follows:
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2203rd meeting
on 1 March 1960
Taking note of the reports of the Commission of the Security Council established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in documents S/13450 and Corr.1 and S/13679,
Taking note also of letters from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (8/13801) and the Permanent Representative of Morocco, Chairman of the Islamic Group (S/13802),
Strongly deploring the refusal by Israel to co-operate with the Commission and regretting its formal rejection of resolutions 446 (1979) and 452 (1979),
Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 including Jerusalem,
Deploring the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967,
Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,
Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of private and public land and property, and water resources,
Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,
Fraying attention to the grave consequences which the settlement policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
Recalling pertinent Security Council resolutions, specifically resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, as well as the consensus statement made by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976,
Having invited Mr. Fahd Qawasmeh, Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron), in the occupied territory, to supply it with information pursuant to rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure,
1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report contained in document S/13679;
2. Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the Commission;
3. Calls upon all parties, particularly the Government of Israel, to co-operate with the Commission;
4. Strongly deplores the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel of Mayor Fahd Qawasmeh in order to appear before the Security Council, and requests Israel to permit his free travel to the United Nations Headquarters for that purpose;
5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;
8. Requests the Commission to continue to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly the water resources, with a view to ensuring the protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation, and to keep under close scrutiny the implementation of the present resolution;
9. Requests the Commission to report to the Security Council before 1 September 1980, and decides to convene at the earliest possible date thereafter in order to consider the report and the full implementation of the present resolution.
The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People noted that in the above resolution adopted by the Security Council the following new elements had been taken into consideration:
(1) In operative paragraph 5 the Council determined, amongst other things, that Israel's policy and practices of settling new immigrants in the occupied territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian- persons in time of var.
(2) In operative paragraph 6 the Council calls on Israel, amongst other things, "to dismantle the existing settlements'" in the occupied Arab territories.
(3) In operative paragraph 7, the Council "Calls upon all states not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories".
(4) In operative paragraph 8, the Council requests the Commission, amongst other things, to investigate the reported serious depletion of water resources in the occupied territories to ensure its protection.
Full text of a message sent by the Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron) to the President of the Security Council is as follows: (document S/13830)
'Those who believe in the Quran, and those who follow the Jewish Scriptures, and the Christians and the Sabians, and who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward'.
This is the spirit of Islam, so just, simple and constructive. Stated plainly many centuries ago practiced or accepted for so long a time and has been constantly reiterated as a democratic code for the Holy Land of Palestine.
Yet the military authorities of the racial Government of Israel have a different code to introduce and defend. Since their occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967) these authorities have shown unwavering determination to change the geographic and demographic features of the occupied land in such a way so as to suit their modern code, 'Only Zionists shall have their reward'. Mere Judaism is even not sufficient.
One aspect of this racial policy has been the establishment of settlements on confiscated land. To achieve such a goal, the occupation authorities have used various illegal and oppressive measures. Among them were the deportation of national figures, the arbitrary arrestments and torture of innocent citizens and the collective punishment imposed on a whole area similar to what has recently happened in Al-Khalil.
The procedure of establishing a settlement has become well known by the Palestinian Arabs for it follows systematic steps. It usually begins with a military declaration that a certain area has, for security reasons, been considered closed. This means that neither owners of the land nor anybody else are allowed to enter it. The second step is usually the establishment of one building and for security purposes, of course. This will soon be followed by more and more buildings. Families accompanied with their dear pets will follow while the poor owners of the land have to strive dearly to find a shelter or simply uproot themselves and immigrate for good. Verbal and written complaints and condemnation to both Israeli authorities and world organizations have done nothing to stop them.
The total area of these settlements has arrived at an alarming figure. An area of one thousand and six hundred square kilometers has already been usurped for this purpose. Knowing that this urea comprises more than twenty-six percent of the West Bank area, it is only Topical to conclude that the future of the inhabitants of their, land looks so gloomy.
