Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Security Council
28 July 1983





2457th MEETING: 28 JULY 1983


2457th MEETING

Held in New York on Thursday, 28 July 1983, at 3.30 p.m.

President: Mr. LING Qing (China).

Present: The representatives of the following States: China, France, Guyana, Jordan, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Poland, Togo, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/2457)

1. Adoption of the agenda

2. The situation in the occupied Arab territories:
The meeting was called to order at 4.25 p.m.

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted

The situation in the occupied Arab territories:
1. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Chinese): In accordance with the decisions taken at previous meetings on this item [2401st, 2412th to 2414th and 2438th meetings], I invite the representatives of Algeria, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Greece, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon,Mali, Morocco, Niger, Qatar, Senegal, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Yugoslavia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber; I invite the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to take a place at the Council table.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sahnoun (Algeria), Mr. Roa Kourí (Cuba), Mr, Al-Ashtal (Democratic Yemen), Mr. Khalil (Egypt), Mr. Ott (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Dountas (Greece), Mr. Krishnan (India), Mr. Rajaie-Khorassani (Islamic RepubIic of Iran), Mr. Abulhassan (Kuwait), Mr. Fakhoury (Lebnon), Mr. Traore (Mali), Mr. Mrani Zentar (Morocco), Mr. Oumarou (Niger), Mr. JamaI (Qatar), Mr. Sarré (Senegal), Mr. El-Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Kirça (Turkey), Mr. Al-Qasimi (United Arab Emirates), Mr. Sallam (Yemen) and Mr. Golob (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber; Mr. Terzi (Palestine Liberation Organizution) took a place at the Council table.

2. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Chinese): I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received from the representatives of Afghanistan and Malaysia letters in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Zarjf (Afghanistan) and Mr. Zainal Abidin (Malaysia) took the places .reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

3. The PRESIDENT: (interpretation from Chinese): Members of the Council will recall that the Council last took up this matter at its 2438th meeting, on 20 May. The Council is now continuing its consideration of the item pursuant to the request contained in the letter dated 27 July from the representative of Democratic Yemen addressed to the President of the Council [S/15890].

4. Members of the Council also have before them documents S/15869 and S/15886, which contain the text of letters dated 13 and 26 July, respectively, from the representative of Jordan addressed to the President of the Council.

5. Mr. SALAH (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): At the outset I should like to quote what Mr. Menachem Begin, the Prime Minister of Israel, said in 1981, at the opening of the Ariel settlement, south of Nablus, in the West Bank. He said, as reported by Ian T. Lustick in his article “Israeli Politics and American Foreign Policy” in the Winter 1982/83 issue of Foreign Affairs:

*Quoted in English by the speaker.

6. Those words are an accurate interpretation of Israel’s foreign policy and of its policy in the occupied Arab territories with regard to the legitimate Arab inhabitants and the land. That statement by the current Israeli Prime Minister and many similar statements and promises made by Israeli officials and leaders clearly indicate the priorities of the Israeli Government and the objective of its military and political activities in the region. The annexation of the occupied Arab territories, especially the West Bank, is the central aim of the policy of the current Israeli Government.

7. To achieve that central aim, Israel has consistently pursued various policies, all of which point in one direction, culminating in the facilitation of such annexation and minimization of the cost and the risks of this process.

8. Israel has realized that the real impediment to its assimilation of the Arab territories that would prevent the so-called unity of Eretz Yisrael is a just and lasting peace. It has sought by various means to oppose that peace, and it has spared no effort to frustrate all endeavours that tend to promote it. Resistance to peace and the foiling of all attempts at its realization have become another central aim of the Israeli policy.

9. Paving the way tor me annexation of the Arab territories occupied in 1967--that is the focus of all Israeli military and political actions inside the occupied Arab territories and abroad.

10. In regard to the occupied Arab territories, Israeli policy has two major aspects: establishment of settlements on the land; and violation of the human rights of the indigenous civilian population of the land. The two aspects are complementary. The displacement of the Arab population from its land is the first step towards depopulation of the Arab territories to bring in more Israeli settlers.

11. On more than one occasion the Council has discussed the question of Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, as well as the magnitude of the Zionist settlement activities, which have intensified recently. It has noted Israel’s cancerous methods. The members of the Council have also had the opportunity to realize the moral, political and economic dimensions of these activities, which are destructive to the Palestinian Arab people and to the occupied Arab territories and have adverse effects on peace and security in the region.

12. Although the Council expressed its position on this question in resolution 465 (1980), in which it declares these settlements illegal and illegitimate and considers their existence and their continued construction a serious impediment to peace and calls for their dismantlement, some basic facts concerning this question must be recalled and emphasized. They are as follows.

13. First, Israel’s policy of establishing settlements is illegal and illegitimate and violates all international norms and laws concerning war and occupation. The
permanent nature of these settlements has been proven and is explicitly acknowledged by Israel. The establishment of settlements is a means of seizing land
through the creation of a fait accompli by using military force and coercion. I need not recall that such conduct is in complete contravention of the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions of international law, which declare inadmissible the acquisition of the territories of others by force. No wonder Israel does not deny that its aims are diametrically opposed to the aims and objectives of the United Nations. All the legal arguments advanced by Israel and its supporters cannot negate the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,1 which states:

*Quoted in English by the speaker.

14. The number of Israelis transferred by Israel to the occupied Arab territories since 1967 has now reached more than 150,000, and they have been settled in a total of 145 settlements built on about 60 per cent of the West Bank, excluding the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Israel makes no bones about its intention to settle more than 200,000 people in the occupied Arab territories by the end of the decade in an embodiment of the Judaization undertaken by Israel in those areas. This represents only some of Israel’s actions in carrying out this destructive settlement policy. Israel does not confine itself to violating the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the above-mentioned Geneva Convention through the transfer of its citizens to the occupied Arab territories in the context of a programme of comprehensive settlement; it goes further in the violation of that Convention by using all means to remove the indigenous Arab population from its “homes, villages and cities and to deport it to neighbouring States, thus violating the first paragraph of Article 49, which provides as follows:

*Quoted in English by the speaker.

15. What happened recently in Al-Khalil (Hebron) and what has happened there in the past, as well as the current systematic terrorism being carried out in the towns of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, represent steps towards the systematic emptying of those areas by Israel, steps that are being taken in full view of the world and with the possible approval and blessing of some.

16. Secondly, an accurate monitoring of the manner in which the settlements have been sited in the occupied Arab territories clearly reveals the long-range strategic aims Israel is seeking to achieve. The settlements have been built according to an overall plan designed to disrupt any economic, geographic or demographic continuity between the villages and cities in the occupied Arab territories. One of Israel’s aims in its settlement strategy is to sap the unity and the geographic, demographic and economic continuity of those lands and their populations in order to transform the Arabs who remain in the area, in spite of the humiliation and terrorism to which they are subjected by the occupying Power, into creatures trapped like insects in a bottle, as Raphael Eytan, the former Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, stated before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee when he resigned his position. Mr. Eytan’s statement exposed the awful face of racism inherent in the Israeli settlement policy. It laid bare the true face of Israel’s policies with regard to the Arab nation, policies it tries to camouflage with Talmudic and historic arguments or pretexts of security.

17. Thirdly, the use by Israel of religious and historic pretexts or security concerns to justify its settlement policy is to engage in a distortion of facts. Acquiescence in such a heresy is a negation of history and of the progress of history, as well as of the role of mankind and its ability to control its destiny. It implies acquiescence in a kind of fatalism that has no moral foundation.

18. The settlements Israel claims are security zones require further security zones around them, and they have turned into a source of friction with neighbouring Arab States. Israel may well proceed to ask for additional security zones to protect its new zones, and on and on, until the question of Israel’s security turns into a continuous process of expansion at the expense of its neighbours.

19. Fourthly, Israel’s settlement policies have forced it to follow an expansionist, militaristic logic as it seeks to expand its security zone for those settlements, first within the borders of neighbouring States and then beyond, seeking living resources outside the borders of the occupied territories, especially with regard to water, which is one of the most important elements in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel’s desire to realize an ancient historical myth based on its need to support agricultural settlements makes water one of the most important resources for Israel, a resource that it must secure--even from beyond its borders--if it is to continue to support its failed agricultural sector. Hence the organic link between the Israeli settlement process and the growing security requirements that process entails. As a result, the demarcation line between the requirements of security, on the one hand, and expansionism, hegemony and aggression, on the other, has become blurred. Israel is the only State in which security borders differ from political borders. It is also the only State that refuses to define its political borders while establishing its security borders on the territories of neighbouring States, and even others, thousands of miles away.

20. Fifthly, those who study the pace of Israeli settlement in the occupied Arab territories can clearly see an obvious relationship between the failure of various peace endeavours and the escalation of the settlement programmes. Israel realizes that there can be no peace unless land is exchanged. That is why, on every occasion on which concrete efforts have been made to give a real impetus to the peace process, Israel has sought to abort such a process by intensifying its settlement activity. It is an open secret that Israel’s repeated declaration of its settlement policies and the magnitude they are to assume over the next 5 to 10 years is a tactic designed to use the settlement process to undermine peace efforts and to sow doubts with regard to their viability. In order to foil the prospects for peace and to undermine any justification for it, Israel has sought, since it first occupied the Arab territories, to desecrate the sanctity of the Christian and Islamic holy places without any regard for the feelings of the millions of adherents of those two religions. It has planned and abetted the many attempts made to burn down the Al-Aqsa mosque, and to construct in its place the second Temple. Every attempt to burn down and desecrate this holy place has been carried out either through Israeli plans or with its encouragement.

21. This destructive settlement policy pursued,against Arab territories and against the Islamic and Christian holy places is accompanied by another inhuman policy pursued by Israel against the indigenous Arab population of those territories. Israel has put the maximum psychological and material pressure on the Arab citizens in the occupied territories to force them from their lands, so as to enable it to realize its aim of making the whole of Palestine a land without people. The acts of oppression carried out in the Arab city of Al-Khalil, the latest example of which was the 26 July attack on the Islamic University in Al-Khalil by Israeli settlers and their murder of three civilians and wounding of 40 others, were but the other half of Israel’s expansionist policy. Israel assigns these acts of murder and aggression to its citizens in order to camouflage the truth, that it practises State terrorism against the Arab citizens in the occupied Arab territories, but this conduct deceives no one. Everyone realizes that these settlers are part of the official machinery of the occupation authorities and that they are playing their central role of organizing and implementing terrorist activities in a deliberate manner conducive to creating a social and psychological climate in which it is difficult for the Arabs to stay in their homes, with the result that they are forced to leave Palestine, giving it up for new Israeli settlers.

22. No fewer than half the articles that make up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been violated by Israel in carrying out its policy of occupying and Judaizing the Arab territories and displacing and fragmenting the Palestinian Arab people. But that policy has exceeded even the limits of violating human rights. It has come to be detrimental to the very existence and presence of the Arabs in Palestine. However, certain circles that claim to protect human rights reject the denunciation of these Israeli practices and reject mention of the Palestinian Arab people when citing the victims of aggression and external domination, oppression, arbitrary acts and the rule of terror.

23. Sixteen years of repugnant occupation, terror and oppression have cut the Palestinian people to the quick The cases of poisoning which mysteriously occurred among schoolgirls in the West Bank last March* and the mass anxiety that ensued among the civilian populations are considered a moral and political condemnation of Israel’s oppressive policies and inhuman practices. They are also considered a warning signal that should move the international conscience and alert it to this odious occupation imposed on the Palestinian Arab people by the occupier.

* An error in the mimeographed text, which said “February” rather than “March”, gave rise to a controversy at the 2461st meeting.

24. The inability of the United Nations and the international community, and particularly of the Security Council, to respond appropriately to the situation causes great concern. What more is needed to move the international conscience than the despair, repression and suffering of the victims of occupation, which culminated in symptoms of mass hysteria among the civilians suffering under the yoke of occupation?

25. This shows the repugnance and invidiousness of the occupation and the extent of the moral and political responsibility borne by the United Nations for the Palestinian Arab people.

26. Israel’s policy of oppression and settlement, aimed at realizing the dream of annexing the occupied Arab territories, has been coupled with an external policy just as bad and foolhardy. Israel’s quest to swallow up the occupied Arab territories has made it necessary to pursue a foreign policy based on two principles: first, the impossibility of achieving peace and, secondly, the necessity of denying the existence of the Palestinian Arab people and their legitimate rights on their own soil. As a consequence, Israel is forced to undermine those people. To that end, it set out on a dangerous p mission to take over the whole area, in keeping with its expansionist, bloody policy, which includes the aim of fragmenting and dismembering the Arab world through exploiting the various political and social discrepancies there.