Though settlements are scattered over the whole West Bank, those which lie in the vicinity of Arab Jerusalem and Al-Khalil are more conspicuous and expansible. Kiryat Arba' settlement established in 1968 is the cursed allotment of our town Al-Khalil. To establish this settlement 5 square kilometers were declared a military closed area. Lying along the eastern edge of the town and extending from north to south, this settlement is now capable of providing accommodation for 500 families. Potentially, however, the settlement is capable of accommodating ten times as many.
The settlers of Kiryat Arba' don't spare any occasion to translate their fanatical views into aggressive deeds against the inhabitants of Al-Khalil. It is very common to see these people marching in the streets of Al-Khalil while being fully armed. Needless to say that such aggressive and inciting actions greatly increases the possibility of friction between the settlers and inhabitants of Al-Khalil. The open support of the occupation government of these settlers has encouraged them to commit so many crimes against the Arabs. In March 1971 some settlers of Kiryat Arba' amused themselves with an inhumane game. They kidnapped 3 Arab pupils and released them while bleeding from injuries caused by wild dogs. In the same month the mufti of the town was insulted by these settlers. He was forced to remove stones and waist from the streets of the town. In May 1979, 500 grape trees were uprooted and three months later 5 Arab families were invaded by these settlers. Arab families were beaten severely and the Israeli authorities were probably sorry for that. The Holy Quran didn't escape their hatred and violence. On the 1st of October 1976, some settlers entered the Ibrahimi Mosque and tore up the Holy Book into pieces. Since that date Moslems have been performing their prayers under the shadows of Israeli arms. Violence of Kiryat Arba' settlers mounted to the level of murder. In March 1979 Habi'a Hhalaldeh, a 16 year old girl student, and Nasri Anai, a 21 year old workman, were killed by the settlers bullets and in the presence of Israeli soldiers. No curfew was imposed on Kiryat Arba'.
The recent incident which resulted in the murder of one of these settlers who happened to be a soldier, together with the measures taken by the military government shows unequivocally the oppressive and inhumane line of policy the occupation authorities had taken. To sum up the incident and the reaction of the military government, the following points have to be stated:
A. The soldier was murdered at the central part of the old town of Al-Khalil on the 31st of January 1980.
B. Soon after the murder a curfew was imposed on the central part of town. The curfew lasted for 12 days. During this period almost all services like medical, educational, social had come to a real halt. The only and poorly equipped hospital of the town was accessible to very limited cases.
C. Entrances of the town were guarded by check points to prevent cars from entering the town.
D. Tens of Arab residents were arrested and jailed under the pretext of security. Among them were 60 year old secretary of Chamber of Commerce Kazem Hassoneh, the 80 year old ex-Member of the City Council Haj Mahmoud Dwaik, the journalist Sobhi Sharif and Chief of Preach and Guidance Saleh Zir.
E. Israeli soldiers invaded, several Arab houses during night time ordering male residents to get out of their homes and wait for hours in the chilly wintery weather of mountainous Al-Khalil. Many were brutally beaten. Among them were Akram Abu Asab, Hilrai Dandis and Barakat Zahdi. Settlers of Kiryat Arba' seemed to be longing for such an opportunity for they had their real share in the attack. Awwad Zaro, Sailm Zaro, Sa'di Zaro, Arafeh Ida'is and Jadallah Ja'bery were among those beaten by the settlers. One of them, the 70 year old man Jadallah Ja'bery had permanently lost one of his eyes as a result of being struck by a metal bar.
F. Moslem Arabs were prevented from holding their traditional prayers in their shrine - the Ibrahimi Mosque - on two consecutive Fridays the first and the eighth of February. In the meantime, however, Jewish settlers of Kiryat Arba' were allowed to enter the Islamic Shrine, part of which had been converted to a Synagogue, and perform their prayers. Electric wiring of the building and the microphones of the minarets of the Mosque (used to call worshipers) were damaged. Another Mosque had its windows smashed into pieces.