27. Israel’s intransigence and its denial of the right of existence of the Palestinian Arab people, as well as of that people’s right to self-determination on its national territory, in Palestine, have led Israel to its present political and strategic situation, making it necessary for it to pursue an external policy towards its Arab neighbours and the Palestinian Arab people based on violence and the use of force and on war as the only option. Israel started to act on the basis that it was easier for it to destroy the Palestinian Arab people and its supporters than to recognize that people’s rights and to have dialogue with it. Therefore, Israel’s dealings with the Arabs and the Palestinians have been limited to two options--capitulation or destruction. Thus, as a result of its own logic, Israel has imposed on the whole region a state of tension and violence, keeping for itself the political and military initiative through the excessive use of the latter. This has resulted in Israel’s indulgence in a policy of hegemony and expansion, imposing faits accomplis instead of following the path of coexistence and understanding.

28. In its attempt to justify its destructive external policy morally and legally, Israel has sought to perpetuate two myths: first, the alleged Arab threat to its existence, a threat which Israel created and expanded; and, secondly, the invocation of the legitimate right of self-defence. Thus, it is through its false claim that the Arabs wish to destroy it that Israel has sought to justify its aggressive policies and its expansionist wars waged against the Palestinian Arabs under the pretext of self-defence. But it has now become crystal-clear to all, including the members of the Council, that Israel is trying to destroy the Palestinian Arab people and to bring to heel and dismember the Arab nation by invoking this false threat to Israel’s existence posed by the Arabs.

29. There is no need for me to delve into the details of the organic relationship between Israel’s central aim--to destroy the Palestinian Arab people and dismember the Arab nation--and its use of the pretext of self-defence. Everyone knows that Israel has chosen to assume that it may be permitted or admissible for a given State to place its requirements for existence above the interests of the international system, and it has used this as a pretext for its expansionist policy. To round out its false claims, it was necessary to invent the myth of a Palestinian and Arab threat against the presence of Israel. The fact is that Israel is seeking not to protect itself against the Palestinians, but rather to destroy them. In this light, it is obvious that self-defence becomes, above all, a legitimate right for the Arabs.

30. In order to achieve its policy, Israel has attempted, making use of a sophisticated propaganda machine, to distort and efface most of the genuine calls for peace and appeals for moderation issued by the Arabs.

31. It is on the basis of this policy that what is called the theory of Israel’s security has come into being. That theory is founded on aggressive, expansionist concepts and principles. The first claim on which this theory is based is for an incredible expansion of boundaries in the interests of Israel; these embrace an area extending from North Africa in the west to China in the east, as was stated by Ariel Sharon, former Israeli defence minister. Another facet is the attempt to hold a complete monopoly on military superiority and to pursue a policy of pre-emptive war and surprise attack--in other words, a total dependence on war as the only option in the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Further, there is its continued expansion aimed at creating rings of security and buffer zones around Israel in the shape of settlements or other entities linked to Israel’s political-military machine beyond the borders of the occupied Arab territories. Finally, we must not forget the political use of the myth of an Arab threat, of which I have already spoken.

32. That is the context within which we should assess Israel’s claims regarding security and its unstinting efforts to fight against peace and to reject compromise and moderation, as well as its creation of settlements, which are used not only to serve its own interests in carrying out its expansionist strategy but also to fight against peace, undermining its principal pillar: the territory as set out in Council resolution 242 (1967).

33. This fatal policy has led to the present stalemate in the Middle East. Further, it has frustrated all the sincere efforts aimed at saving the region from the evils of war and destruction. It is this expansionist policy which dictated the terrorist acts against Palestinians in the West Bank, in preparation for a wide-scale evacuation operation planned by the Israeli occupation authorities.

34. Objectively and frankly, we believe that Israel would not have gone so far in the pursuit of its expansionist policies had the Council been able to discharge its responsibilities as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, and had the great Powers, especially those with direct responsibility, shouldered their duties regarding Israel’s intransigence and its persistence in creating settlements in the occupied Arab territories and in terrorizing the Arab citizens in order to force them to flee their homes, as is the case now in Al-Khalil. The recent events in Al-Khalil are the beginnings of a systematic terror operation similar to those carried out in Deir Yassin and other Arab cities in order to evacuate the Arab citizens and intimidate them into leaving their homes and towns so that new Israeli settlers can take their place.

35. We believe that the credibility of any peace initiative will depend on its clear acknowledgement of the situation and on its clear declaration of the illegality and illegitimacy of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories. It must also take a firm position regarding Israeli practices such as those now being carried out in Nablus and Al-Khalil, aimed at emptying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of their legitimate landowners and populations and at arranging new mass evacuation operations. These evacuation operations now planned by Israel--the beginnings of which we have witnessed in Al-Khalil and Nablus--jeopardize the national security of Jordan as well as that of other neighbouring States. Such practices also pose a permanent threat to any hopes or aspirations for peace. Therefore, the credibility and seriousness of any call for peace depend directly on its being characterized by commitment and responsibility regarding these practices and the policies linked to them, and on its rejection of those practices and the granting to the international community of the opportunity to express its position on these practices, through the Council. Failure to comprehend the gravity of the situation would strike a fatal blow at all possibilities for peace in the region and would lessen the impact of any international or other peace initiative aimed at resolving the problem of Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

36. Finally, all of Israel’s claims and all its military adventures cannot conceal two main facts: the illegitimacy of Israel’s occupation of the Arab territories, and the impossibility of achieving peace unless that occupation is ended within the framework of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly.

37. Because of its commitment to this position, Jordan has, during the recent period, been working with all seriousness and sincerity, in co-operation with all the parties, to put an end to the Israeli occupation of Arab territories, to liberate that land and its people from the yoke of foreign rule through a comprehensive and just peace based on the withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied Arab territories, including Al-Quds, and the realization of all the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian Arab people as well as its right to live in peace within recognized borders. This will remain the aim of Jordan’s foreign policy regardless of the obstacles placed in the path of peace. We hope that all the parties will discharge their historical responsibilities before it is too late.

38. In conclusion, I wish to express our admiration and appreciation for all the efforts you, Sir, have made during the period of your presidency of the Council.

39. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Chinese): The next speaker is the representative of Democratic Yemen, who wishes to make a statement in his capacity, as Chairman of the Group of Arab States at the United Nations for the month of July. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

40. Mr. AL-ASHTAL (Democratic Yemen) (interpretation from Arabic): Allow me at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency for this month. I need not list your outstanding qualities and wide experience as the representative of a friendly country which supports the just Arab causes, especially that of Palestine. The past weeks have shown your great competence in successfully conducting the Council’s business. Also, I extend thanks to you and, through you, to the members of the Council for the prompt response in convening this meeting at the request of the Group of Arab States, over which I h&e the honour of presiding this month. Perhaps this immediate response by the Council reflects its recognition of the gravity of the developments in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories and the dangerous escalation of an already volatile situation in the Middle East, posing a threat to international peace and security. We cannot but express thanks and appreciation to the representative of Zimbabwe for his able leadership of the Council during the month of June.

41. The grave developments in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories are the natural result of what Israel has represented since its establishment: an expansionist settler State in the heart of the Arab homeland. Israel has usurped the territories of Palestine and annexed the Golan Heights and Jerusalem. It is also building settlements in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories and practising various forms of racist oppression against the Palestinian people. It is confiscating that people’s territories, possessions and waters. It is seeking to annihilate, terrorize and displace it. It also seeks to undermine the character, culture and historic landmarks of that people’s territories. All the practices of Israel in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories confirm its expansionist policy, which is aimed at strengthening its hold, continuing its occupation, annexing the land and displacing the Palestinian people.

42. We need not recall the categorical evidence that Israel’s policy is directed against the land and the people. This policy has been confirmed by the public statements of Israel’s leaders. The so-called security of Israel has no geographical boundaries; it is a pretext to justify the expansionist and colonizing nature of that policy. In the context of this Israeli policy, Palestinian and Arab territories have been seized by force and the Golan Heights and Jerusalem have been annexed. We have often warned that these steps are but a prelude to the annexation of the West Bank, the Gaze Strip and other occupied Arab territories. The invasion of Lebanon by Israel in the summer of 1982 was fresh evidence of Zionist expansionist aspirations.

43. Israel has escalated its brutal, arbitrary policy of annihilating the Palestinian people. It has expanded its settlements and persisted in the physical liquidation of the Palestinians and the practice of organized terrorism. In its aggression against Lebanon last year; Israel used all the deadly weapons at its disposal, including those that are internationally prohibited, against the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples. It perpetrated the massacres of Sabra and Shatila, which claimed the lives of defenceless Palestinians--women, children and the elderly. Students in cities of the West Bank have been poisoned. In the last few days there have been deliberate military actions by Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers against university students in Nablus and Al-Khalil which claimed the lives of a number of defenceless Palestinian students and injured many others. These actions are following one after another: This morning’s papers inform us that Israeli soldiers opened tire on Palestinian students, wounding four of them.

44. All these developments emphasize the reality of the Israeli policy aimed at depopulating the Palestinian territories, terrorizing the Palestinians and forcing them out of their lands, and compromising the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the establishment of their independent State. These terrorist practices have recently assumed a new dimension, since they have spread to a large number of occupied Arab and Palestinian cities and villages. They have also assumed a certain vindictiveness under some false historical pretexts.

45. Israel would not have defied the international community and persisted in its policy of aggression and expansion but for the unlimited support it receives from the United States, since the magnitude of United States assistance increases after each act of aggression Israel commits against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. The United States Government has no qualms about providing Israel with all types of sophisticated military equipment and weapons. It stands alone in the Council in exercising the right of veto against draft resolutions aimed at ending the aggression and achieving the withdrawal of Israel. It sides completely with the aggressor Israel and protects its expansionist aspirations. It is clear now that there is a political identification of the United States with Israel which has culminated in the Israeli-American strategic alliance.

46. The vicious imperialist onslaught, under the leadership of the United States and with the participation of Israel, against the Palestinian people and the other Arab peoples is a desperate attempt to push through imperialist conspiracies to place the entire Arab region under American control. The expansion of American military bases and the American military build-up in the region fall within these schemes.

47. Peace is indivisible and justice is not confined to any one people. The question of Palestine represents the essence of the struggle in the Middle East. There can be no lasting, comprehensive and just peace without total Israeli withdrawal from the Arab and Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem, and the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including its right to return, to self-determination and to the establishment of its own independent national State, under the leadership of the PLO, its sole legitimate representative.

48. If the Council is to uphold the seriousness of its resolutions and shoulder its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations, then it must condemn Israel’s expansionist policies and practices in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories, which represent a flagrant violation of the principles of international law concerning the protection of civilians in occupied territories, especially the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. We also call upon the Council to take immediate practical steps to deter the aggressor and put an end to Israel’s flouting of the Council’s resolutions--in this case, especially resolutions 465 (1980) and 466 (1980), which emphasize the illegality of the Israeli settlements.

49. Today the Council is facing a critical and difficult test: either it shoulders its responsibilities in maintaining international peace and security, or the Arab peoples, foremost among whom are the Palestinian people, will lose confidence in the ability of the Council to deter the Israeli aggressor and terminate the policy of terrorism and oppression; the situation in the region would then deteriorate to a point where it would be very difficult to control the course of events.

50. Will the Council make a move?

51. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Chinese): The next speaker is Mr. Massamba Sarré, the representative of Senegal and Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to which the Council; at the 2401st meeting, extended an invitation under rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

52. Mr. SARRÉ (Senegal) (Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights, of the Palestinian People) (interpretation from French): I should like to thank you, Mr. President, and, through you, the members of the Council, for having been kind enough to allow me to take part in this debate on the situation at present obtaining in the occupied Palestinian territories.

53. I should also like to congratulate you, Sir, on acceding to the presidency. You represent a great country, China--which I visited quite recently as part of a peace mission from the United Nations--a country with which my own country has the advantage of enjoying excellent relations of co-operation based on mutual respect. Aware as I am of your deep attachment to the noble purposes of peace and justice as defined in the Charter of the United Nations, I am quite certain that the work of the Council will be crowned with success. I should also like to pay a tribute to your predecessor, the representative of Zimbabwe, who conducted the work of the Council during the month of June with such tact and intelligence.

54. Two weeks ago, as Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, I addressed both to you and to the Secretary-General a letter in which I drew attention to the growing tension in occupied Palestinian territories as a result of the incidents which had taken place there. In that letter I also requested you to take appropriate steps to restore peace and tranquillity to those areas. Today, once again, high feelings and emotion have prevailed over reason. Violence has now become the law; innocent victims have fallen. Unfortunately, at this rate one cannot but predict other regrettable acts.

55. The Security Council, whose essential purpose is to promote and safeguard peace, international security and justice, should now more than ever be equal to its responsibility in helping to prevent such acts. Indeed, more than that, the Council should avail itself of this opportunity, thus responding to the appeals of the General Assembly and other international bodies, to debate in greater detail the question of Palestine as a, whole in order to find a comprehensive, just and lasting solution. These constant outbreaks which we have witnessed for some time now are rooted in the fact that the Palestinian question has not yet been settled.

56. I have had frequent occasions to repeat before the Council that to have the advantage of arms and force is not the best way to settle a dispute or a conflict. Rather, what we should do is to promote a ,climate of mutual trust which would make it possible for all parties concerned to set aside their emotions and resolutely get down to the process of seeking peace, as defined by the United Nations and other appropriate bodies. In this context, I am thinking particularly of the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People which advocate, inter alia: Israel’s withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 1967, in pursuance of Council resolution 242 (1967); implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people as defined in General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX), namely, the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes, the right to self-determination without external interference and the right to independence and national sovereignty; the involvement of the PLO in any process that touches upon the future of the Palestinian people; and, finally, the right of all the States of the region to live in peace within recognized and secure frontiers.

57. At the present stage, and in view of all the initiatives that have been taken in recent years, and which presumably will continue in the future, bearing in mind the conference that is soon to be held at Geneva--a conference for negotiation and dialogue--nothing should stand in the way of the implementation of these recommendations, which are, furthermore, in harmony with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

58. I have deliberately not gone into the history of the question of Palestine here in the Council; it is quite well known. On behalf of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the,Palestinian People, I simply wish to say that the acts of violence we have witnessed in recent months indicate the urgent need to put an end to a situation that has continued for too long, a situation whose consequences for international peace and security are more incalculable than ever before.

59. Those, briefly, are the remarks I wished to make at this time, when the Council is considering the incidents that have occurred in Al-Khalil. I am persuaded that, in its desire to remain faithful to its mandate, the Council will take those steps that will finally throw open the doors to peace and justice for the Palestinian people as well as for all the other peoples and States of the region.

60. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Chinese): The next speaker is the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization, on whom I now call.

61. Mr. TERZI (Palestine Liberation Organization): Mr. President, at the outset I should like to recall the comradely and friendly relations between the great people of China and the Palestinian people and between the Government of China and the PLO. It is a historic fact that China was among the first nations that granted diplomatic recognition to the PLO, if, indeed, the first such recognition did not come from your great nation. I really do not feel I can sufficiently praise your competence, Sir, and your high qualities in conducting the work of the Council.

62. It is a very sad and inhumane occasion that has caused the Council to meet once again to consider the fate of more than 4 million human beings known to some as Palestinians. To us, it is the fate of our people, our nation, our land.

63. The 27th of July was supposed to be the day when Ilham Abuzaru, a 20-year-old university student at the Al-Najah University, was to be married. Instead, her family had to bury her. She had died as a result of the actions of the Zionist aggressors who shot her when she demonstrated against Zionist brutality against her colleagues at Hebron University. But Ilham was only one more victim of those crimes. Her three colleagues were killed the previous day in a dastardly act of genocide committed against Hebron University when Israeli troops--as we know, every Israeli is a member of the Israeli armed forces--raided the university, throwing hand-grenades and gas bombs and using machine-guns and American M-16 rifles, killing three students, young university undergraduates, and wounding 30 others. One would say that this was the behaviour of Nazi occupation forces. But what is still more inhuman--if there is room for humanity any more--is the fact that those three victims were denied normal burial. Their parents were called in the middle of the night and were given the bodies. The parents and the driver and a contingent of Israeli forces took the bodies and, instead of burying them with all respect, the order was given to dump the three corpses in a graveyard. So the Palestinian is denied even the right to be buried and be accorded the normal burial ritual.

64. But, after all, what do we expect of those criminals who killed their own people when they collaborated with the Nazis in Europe? What do we expect of those who sank a ship, the Patria, that was carrying survivors from the concentration camps in Europe? This is their nature. I am referring to those racist Zionists who happened to invade our country and cause ail these problems.

65. As all members have read in the press, the Israeli soldiers opened fire on students from the Bir Zeit University. As a matter of fact, the reports tell us that a number of tourists from Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom, who were visiting in occupied Palestinian territory and were on a pilgrimage to the Holy City of Jerusalem, decided to stage a sit-in on the premises of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Jerusalem. There is still a lot of hope in human nature.

66. Tulkarm was also under restrictions, and the Mayor of Tulkarm had only this to say:

67. The Mayor of Nablus, Mr. Shaka’a, who not only was expelled by the Israelis but had his limbs blown off--the Council dealt with that case--has spoken of

68. The Mayor also said that the occupied territories were undergoing a profound and harsh ordeal as a result of constant threats from the racist occupation forces. He added:

I take it that the Mayor was addressing himself to the Council, and, as the representative of the Palestinian people, I have thought it my duty to bring his message across in the hope that our consciences here might immediately respond to his appeals.

69. What happened today, 28 July? Israeli troops attacked demonstrators and 12 students were injured by the army. When the ambulances rushed to transport the wounded to hospital, they were prevented from doing so by the military reinforcements that were dispatched to Bir Zeit and onto the campus. In addition, the Director of the Rafidia Hospital in Nablus was arrested by the occupation authorities, his crime being treating the Palestinians who were wounded in the demonstrations. He was ordered not to treat any injured demonstrator without first obtaining written permission from the military government. I do not see how any doctor can carry out his responsibilities and remain faithful to his oath if he must wait until the sergeant in command shows up and authorizes him to remove a bullet from someone’s leg or abdomen or head.

70. The Secretary-General has responded and has issued a statement. I wish to thank him for having responded immediately, within his powers, to these acts. As is well known, the Secretary-General issued a statement in which he expressed his shock at the killing of three Palestinians and the wounding,of 28 others at the Islamic University in Hebron. He deplored this criminal act of violence and urged the occupying Power to take immediate steps to apprehend the perpetrators and ensure the protection of the local population. I wish to say to the Secretary-General that the apprehension of the perpetrators seems somewhat impossible in view of the fact that the perpetrators of the bombings of the cars of the Mayors of Ramallah and Nablus, an incident that the Council considered, have not yet been apprehended.