G. On Sunday, the 10th of February 198O, the Israeli authorities gave permission to members of an extremely fanatical group called Gush-Emonim to organize a large demonstration which expresses the zionist determination to settle in Al-Khalil and the West Bank as a whole.
The procession of hatred took place as scheduled and the group held a meeting near the Ibrahimi Mosque. In the meeting demonstrators announced formally 'the return of Jews to 'Al-Khalil'. Rabbi Levinger, A Kiryat Arba' leader threatened that 'Mayor of Al-Khalil should be held responsible of the murder of the Israeli soldier'. He even threatened that he would launch a war against the inhabitants of the town.
H. On the same day the 10th of February, and while the curfew was still imposed and Levinger's threats were released the Israeli Cabinet responded positively to Gush-Emonim demonstrators and decided to allow Jews to settle in the heart of Al-Khalil. The alleged justification for this move was the claim that prior to 1929, five houses in Al-Khalil were owned by Jews. This decision has been looked upon by Arab inhabitants of Khalil as another flagrant violation of human rights and international law. It adds another dimension to the settlement policy of the racial authorities in Israel. Indeed it is a mockery and insult to both reason and humanity that at the tine thousands of Palestinian families are denied their rights of returning home, an influx of hundreds of Jewish families arc welcomed by the Israeli authorities on the basis that five houses in Al-Khalil were owned by Jews half a century ago. I happened to be one of the Palestinians whose houses have been occupied by Jews since 1948. My two houses are in Jerusalem, one in Baka' and the other in Katamoun.
The City Council of Hebron together with its population condemn all sorts of aggressive acts and racial discrimination practiced by the occupation authorities against Arab inhabitants. We also condemn the settlements "policy adopted and encouraged by the Israeli Government and consider it a violation of international law and the UN Charter, as well as a provocation of the national and religious feelings of Arabs and Moslems all over the world. We all know that your Council as well as many other world organizations are against the policy of confiscation of land from its Arab owners for the purpose of establishing Jewish settlements. Let us together raise our condemnation of this policy. Let us also condemn those who supply the aggressors with the money to build their settlements and thus enhance their aggression.
The City Council and the population of Al-Khalil hereby declare their absolute rejection of Camp David accords and all their consequences especially the autonomy plan, and state firmly and unequivocally our adherence to our legitimate right to establish our own state on our land under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and only in so just and durable peace will be established.
Conclusions and recommendations of the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979) contained in document S/13850 are as follows:
214. The Commission felt in that connexion that a visit to the area would be most useful to its work.
215. The Commission, although aware of the views already expressed by the Israeli Government in that matter, mode persistent efforts at various levels to secure the co-operation of that Government. As related in chapter I of this report, the commission was much disappointed by Israel's negative response to its approach. It noted in that regard that Israel's attitude deprived the Commission not only of the possibility of examining in situ the situation relating to settlements in the occupied territories but also of any opportunity to receive from the Government of Israel the explanations and comments which would have been useful to the Commission in its efforts to assess the situation.
216. The Commission feels compelled to state that it considers such a lack of co-operation on the part of a Member State of the United Nations as an act of disregard for a decision of the Security Council.
217. Having spared no effort to obtain information from a variety of sources, the Commission believer that the present report contains a fairly accurate assessment of the prevailing situation it was entrusted to examine.
218. In its endeavour to fulfil its mandate, the Commission felt that it could assist the Council inter alia by: (a) bringing up to date the basic information already at the disposal of the Council' (b) determining the consequences of the settlement policy on the local Arab population; and (c) assessing the impact of that, policy and its consequences with regard to "the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East" stressed by the Security Council in the preambular part of resolution 446 (1979), under which the Commission was created.
219. In drawing its. conclusions the Commission did not attribute the same value to every piece of information it had obtained, but evaluated its significance freely and critically, in accordance with its relevance to the accomplishment of the mandate of the Commission and its accuracy as determined by its coherence and by the documentary evidence rendered by the witnesses as supplement to their statements.