71. What is taking place in the occupied Palestinian territories is nothing new. At the meeting of 22 March 1976 [1893rd meeting], the attention of the Council was called to the very grave and explosive situation prevailing in the occupied territories. Military occupation engenders resistance, and resistance is a sacred right and duty. I think that all of our colleagues present here who have been under foreign occupation, whether colonial, imperialist, Nazi or neo-Nazi, all who have fought against foreign occupation, know that they must exercise their right to resist it and that it is their duty to do so. At that meeting, we drew the Council’s attention to a tendency that was becoming clearer with time. A certain rabbi by the name of Moshe Levinger had appeared on Israeli television on 19 March and had exhorted the townspeople to shoot to kill. The rabbi was occupying part of Hebron at that time. He was reported to have said that he had issued the order because the Arabs had to be taught a lesson and put in their place [ibid., para. 53]. By shooting them, one presumes that “putting them in their place” means killing them and dumping them in one of the pits over there. The situation in those territories has not changed in any way for the better. How could it, with occupation by neo-Nazis? The Council had had the matter before it for quite a long time, and in March 1979, in resolution 446 (1979), it established a commission to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. A report submitted by that commission, which was not permitted to investigate what was happening on the spot or on site, contained the following statement:

72. In commenting on that report, the Council expressed the opinion that the Israeli Government had to bear responsibility for the settlement programme that it was implementing as official policy. Of course, the way Israel bears its responsibility is to show complete disregard and contempt. And why should it do otherwise, since the Council has been prevented from taking any concrete action and from exercising and invoking the powers vested in it by the Charter of the United Nations which we have adopted and to which we are committed?

73. To turn to the issue before us, the problem in Hebron began in 1968 when Moshe Dayan first permitted and entered upon the process of Judaization of the mosque in that city. For those who may not know it, the mosque was built upon the Machpelah Cave in Hebron by the Muslims out of respect for the Patriarch Abraham, a clear evidence of their respect for him. This mosque is still standing after 13 or 14 centuries. The recent occurrence there was an escalated provocation by the settlers, who wanted to expand. The Government of Israel, which is the occupying Power, using the pretext of security needs, occupies a building and then eventually hands it over to the settlers. On the pretext of security, therefore, the Israelis can expropriate without having to go through any legal process. It is security, after all.

74. Then, on 10 July 1983, the Deputy Prime Minister, a certain David Levi, who is also the Minister for Housing, told reporters that the Israeli cabinet had decided on a two-stage plan for the construction of a Jewish quarter in Hebron. That plan projected the settlement in the next three years of 500 Jewish families in the commercial heart of the city. Establishing that number of residences or houses for those people would entail the eviction or expulsion of the population--or its elimination; should it insist on defending its right to survive and to stay in its own homes, the Israelis would have only one way to deal with that, and that is physical elimination. That campaign of intimidation, the campaign of terror, would eventually become a real campaign of physical elimination of the Palestinian people.

75. Of course, some Israelis might say: “Oh, but this is done by those fanatics who want, to be in Kiryat Arba,” or whatever it is, but we know that the Nahal, the army units that combine settlement activities with military service, also are involved in this process. They are planning to establish nine military settlements in Judaea and Samaria within the next few months. Thus, the Council can see that one cannot really draw a distinction between an illegal fanatic group and the Nahal and in the final analysis what is known as the Israel Defence Forces, which is in fact a Nazi blitzkrieg group.

76. Then the Israelis thought that the Municipal Council of Hebron was not really accommodating, and all of a sudden, they decided that the Mayor and the Council should be expelled. What is the charge there? According to The Jerusalem Post: “The court has issued an interim injunction barring any further demolition or construction in the Jewish quarter. Among Al-Natshe’s”--Al-Natshe is the name of the Mayor of Hebron--“‘administrative irregularities’ and ‘criminal offences' which justified his dismissal was the fact that he had petitioned the court.” The fact is that Al-Natshe petitioned the High Court of Justice and that is where he received that injunction, simply because he had exercised a right to go to the court in a so-called democratic State. I emphasize “democratic”. Anyone who goes to the High Court of Justice is fired. I think that the next move would be that he would be fired on and eliminated.

77. Another of the accusations on the basis of which he was fired was that he had been receiving enemy funds. What were those enemy funds? It is true that the Arab world and our Arab brothers and the Palestinians away from Palestine contribute to the development, of their home towns. Naturally, Hebron. receives contributions from sister municipalities, from Palestinians who, live away from there and make some money. Because the city of Hebron receives some money for local development and for a local development programme, the Mayor is expelled.

78. What is a travesty of justice here is that neither the first charge nor the second was brought to court. The man was summarily fired. According to The Jerusalem Post-- and it has a nice comment here: "One does not have to be a lawyer to know that publishing such charges without proving them is libel." This libel is committed by the Government of Israel against Palestinians.

79. The Jerusalem Post had a long editorial on this travesty of justice. My eye was caught by a passage saying that the answers given by the Israeli authorities would not “solve the basic problem posed by Jewish settlers in the heart of Hebron who were regarded as illegal by Prime Minister Begin’s first government”. I repeat that word, “illegal”: the settlements are illegal. Maybe not only would Prime Minister Begin’s first government reiterate that, but Washington would again understand that even the Israelis consider those settlements to be illegal, so I do not see what the United States is defending there. Because the United States is defending the Israelis, the Israelis have no reason to heed and abide by Security Council resolutions.

80. On the day that the young Aharon Gross was killed in Hebron, the Mayor of Hebron himself issued a statement in which he said: "Such acts create disturbances and instability; violence does not serve the inhabitants, but rather makes life tenser." That was the comment of the Mayor of Hebron when young Aharon Gross, an American citizen who was there to settle, maybe in the house of an Arab, was killed in the streets of Hebron.

81. It was alleged in the press that Israeli soldiers stationed nearby did not run to help Aharon Gross because they thought he was an Arab. So, when an Arab is stabbed, one can let him bleed and die. So what?

82. Is this all accidental? It is not, because Interior Minister Yosef Burg has made it very clear that the right of Jews to live in Hebron is “above any discussion”.

83. Moshe Arens, the ex-diplomat in Washington, now visiting Washington as Defence Minister, has said that Israel, with one of the world’s best armies, does not need and will not have private militias. Mr. Arens, a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology--a super-fabricant of sophisticated planes, etc.--says that Israel does not need those militias, yet members of them even go to their Friday night religions ritual with machine-guns, simply because they know that they are trespassing.