(a) Recent information on the settlements
220. According to the figures obtained, there are altogether in the occupied territories 133 settlements, including 17 in and around Jerusalem, 62 in the West Bank, 29 in the Golan Heights and 25 in the Gaza Strip and the Sinai.
221. The population of those settlements varies in number, probably depending on the policy purposes predetermined for each settlement. In the area of Jerusalem and the West, Bank where the establishment of settlements has been the most intensive, the number of settlers, has reached approximately 90,000, while in the Sinai their number would be under 5,000.
222. The land seized by the Israeli authorities as a whole, either specifically for the establishment of those settlements or for other stated reasons, covers 27 per cent of the occupied West Bank and the quasi totality of the Golan Heights.
223. On the basis of the information received, the Commission is convinced that a number of settlements were established on privately-owned land and not only on public land.
224. Many of those settlements are of a military nature, either officially placed under the control of the Israeli army or de facto with a settler population of military age. Moreover, those settlers are said to have at their disposal military weapons in the midst of an unarmed Arab population.
225. According to several witnesses, the location of the settlements is determined in accordance with agricultural designs, and also with what Israel considers to be "security" purposes. This may explain for instance the existence of three successive belts of settlements reported to have been established between Jerusalem and the Jordan River and which would be aimed at "compartmenting" the local population.
226. Supported by the strong influence of various private groupings, the settlement policy is an official government programme which is implemented by a number of organizations and committees representing both the Government and the private sector inside and outside Israel.
227. In addition to private contributions coming mostly from outside Israel, the financing of the settlement policy is essentially a governmental matter. In that connexion, the Commission was told that the Israeli Government has set aside the equivalent of $US 200 million for expanding and establishing settlements during the fiscal year 1979/80.
228. The Commission found evidence that the Israeli Government is engaged in a wilful, systematic and large-scale process of establishing settlements in the occupied territories for which it should bear full responsibility.
(b) Consequences of the settlement policy on the local population
229. The Commission in of the view that a correlation exists between the establishment of Israeli settlement; and the displacement of the Arab population. Thus it was reported that since 1967, when that policy started, the Arab population has teen reduced by 32 per cent in Jerusalem and the West Bank. As to the Golan Heights, the Syrian authorities stated that 134,000 inhabitants had been excelled leaving only 8,000, i.e., 6 per cent of the local population in the occupied Golan Heights.
230. The Commission is convinced that in the implementation of its policy of settlements, Israel has resorted to methods - often coercive and sometimes more subtle - which included the control of water resources, the seizure private properties, the destruction of houses and the banishment, of refugees, and has shown disregard for basic human rights, including in particular the right, of the refugees to return to their homeland.
231. For the Arab inhabitants still living in those territories, particularly in Jerusalem and tho West Bank, they are subjected to continuous pressure to emigrate in order to make room for new settlers who, by contrast, are encouraged to come to the area. The Commission was told also that in the Golan Heights Israeli authorities imposed Israeli citizenship on all new-born children in an effort to assimilate tho remaining population.
232. The settlement policy has brought drastic and adverse changes to the economic and social pattern of the daily life of the remaining Arab population. As a more example of that evolution, the Commission was informed that a number of Arab landowners were now compelled to earn their living and that of their family by working on their own land as the hired employees of the Israeli settlers.
233. Tho Commission considers that the pattern of that settlement policy as a consequence, is causing profound and irreversible changes of a geographical and demographic nature in those territories; including Jerusalem.
234. The Commission has no doubt that those changes are of such a profound nature that they constitute a violation of the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 and of the relevant decisions adopted by the United Nations in the matter, more specifically: Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1960) of 21 May 1968, and 290 (1971) of 25 September 1971; the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976: as well as General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 20 October 1977, and 33/113 of 18 December 1978.
236. Unfortunately, the Commission has also perceived a deep sense of despair and helplessness, primarily among Palestinian refugees. This stems from the realization that Israel's policy with regard to the occupied Arab territories and more particularly its policy of continuing to establish more settlements is unabated and undaunted either by United Nations decisions or any other external factor. The Commission would like to state clearly in that regard that in the course of its various meetings it felt that this settlement policy was widely regarded as a most negative factor in the achievement of peace in the area both by the refugees themselves and all those who support their cause, including." the neighbouring, Governments for which that policy generates at national levels economic and social problems of grave consequences.
237. Consequently, after examining the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, the Commission wishes to reaffirm the determination made by the Security Council in resolution 446 (1979) according to which "the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East".
239. In the view of the Commission, as a first step, Israel should be called upon to cease on an urgent basis the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the occupied territories. The question of the existing settlements would then have to be resolved.
The Council might further wish to consider measures to safeguard the impartial protection of property arbitrarily seized.
241. As to Jerusalem, the Council should also call upon the Government of Israel to implement faithfully Security Council resolutions adopted on that question as from 1967. Moreover, recalling that Jerusalem is a most sacred place for the three great, monotheistic faiths throughout the world, i.e., Christian, Jewish and Moslem, the Security Council might wish to consider steps to protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in that city, taking into account the views of high- ranking representatives of the three religions.
242. In view of the magnitude of the problem of settlement and its implications for peace in the region, the Security Council should keep the situation under constant survey.
Conclusions and recommendations of the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979) contained in document S/13679 are as follows:
46. In complete disregard of United Nations resolutions and Security Council decisions, Israel is still pursuing its systematic and relentless process of colonization of the occupied territories. This is evidenced by the stated policy on constructing additional settlements in the most viable parts of the West Bank and by the expansion of others already in existence, as well as the long-term planning of still more settlements.
47. The methods used by the occupation authorities to seize the lands needed for the construction or expansion of settlements are those already referred to by the Commission in its earlier reports as evidenced by the appeals made recently to Israel's High Court of Justice by groups of dispossessed inhabitants.
48. From all indications available, the Commission continues to believe that the Israeli Government has to bear responsibility for the settlement programme, which is being implemented as an official policy.
49. In the case of the Elon Moreh settlement, when a ruling by the Israeli High Court of Justice would seemingly provide some measure of protection against arbitrary seizure of Arab land, the Commission while taking note or the Court's decision, cannot but deplore the effort of the Israeli government to side-step that decision. The Commission is inclined to believe that that episode, unfortunately, does not represent any significant departure from official Israeli policy regarding the settlements or from the ideological claims put forward as justification for that policy.
50. The Commission views with particular concern the decision taken recently by the Israeli Cabinet to allow Israeli citizens and organizations to purchase land in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Even though the measure contains restrictions on the purchase of privately owned lands it is the considered opinion of the Commission that such a decision, applied as it is to a population under military occupation, could lead to intolerable pressures to obtain lands owned for generations by Arab families.
51. In the light of its findings, the Commission wishes to reiterate most emphatically its view that Israel's policy of settlement, relentlessly pursued in spite of all Security Council decisions and appeals, is incompatible with the pursuit of peace in the area and that it is bound to lead to further deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories.
53. It is the view of the Commission that Israel should be made aware of the serious deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories resulting from its policy of settlement and called upon, as a matter of urgency, to cease the establishment, construction, expansion and planning of settlements in those territories.
54. The Commission therefore recommends that the Security Council adopt effective measures to prevail on Israel to cease the establishment of settlements in occupied territories and to dismantle the existing settlements accordingly.
55. In view of the vital importance of water resources for the prosperity of the occupied Arab territories and of the reported serious depletion of those resources as a result of intensive exploitation by the Israeli authorities. Mainly for the benefit of the Israeli settlements the Security Council might wish to consider measures aiming at investigating the matter further, with a view to ensuring the protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.
56. With regard to Jerusalem, bearing in mind what was already stated in its first report, the Commission again strongly recommends that the Security Council urge the Government of Israel to implement fully the Security Council resolutions adopted on that question as from 1967 and further desist from taking any measures which would change the status of Jerusalem, including the pluralistic and religious dimensions of that Holy City.
57. In view of the magnitude of the problem of settlements and in its direct effect on the ever-all deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories and therefore, its implications for peace in the region, as well as for international peace and security, the Security Council should keep the situation under constant review.
Statement made by Mr. Falilou Kane, Acting Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in the Security Council is as follows: (document S/13830)
May I also most warmly congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of this important organ of the United Nations. I am sure that your experience and talents as a seasoned diplomat trill be of the greatest use to us in this debate. We are fortunate indeed that this debate is being held under your presidency, because the German Democratic Republic, your country, has always supported the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in its efforts to promote a just solution to the question of Palestine.
I should also like to pay a tribute to your predecessor, Ambassador Jacques Leprette, for the admirable way in which he conducted the Council's business during the month of January 1980, a particularly difficult period.
Once again the Security Council must deal with Israel's serious violations of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the threats that those violations constitute to international peace and security. The Government of that country has Just authorized Israeli citizens to settle in the very heart of the Arab city of Al-Khalil, which is in the Arab territories illegally occupied since 1967. This new violation of international law by Israel is further proof of that country's determination to defy our Organization by continuing its settlements policy in the illegally occupied Arab territories.
That policy is meeting with almost unanimous condemnation within the international community. Even the countries regarded as staunch friends of Israel have declared that such a policy is in flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and a serious obstacle to peace.
It is because the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People considers that Israel's affronts to our Organization cannot continue without gravely endangering international peace and security that it believes that the latest events in Al-Khalil call for close consideration by the Council and the subsequent adoption of effective measures.
In this respect Israel's refusal to authorize the mayor of Al-Khalil to respond to the Security Council's invitation is deplorable. In our Committee's opinion, that act is an implicit admission of guilt, for, why else should Israel so fear the testimony of the mayor of Al-Khalil?
On 22 March 1979 the Security Council, following upon repeated infringements of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, decided to establish a commission of inquiry "to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem", (resolution 446 (1979)
In spite of the innumerable obstacles which Israel sought to place in its way, that Commission was able to discharge its mandate and in July 1979 submit a first objective and precise report to the Security Council.
Our Committee, which Israel has similarly boycotted, must once again condemn the lack of co-operation on the part of the Israeli authorities with the members of the Commission.
By that attempted boycott Israel seeks to discredit the results of the Commission's work. However, no one is deceived by this sleight of hand. If the Israeli leaders are really sincere when they state that the settlements do not constitute an obstacle to peace, then what have they to fear from a mission of inquiry?
One must admit that, if they had nothing to hide, if they did not openly violate human rights in the occupied territories, they would have no difficulty in receiving the Commission.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay a well-deserved tribute to the representatives of Portugal, Bolivia and Zambia for the quality and the thoroughness of their work apparent in the two reports they have submitted to us. Their concern to seek the truth impartially was borne out by the endeavours they made to obtain the points of view of all the parties concerned, including Israel. It is not their fault if Israel has chosen to boycott all the efforts of various bodies of the United Nations to shed light on the treatment of the populations of the occupied Arab territories.
Israel has on various pretexts boycotted the work of the Committee on Israeli Practices in the Occupied Arab Territories, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Commission established under resolution 446 (1979). Therefore, it has become clear that it is not those bodies that are partial but Israel, which fears that the truth may come to light.
The consideration in 1979 of the first report of the Commission gave the members of this Council the opportunity to realize that Israel was undeniably violating the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by implementing that the report described as
The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which had constantly been providing proof that Israel's policy in the occupied Arab territories was designed to deny the Palestinian people its right to self-determination and sovereignty, could not but express its approval of the conclusions of the report of the Security Council's special Commission of inquiry.
The Committee had also noted with satisfaction that the Security Council had in its resolution 452 (1979) almost unanimously endorsed the recommendations of the Commission and invited the Government and the people of Israel promptly to cease planning, establishing and building settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, inducing Jerusalem.
Unfortunately , we are bound to observe that Israel took no notice of Security Council resolution 452 (1979). On the contrary, it has stepped up its violations of the national rights of the Palestinian people by authorizing the establishment of new settlements, by arresting eminent Palestinians, including the Mayor of Nablus, who were "guilty" of expressing the feelings of their people, and, finally, by exercising harsh repression with the aim of dissuading the Palestinian people in occupied territory from exercising the right freely to express its opinion, which is conferred upon it by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The conclusions contained in the second report of the Commission (S/13679) are quite edifying in this respect. Since the adoption of resolution 452 (1979), the Commission has noted that the Israeli authorities have confiscated 40, 000 dunums of privately owned Arab lands in order to allow for the expansion of settlements on the West Bank.
Those authorities have extended and strengthened existing Israeli settlements. They have lifted all legal restrictions on a massive transfer of the Israeli population in the occupied territories by authorizing Israeli citizens to acquire land in those territories.
Thus at this tine the Government of Israel has, using many different pretexts and specious arguments, confiscated 31.4 per cent of all land on the West Bank.
It is daily becoming clearer that Israel's policy in the occupied Arab territories is one of gradual annexation through the continued Judaization of the demographic, economic, cultural and religious aspects of those territories.
Thus the Holy City of Jerusalem has today been surrounded by Jewish districts with the clear objective of separating it from the rest of the West Bank and accentuating its Jewish character. However, because Jerusalem is the meeting ground for the three great monotheistic religions, it should be able to preserve its unique historical and religious character.
The other day the representative of Morocco, speaking on behalf of the Islamic Conference, said before the Council how ardently the Moslem world aspired to seeing the city of Jerusalem returned to Arab and Islamic sovereignty.
Another aspect of the Israeli policy of settlement in the occupied Arab territories is the implementation of all kinds of economic, legislative or financial measures aimed at leading the Arab inhabitants to abandon their traditional occupations and leave their homeland. That applies to the Israeli Government's measures aimed at reducing the water resources of the Palestinian population. Such measures can obviously have only disastrous effects on the agricultural activities of that population. In this way if the Council does not act swiftly and firmly, the Arab inhabitants are threatened with progressive ruin and are in danger of being forced to abandon their land to the Israeli settlers.
The violations by Israel of the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and national sovereignty are nothing new, but they are a constant source of concern to the international community and give rise to serious doubts among the friends of Israel about that State's desire for peace.
Indeed, recent events in Al Khalil have shocked international public opinion. By deciding to promote settlement in that holy city, despite the protests of the Arab population, Israel is in danger of exacerbating tension in the area and causing bloody confrontations.
The non-aligned countries, at their last summit meeting in Havana, had occasion to consider the question of the blocking of the Security Council with respect to the problem of the recovery by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights. Those countries intend to bring the matter to the General Assembly in special session if the Council continues to be reduced to impotence. As the Chairman of the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979), Mr. Mathias of Portugal, stated last Friday:
2. Action taken by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in January and February 1980
The Committee considered its programme of work and also the programme of work of the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights for 1980 and took decisions in this regard on the basis of the recommendations of General Assembly.
The Committee held another meeting on 21 February and agreed that the bureau from 1979 continue on a provisional basis until the Committee elected its officers.
During this meeting the Committee considered recent developments in the occupied territories. It stressed the seriousness of the situation in these territories following the Israeli Government's decision regarding Israeli Settlement in Al-Khalil, which was considered as having serious implications for the restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. It agreed that the Acting-Chairman of the Committee should communicate its concern to the Secretary-General and to the President of the Security Council, and should participate on behalf of the Committee in the forthcoming debate in the Security Council on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.
The text of the letter by Mr. Falilou Kane, Acting Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council reads as follows":
This decision, following on other similar decisions taken by the Government of Israel, is but another step towards strengthening its annexation of the occupied Arab territories in flagrant violation of international law, world public opinion and General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.
Once more, Israel has clearly demonstrated that it is bent on a policy of annexation of the illegally occupied Arab territories and that its protestations of being a peace-loving member of the United Nations, dedicated to finding a comprehensive solution to the problem of the Middle East, have no basis in good faith.
Reports in the Israeli press already warn of the tension that exists in Al-Khalil and the possibility of violence in the face of Israel's acts of provocation. The Committee feels strongly that immediate action should be taken to prevent any escalation of tension in the area.
The Security Council has adopted resolutions, particularly resolution 452 (1979), which recognize the dangerous consequences of Israel's defiant acts and consider them as a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
The Committee feels that further urgent action needs to be taken by the United Nations, and in particular by the Security Council, to convince Israel of the danger of its settlement policies and the necessity for its immediate and complete withdrawal from the illegally occupied territories.
I request that this letter be circulated as a document of the Security Council.
The Conference also adopted the following resolution on the Palestine question and Jerusalem:
Recalling that the Organisation of the Islamic Conference emerged after the first meeting of the Kings and Heads of States of Islamic countries held in Rabat in 1969 after the burning of Al Aqsa Mosque Al Mubarak in Al-Quds Al Sharif;
Mindful of the continuous and considerable importance the Organisation attaches to the Palestinian Question and to the city of Al Quds;
Recalling its Resolution No.18/10 adopted at the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers at its meeting in the city of Fez from 10-15 Jumadul Thani (8-12 May) suspending Egypt's membership in the Islamic Conference Organisation and all its institutions, organisation and bodies following the President of the Arab Republic of Egypt's visit to occupied Jerusalem and his signing of the Camp David Agreements and the Peace Treaty with the Zionist entity, under the supervision and guidance of the United States of America, disregarding the Arab character of Jerusalem and at the expense of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, these are contrary to the principles and resolution of the Lahore Summit and the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Jeddah, Istanbul, Tripoli and Dakar.
Considering that the Egyptian Government has ignored that resolution and the premises on which it was founded and has persisted in its defiance of the feelings of the Arab and the Moslem World and in its violation of the rights of the Palestinian people by persisting in its cooperation.with the Zionist usurper, to the extent that it has decided to establish diplomatic relations and exchange ambassadors with the Zionist entity despite its persistence in keeping the occupied Arab at territories and aiming establishing Zionist settlements thereon and in considering Al-Quds Al Sharif its so called "eternal" capital.
Recalling that the 10th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers - (The Session on Palestine and Al Quds Al Sharif) has resolved in its final communique that the year (1400 H) corresponding to 1900 be observed as the year of Al-Quds Al-Sharif.
Considering that the Conference has called upon member states to fully abide by the political, economic and cultural boycott as well as the boycott of any other form of cooperation with the Zionist racist enemy represented in the Israeli entity in all friends and at all levels.
Considering that Egypt has embarked on a policy of establishing political economic, cultural technical and other forms of relations with Israel which constitutes a challenge to and a violation of all the resolutions of the Islamic Conference, the non-Aligned Movement, the United Nations Organisation, regarding the Question of Palestine and the rights of the Palestinian people, aids and encourages Israel to persist in its usurpations of Palestine and disregard the will of the international community as well as its persistence in pursuing its expansionist, imperialist and racist policy.
1. Condemns the Egyptian Government's policy of establishing relations with the Zionist racist entity and condemns the collusion and cooperation between Egypt, Israel and U.S.A. in all fields in as much as this constitutes a flagrant aggression against the right of the Palestinian people and a threat to the security and independence of the Arab and Muslim countries.
2. Calls upon all Muslim countries to consider joining in boycotting the Egyptian regime politically, economically and culturally and observing the boycott rules of the Arab League and coordinating their efforts with the Arab countries in that respect.
3. Calls upon all Islamic States to reaffirm their solidarity with the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, in its struggle against the Zionist entity and to secure the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people including their right to establish an independent state in their usurped homeland.
4. Condemns the aggressions perpetrated by Israel against South Lebanon and invites Members of the Conference to exert their efforts with a view to helping the Lebanese Government put an end to these aggressions.
5. Invites Islamic countries to reaffirm concretely their solidarity with the Arab states for the liberation of Al-Quds and all the other occupied territories.