84. The question remains: what is the job of the Israeli military governor in the occupied Palestinian territories? It has not changed. In February 1982, the professor who was a general, or the general who became a professor and who was a military governor--he eventually resigned because he realized that he was really committing a crime against humanity--said:
He continued, saying that it is

85. Mr. Milson, the military general who became ,a professor, realized that what he had written and said was not true because there was no way for him to
encourage people to live in peace and join the peace process. His mission was subjugation, and the Palestinians under occupation will certainly not be sitting ducks but will resist, ,for that is their right and their duty.

86. The Council is meeting; what do we really expect from this meeting? The Council is in a position--and has the power under the Charter--to ask for an immediate termination of the occupation. After all, there is unanimity that that occupation is illegal. Why, then, should the Council not take action to see to it that that occupation is brought to an end? If a State Member of the United Nations refuses to comply, then the Council can, of course, apply the provisions of the charter. There is no room in the United Nations for people who reject the decisions of the Council, especially when that rejection brings so much misery and bloodshed into the country--my country.

87. As to the role of the United States, I am not fooled by statements that it condemns some terrorist acts somewhere. I cannot explain a condemn&ion of a terrorist act when a Government like that of the United States has donated to Israel, from 1948 to 1982, $24 billion. Since 1974, almost half of Israel’s military assistance from the United States has been in the form of grants; since 1975, economic aid has taken the form of cash transfers, meaning that funds are not linked to specific programmes or commodity import requirements. So we can see that the financier of all these crimes is the United States Government. I should not like to tell the United States how it can use the American taxpayer’s money for better purposes.

88. According to a report by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States, Israeli expectations are that the United States will fund half of Israel’s defence budget. Israeli documents show that United States assistance funded 37 per cent of the Israeli defence budget for fiscal 1982.

89. That information is drawn from a paragraph which does not appear in a report on United States assistance to the State of Israel: it was deleted. I am shocked that this report, prepared by the United States General Accounting Office, was sent to the Congress--to the representatives of the American people--with such a paragraph deleted. They even censor their own reports to their own people. Talk about democracy and freedom!

90. In the State Department--and this too has been censored--it is believed that $1.7 billion will become the new minimum for aid to Israel for arms and so forth.

91. But there is something still more drastic here. The United States is financing the Israeli military industry, which sells to the world arms and ammunition worth more that $2 billion. The same report--and this is another paragraph that was deleted: maybe they are afraid of their own people; I do not know--says that:

92. I do not think I need any further proof of the collusion, the complicity, of the United States in these criminal acts against our people and against the stability of our region.

93. Once again: what do we expect from the Council? We expect some action and that the action should come in the form of very clear-cut language demanding that Israel withdraw immediately and unconditionally from the occupied territories: the Palestinian and other Arab territories and Jerusalem. I do not think that the Council will have a problem with that. The problem for the Council will be how to implement such a resolution. I am not here to suggest or prescribe a formula, but I think that the Council should be enabled to do this. If not, the Council will be condemning the region to perpetual bloodshed and to perpetual crimes against the Palestinian people and the Arab people.

94. We trust and we hope that, before these meetings end, such a decision will be taken.

95. Mr. SHAH NAWAZ (Pakistan): Sir, since this is the first time I am addressing the Council under your presidency, I wish to join my colleagues who have done so before me in offering our congratulations to you on your assumption of this high office for the month of July. The skill and wisdom with which you have guided the important work of the Council during this month have been exemplary. I wish also to pay a warm tribute to your predecessor, Mr. Mashingaidze, of Zimbabwe, who conducted the work of the Council last month with great distinction and success.

96. The Council ,is addressing itself once again today to a grave situation in the occupied Arab territories. The tragic events which are unfolding before our eyes deepen the concern and anguish of the international community. The representative of Jordan; the representative of Democratic Yemen, Chairman of the Group of Arab States; and the Observer of the PLO have already described in detail the spiral of violence which is gripping Hebron, Nablus and other cities in the occupied West Bank, as well as the recent instances of persecution and harassment of the Palestinian population by the Israeli occupation authorities.

97. The death of three Palestinians at the hands of Israeli terrorists and the violent means with which the Israeli authorities suppressed the protests of the Palestinians in Hebron and other cities are links in a chain of unrelieved tragedy for the Palestinian people, starkly exemplified in the massacre of the innocents at Sabra and Shatila. This violence is the direct consequence of Israel’s continued occupation of the Arab and Palestinian lands and of its relentless policy, pursued in defiance of world opinion, of absorbing the occupied territories into a Greater Israel.

98. The violence in Hebron reminds us that the situation in the Middle East will remain explosive and the threat posed by it to international peace and security will continue to grow as long as Israel persists in the occupation of the Arab and Palestinian territories and refuses to respect the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to freedom and nationhood.

99. The Council must fulfil its responsibility to protect the Arab and Palestinian population of the occupied territories and save them from the systematic campaign of harassment and threats which is being carried out with the sole objective of driving them out of their homeland to make place for new Israeli settlers.

100. The Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are the principal vehicle of the Israeli policy of annexing those territories and expelling the Arab and Palestinian inhabitants. The settlements have also become the main source of violence and conflict. Not only have they been established on usurped Arab land and property but settlers are allowed to carry arms, which is a constant source of harassment and provocation to Arab inhabitants, inevitably leading to tension and clashes.

101. The events in Hebron are a grim reminder of the consequences of the Israeli decision to create a settlement in the heart of that city. This is not an isolated decision. Israel’s relentless pursuit of its settlement policy is evident from information contained in a letter dated 25 May from the representative of Jordan concerning Israeli settlement activities during the months of March and April 1983 [S/15810, annexes 1 and II]. In those two months, the Israeli occupation authorities established three new settlements and confiscated 33,050 dunums of land in the West Bank. The letter also points to an Israeli scheme for the establishment of 15 new settlements around the city of Jerusalem [ibid, annex III].

102. It is well known that, within the broader perspective of the fundamental prerequisites for peace in the Middle East, an essential step required of Israel is to abandon its policies of repression and halt the establishment and expansion of its illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

103. The Council pronounced itself unequivocally on the illegality of Israel’s settlement policy in resolution 252 (1968). Subsequently, in resolution 465 (1980), the Council determined 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 settlement policy constitutes a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and also a serious obstacle to achieving peace in the Middle East.

104. The Council must reaffirm its stand that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal and must make yet another effort to compel Israel to respect the Council’s relevant resolutions.

105. Israel must realize that peace can be achieved only on the basis of justice and international law. Its policies of repression in the Palestinian homeland and its wars of aggression against Arab neighbours have demonstrated that peace cannot be built by the use of force and terror. The resolutions of the Council and various other peace initiatives, in particular the peace plan adopted at the conclusion of the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference, held at Fez in November 1981 and September 1982 [see S/15510, annex], have offered several opportunities to bring the Middle East conflict to an end. Instead of grasping these opportunities for peace, Israel has responded by a greater assertion of its military preponderance and a more vivid demonstration of its will to perpetuate its occupation of the Arab and Palestinian territories.

106. In resorting to the Council, the Arab States and the PLO have once again shown their faith in and reliance on the United Nations for the resolution of the Palestinian question and the settlement of the Middle East conflict. The Council’s capacity to act in the face of Israel‘s intransigence remains seriously impaired by the protection and support available to Israel from powerful friends and allies. It is these friends and allies which bear the chief responsibility for exerting influence on Israel to abide by the universally recognized norms of international law and behaviour. It is they, again, whose actions will enable the Council to fulfil its promises to the Palestinian and Arab people in the occupied territories.

107. It must be remembered that the tragic death of innocent Palestinians in the city of Hebron, which has caused us to meet today, is a manifestation of the grim reality of the deteriorating situation in the occupied territories, for which Israel must assume full responsibility. Israel can be restrained only if the Council can fulfil its clear responsibility to censure Israel’s conduct and condemn its policies of repression and violence in the occupied territories.

108. In the kind of world in which we live, repeated encounter with tragedy can breed insensitivity to injustice, suffering and pain and induce loss of the ability to feel moral anger. Let us not lay ourselves open to such a charge by failing to respond appropriately to the consequences and the fact of Israeli occupation of the Palestinian homeland and the denial of the Palestinian people’s fundamental human rights.

109. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Chinese): The next speaker is the representative of India. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

110. Mr. KRISHNAN (India): At the outset may I thank you, Mr. President, and, through you, the members of the Council, for the courtesy of having invited me to address the Council.

111. I should like to take this opportunity to felicitate you, Sir--a distinguished diplomat of outstanding qualities from a country with which India has cordial relations--on your assumption of the presidency for the month of July. Your ready response to the request for the convening of the Council to consider the recent developments in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories is indeed a testimony to your concern and sensitivity to the enormity of the problems faced by the Palestinians under Israeli occupation. It is our sincere expectation that the current series of meetings under your able presidency, combining your personal charm and high diplomatic skill, will lead to effective action by the Council to restore the rule of law and respect for human rights in occupied Arab lands.

112. The Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries, which met in New York yesterday, heard extremely moving accounts of the recent developments in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories from the representative of the PLO. Our feelings of anguish and indignation have been further deepened after hearing his presentation to the Council today.

113. The representatives who have spoken before me have again placed before the Council a detailed exposé of the recent tragic events in the occupied territories, providing clear evidence of the increasing acts of brutality and repression being perpetrated there by the Israeli authorities. We have been following with increasing concern and alarm the continuing policy of oppression and acts of terrorism pursued by the Israeli occupation forces in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories. We have been shocked, in particular, to learn of the occurrences in the city of Al-Khalil (Hebron) where armed Israeli elements raided Hebron University, throwing hand-grenades and gas bombs while shooting at random at the students; this resulted in the death of a number of students and the wounding of many others. This is not an isolated event; similar serious armed attacks have been reported in Nablus and Bir Zeit. Raids and indiscriminate killing, murder, torture, imprisonment and harassment of Palestinians have become daily occurrences. The present incidents have come in the wake of numerous tragic incidents following the genocidal massacres at Sabra and Shatila. Israel has been relentlessly pursuing its policy of intimidation of the civilian population and consolidation of its stranglehold over the occupied Arab territories.

114. The time has come to put an immediate end to the bloodshed and continuing harassment of the Palestinians and to restore peace and order in the occupied territories. The Council should take determined action to deal with the present situation, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. Israel should be called to account for its innumerable acts of omission and commission. It is imperative that Israel should be made to discharge its obligations under the relevant international conventions that dictate civilized behaviour on the part of occupying Powers towards the people of occupied territories. Israel’s policies and practices of establishing settlements in the occupied territories are illegal and contrary to resolutions of the United Nations, and, as such, they should be denounced. At the same time, the international community should strive for a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the conflict in West Asia without which no peace can prevail in the region.

115. The fundamental principles of, and the basic framework for, a solution of the conflict in West Asia already exist in the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, in the Fez peace plan [ibid.] and in the declarations of the non-aligned countries, most recently the Political Declaration adopted at the Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi from 7 to 12 March 1983 [S/15675 and Corr.1 and 2, annex]. These principles are well known and need no reiteration. No solution to the problem of the Middle East can be envisaged without taking into account the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people and the exercise by them of their right to self-determination. Our efforts so far to find a comprehensive solution to the problem have not succeeded mainly due to the arrogance and intransigence of Israel, which has deliberately defied the will of the international community. The time has come to put an end to this situation and to strive for a just, durable and comprehensive peace in West Asia which would enable the Palestinian people to exercise their rights in freedom and sovereignty in their independent homeland.

116. The Council should take effective and urgent action to prevent further bloodshed and misery in the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories. It should also condemn the recent incidents in Hebron and other cities and fix responsibility for these atrocities on the occupying Israeli forces. The Council should declare again in categorical and unambiguous terms the illegality and inadmissibility of the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967 and should secure the annulment of all measures and actions taken by Israel in this direction. Lastly, the Council should strive to find a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of Palestine on a priority basis. India, as the current Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and as a country which has stood by the Palestinians in their legitimate struggle for nationhood, stands ready to co-operate with the members of the Council in their endeavours in this direction.

117. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Chinese): The representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization has asked to speak, and I now call on him.

118. Mr. TERZI (Palestine Liberation Organization): Mr. President, I thank you for calling on me again. I have just received the following message from Mr. Yasser Arafat, the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO. It is in Arabic because it was dictated to us by telephone.

The meeting rose at 6.35 p.m.
1United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973.

*Quoted in Arabic by the speaker.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter