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

English (pdf) ||Arabic||Chinese||Français||Русский||Español||

Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS


        Security Council
6 February 1986



Held in Headquarters, New York,
on Thursday,6 February 1986, at 3.30 p.m.


Mr. TROYANOVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian):

The recent incident with the Libyan civilian aircraft cannot be viewed in isolation from the general situation in the Middle East and the Mediterranean region as a whole. The various aspects of the situation there are virtually a constant subject of discussion in the Security Council. The reasons for that are well known: the continuing failure to resolve the Middle East conflict because of Israel and the forces that support it and, primarily, the core of this - the Palestinian problem - as well as the constant armed attacks and acts of provocation against the Arab States.


Mr. DJOUDI (Algeria) (interpretation from French):

The fact is that - well before some people woke up, rather late in the day, to the dangers of a policy of aggression which recognized limits only to the extent of breaching them, in order to demonstrate its immoderate lust for power - the Zionist entity had revealed, even before the fait accompli by which it was established, its true ambitions. There is hardly any need to recall the times when the terrorist founders of the Zionist entity, in an attempt, begun at Deir Yassin, to exterminate the Palestinian people, indicated their intention to carry out large-scale massacres, such as those, so painfully present in all our memories, of Sabra and Shatila.


Violating international law is a constant, irresistible temptation to a regime that expresses itself only in aggression and in the persistence of a fundamental illegality: the usurpation of Palestinian rights.


It is not only the credibility of this Council that depends on the response to this matter; it is also the very security of airspace, which appears now to have become a new arena for Israeli terrorism. Who can doubt what would happen if the next threatened aircraft should refuse to obey the order to land in occupied Palestine? We need not resort to imagination for the answer: we need only consult our memory to recall the aircraft brought down in 1973.


Mr. TSVETKOV (Bulgaria) (interpretation from French):

It is not through increased State terrorism that terrorist acts can be suppressed, acts whose victims are more and more often innocent people. In the Middle East in particular, these acts can and must be cut off at the very root, which will be possible only through a just and comprehensive settlement of the crisis in that region, which nourishes such acts. It is well known that there is broad consensus on how to bring about such a solution: an international conference on the Middle East, with the participation of all countries concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization {PLO).

It is high time that Israel were forced to respect the norms of international law and the many resolutions and decisions of the United Nations. This latest act can only lead to another wave of violence and bloodshed.


Ms. KUNADI (India):

There was an overwhelming sentiment at the meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau against the latest instance of aggression and terrorism by Israel, which testified to its arrogance and intransigence and to its utter lack of respect for the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries attaches paramount importance to the achievement of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. The fundamental principles of and the basic framework for a just and lasting settlement already exist in the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council and the pronouncements of the Non-Aligned Countries adopted at the seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government, held in New Delhi in March 1983. The well known fundamental principles include, inter alia, the withdrawal of Israel from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the establishment of a State of their own. It is well known that the primary reason for the lack of progress in finding a comprehensive solution is the intransigence of Israel, which has defied the will of the international community.

Barely two months ago the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted resolution 40/61 on measures to prevent international terrorism. The Security Council has also condemned all acts of terrorism wherever and by whomsoever they are committed. Urgent action is required to implement those decisions, including the progressive elimination of causes underlying terrorism which have resulted in impeding the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Israel's policies and practices over the years in the occupied Arab territories and against its Arab neighbours have posed a serious threat to international peace and security. The Security Council should take action to deal with the specific action with which we are now faced, which undoubtedly is a breach of international law and the United Nations Charter by Israel. We hope that the Council will demonstrate the will to act immediately and resolutely.


Mr. HUCKE (German Democratic Republic):

The latest Israeli act of air piracy underlines again the urgent necessity of increasing collective efforts to bring about a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for all States and peoples in the Middle East, including the Palestinian people. The prerequisite for all this is the total and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied since 1967, implementation of the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including its right to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State of its own, as well as implementation of the right of all States of the region to independent existence and development.

In view of the increasing tensions in the region and of the growing military and economic threats to Arab States and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), it becomes ever more imperative to convene an international peace conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation of all the parties concerned, including the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with General resolutions 38/58 C and 40/96 D.

We have repeatedly warned of the seriousness of the use of the right of veto to protect aggressors from the punishment they deserve. Last month when the Security Council failed to adopt an appropriate draft resolution to condemn Israeli aggression against the Islamic Holy Places in the occupied City of Al-Quds, that failure was a new signal that encouraged Israel to perpetrate more acts of aggression. Israel did so without delay and without fear of punishment, since it felt secure under the United States umbrella of protection and encouragement.


Mr. RAJAIE-KHORASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran):

During the last few days of January, when we were discussing the acts of desecration by the Zionist base occupying Palestine, as a mockery of the whole effort of this body and in defiance of its decisions - even the unvetoed decisions - Zionist aircraft bombarded Palestinian camps in Lebanon. In those criminal attacks, some of our Palestinian brothers and sisters have been martyred. There was no mention of that very sad incident, that criminal act, in this Council. I think that if the maintenance of international peace and security is supposed to be the function of this Council, that incident should not have been disregarded. I extend my sincere condolences to the families and relatives of those martyrs, to all our Palestinian brothers who have been making the greatest sacrifices for the implementation of justice and who have been registering with their own blood a very important principle - the principle that aggression does not pay. The aggressor-occupiers must not and will never sleep comfortably until they withdraw from what they have occupied.

I recall that on 30 January 1986 the Council's efforts were aborted by a sad and frustrating veto, a veto that encouraged the atrocities and the illegal practices of the Zionist terrorists occupying Palestine. I hope that the members of the Security Council will take due note of the role of that veto in encouraging the act of air piracy and hijacking perpetrated against the Libyan civilian aircraft by the Zionist aggressors. Those who are behind the Zionist aggressors, those who extend their unreserved support to the occupiers of Quds, not only with their vetoes but also with their intelligence and surveillance facilities, must be held accountable for this flagrant violation of all international norms regarding civil aviation.

I hope that the Council now realizes who the terrorists in our region are and who is behind them. We have heard claims about State terrorism against certain States in, particularly, this part of the world - in the Latin American Hemisphere. But we had never heard of State skyjacking. It seems that this is being added to the record of the terrorist base occupying Palestine.

We know that the act now being considered by the Council is not unprecedented. Last year the United States hijacked an Egyptian aircraft, and in 1973 the Zionist forces skyjacked an aircraft going from Beirut to Baghdad. I believe that this recent incident may not be the last one, particularly in the light of the attitude to this incident that we have heard demonstrated by certain members of the Council.

The Zionist base has - officially - terroristically declared that it will, without any regard for international law, do everything in its power to crush the Palestinians, whom the unabashed Zionists shamelessly call terrorists. They think that the Muslims of the region will remain indifferent observers for ever. But I would assure the Council that if it does not take effective and constructive action very soon, the Council will become more and more irrelevant to the situation. People will soon decide to solve the problem completely, without any reference to the Security Council - as if it just did not exist. Indeed, from what we see, the present existence of the Security Council is not very much different from non-existence. The present situation must come to an end. We just cannot tolerate seeing the whole edifice of the international body being misused in this way. There are all sorts of problems, including budgetary problems. Such pompous language has been adopted. So many experts and distinguished personalities come from all the various parts of the world to New York and then sit in the Security Council and in the General Assembly and in all other United Nations organs and do nothing - absolutely nothing. I am sure - and you, Mr. President, are certainly sure too - that the masses of the world are not going to tolerate this situation for ever.

The Zionist terrorists have always accused the great, honourable, revered defenders of Palestine of terrorism. They must be ashamed of that language. The Security Council has always patiently listened to those accusations. Sadly, it has never interrupted those irrelevant remarks.

We do not expect an illegal entity like the Zionist base in Palestine to be law-abiding. Those who are advising the terrorist base to have respect for international law are wrong. That entity is not based on international law; it was not created in order to respect international law. Its very existence was in defiance of all the norms of international law. Law-abidingness is contrary to the nature of a lawless, illegal entity based on the violation of law. The very occupation of Palestine by the Zionist migrants was an act of lawlessness. The partition of Palestine was a violation of law, and further expansionist policies and practices were all as illegal and as lawless as the base itself.


The main issue is still the occupation of Palestine. Unless and until the entire Holy Land of Palestine is liberated, either by the efforts of its own people in the region or through the good will and concerted efforts of the members of the Security Council - or both - peace and security will never prevail in the Middle East. Those who claim to be in charge of the maintenance of international peace and security had better do something to liberate Palestine from occupation by the Zionist usurpers.


The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I thank the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. TERZI (Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)): Mr. President, I wish through you to extend to the members of the Security Council our thanks for inviting the Palestine Liberation Organization {PLO), the representative of the Palestinian people, the principal party to the conflict and the problem of Palestine, to participate in this meeting. I thank even those who abstained and those who shied away and opposed our participation.


In our opinion, in carrying out its duties, functions and responsibilities to maintain international peace and security the Council has so far failed to contribute to a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and, more precisely, to finding a just solution to the question of Palestine. Let me immediately stress that the Palestine Liberation Organization is in no way accusing the Council of failing or shying away. The Council is being deliberately obstructed by the adamant position of one Permanent Member, the United States of America, which has used - or, rather, abused and misused - its veto prerogative in order to obstruct and prevent the endeavours to reach a peaceful, comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the conflict in the Middle East and ensure peace and stability in the area.

What we in the Palestine Liberation Organization had hoped was that the Council would have definitely addressed the situation in its first "immediate" meeting on 4 February. Unfortunately, there was a diversion and a deviation from the immediate issue, the act of piracy and the violation of the norms of international law and behaviour of States as regulated by covenants. We are not living in the Stone Age. We are proud that the international community has agreed to regulate its dealings according to conventions and civilized behaviour. The act of piracy reminds us of the law of the jungle.

If anything, this deviation in the Council's deliberations only affirmed our belief and knowledge that Israel and the United States Government are the obstacles to peace as well as the obstacles to the involvement of the Security Council in the endeavours for peace in the Middle East. They are rejectionists just for the fun of it; they want to reject every single endeavour. We would have preferred not to participate in a long debate, especially since that the issue was of an immediate nature, but we felt compelled to do so because a number of new elements and a new so-called philosophy and rules of war have surfaced, as outlined in the statements of the representative of Tel Aviv. Israel has vowed "more unconventional acts". But what about the invasion of Lebanon? What about the dropping of tons of bombs over Palestinian refugee camps? What about the iron-fist policy directed against my people in the occupied Palestinian territories? What about the defiance by the Supreme Court of Israel and its refusal to apply the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian territories, despite the unanimous affirmation by this Council? Are all those acts "conventional"?

Let me cite some examples which, of necessity, will show a threat to the safety of air travel, or any other sort of travel. On 4 March 1984 seven American citizens suspected of an attack against an Arab bus near Ramallah. According to The New York Times the radio reported that the police were also investigating whether those seven were also involved in an earlier, aborted attack on the site of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. That was in March 1984. We do know, therefore, that there are American citizens who are trained in the United States, and we have evidence to show that they are trained by members of the United States Special Task Force. Those mercenaries - criminals - go to my homeland, which the Council refers to as occupied Palestinian territory, where they commit such heinous crimes as the scalping of a Palestinian student in Hebron or, as I have mentioned, the machine-gunning of a civilian bus in Ramallah. These are terrorists who have travelled across the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. We may assume that they are flying on civilian airlines. By the same logic, therefore, as that used by the representative of Tel Aviv, we - or anyone else - can arrogate the right to down those planes simply because it is assumed that those terrorists are aboard. Everyone is justified in ignoring and flouting international conventions.

In the garrison State of Israel, 30 per cent of the prime-age population somewhere between 16 and 45 years of age - are permanently under arms in the armed forces. The others in that age group are in the active reserve, where they are actively deployed for quite a considerable period each year, and naturally their deployment is also in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. These armed forces represent the military arm of the occupying Power. The General Assembly has affirmed the legitimacy of struggle against foreign occupation. I am referring in particular to General Assembly resolution 40/61 of 9 December 1985. Consequently, we maintain that it is the legitimate right of every Palestinian to resort to armed struggle and to eliminate any Israeli in the prime age-group, since he is potentially a member of the occupying Power's forces.

That should be the case if the concepts and premises of Zionist doctrines are to become the basis of relations among peoples and nations. But we in the PLO think otherwise. There are conventions that we respect and there are norms of international law by which we abide.

Let us take another example. The international community is still pursuing and man hunting the Nazis and their collaborators in order to bring them to justice for crimes committed against humanity. Would it be "conventional" for us to apprehend any and all members of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, the nucleus of the Herut party, which is the nucleus of the Likud and part of the Israeli Government - the members of which party collaborated with the Nazis? After all, they had struck behind enemy lines during the war, and the enemy lines were the lines of the Allied forces because the enemies were the enemies of the Nazis. Those same people had collaborated with the Nazis. Would it be "conventional" for anybody now to apprehend those criminals? To mention only one name among the leaders of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, we know at least of a certain Menachem Begin, who is the former Prime Minister of Israel and, shamefully, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Council should take into consideration the fact that the acts of violence by freedom-fighters against their oppressors and against the alien forces of occupation should never be confused with acts of terrorism, and specifically acts of terrorism committed by States, as was the act of terrorism committed by the so-called State of Israel. But again, would Israel have committed those crimes had it not been encouraged in its latest "unconventional" act by the most unconventional acts and policies of the Government of the United States? Was it not the United States that hijacked an Egyptian civilian airliner, another act of air piracy? Is it not the United States that proudly boasts of its support for the Contras in Nicaragua, and was it not the President of the United States who only the other day received a certain Savimbi?

Thus we are not at all surprised that the deliberations of the Council have been derailed instead of addressing the immediate issue, namely the act of piracy committed by Israel against a Libyan civilian air liner, regardless of who the passengers were. With all due respect to those passengers, that is not the issue. The issue is the act of air piracy against a civilian aircraft. But this Council has embarked on other issues that should not have been subjects of this debate.

For a moment let us wander and engage in an exercise of imagination. Suppose the pilot of the civilian aircraft had somehow missed observing the Israeli fighter planes that were chasing him. And let us suppose also that the Israeli fighter pilots had assumed that the aircraft was really a military plane camouflaged in order to penetrate international airspace, and had decided to shoot it down. Would not such an act have justified a commensurate reaction from Syria and Libya in reprisal - the shooting down of Israeli planes? Would that not have led to another major confrontation, endangering international peace and security and not merely posing a threat to peace and stability in the region?

On 18 December 1985 the Security Council unanimously and unequivocally condemned all acts of hostage-taking and abduction. Was this not an act of abduction? Unfortunately the Council did not consider the taking of measures against Member States that committed such crimes of hostage-taking and abduction. The act of aerial piracy against the civilian aircraft in question makes it incumbent upon this Council to consider sanctions against whomsoever commits such crimes - in this case, Israel - and Chapter VII could be the answer.

Finally, we believe that the Council's duties and responsibilities in this particular case are twofold. first, to condemn a Member State for this act of air piracy and impose the sanctions prescribed in the Charter; and, secondly, and what is more important, to undertake measures and means to contribute towards a solution of the conflict by responding to the request and appeal of the international community as reflected in General Assembly resolution 38/58 C and facilitate the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East as prescribed in that resolution. It is high time that this august Council shouldered its responsibilities and acted in that direction.


Mr. RAJAIE-RHORASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran):

Do not representatives think that most of those terrorist activities, which are wrongly attributed to the Islamic Republic of Iran, are often carried out by professional terrorists, who also have the support of the United States? There is evidence of terrorist activities before the revolution. Everybody knows they even killed American diplomats. They have now bought the support of the terrorist base occupying Palestine, and for some time they had the support of the United States. I do not know whether they still enjoy that support. I am told that millions of dollars raised in this country are to be subject to taxation. This may be a new trend. But so far as my knowledge of the past goes, those terrorists, too, have always enjoyed the support of the United States.

Secondly, the terrorist representative asked whether we had punished those who hijacked the Kuwaiti plane. We have already punished those who hijacked the Saudi Arabian plane to Teheran, and others will also be punished. But we should like to see whether the right terrorist will be punished here. By "the right terrorist" I mean that all representatives make a clear distinction with regard to isolated, frustrated individuals who sometimes attempt to hijack an aircraft in order to make their cause known to the international community, because they have access to nothing. They do not have the facilities enjoyed by the well-established terrorist base in occupied Palestine. Therefore, as I have always said, they may resort to unconventional methods. Those methods are condemned, they are not acceptable. But the distinction between frustrated individuals and States, so-called Governments, which have established for themselves a State in the land of others, means that those States that hijack aircraft must be treated slightly differently. I believe that all representatives agree with me.


I ask "What piece of land belonging to any one of you has any Abu Nidal occupied?" Abu Nidal is only one among millions of Palestinian victims who have It their property, their land, their everything. They have nothing, and they do not have the right to defend themselves. The Zionists have every right to migrate to Palestine, to occupy, to expand, to destroy and to burn. And if anybody wants to make an outcry and make his point, he is called a terrorist.

I again address myself to members of the Council: "Please prescribe something for Abu Nidal. Tell him what to do. I told you that you have never been Palestinians. You have never been Lebanese. You have never been as homeless as millions of Palestinians. But what do you prescribe for Abu Nidal? Should Abu Nidal send another Permanent representative and produce many more speakers before you in order to please you? How often should they call for peace, for peaceful settlements, for justice and make concession after concession? What good are those concessions for Abu Nidal and those unknown Abu Nidals who are accused of terrorism simply because they are Palestinians?"

There must be a limit to shamelessness; there must be a limit to hypocrisy.

We know who are the professional forgers in the history of human civilization. Go to the history of forgery and see who produced the forged documents, the forged antiques, the forged countries. Things that are forged are often forged by the same Zionists as those who have occupied Palestine. They also forge documents against my country. They forge everything. They are professional liars.

We have one solution. We know that we cannot count on the Security Council. We come here simply to make sure that the last, exhaustive appeal to the reasonable individual is made. The millions of Muslims will not remain acquiescent, indifferent observers. They will unite soon. Their Islam has told them:

That means that they have the divine mandate to fight against the Zionist base, and they will do it.

The Zionist also asked all representatives a question. He asked "What should we do?" It is very simple. He should simply go from our Palestine, and then the Council will see peace and tranquility return. Some Zionists have a French accent. They can go back to Paris. Those who came from Brooklyn can go back to Brooklyn. Those who speak with a Cambridge accent can go to London and Cambridge. Why should they come to the area in which they feel insecure, under attack, betrayed and so on? Nobody invited them. They have their own homelands everywhere.

I ask representatives to go to every part of this beautiful country, to every bank and real estate office, to New York, to any part of any country in the world. It belongs to them. Why should they come to Palestine?

One of them said, "Don't you think that another piece of land somewhere - there is plenty of land in the Middle East - should be given to the Palestinians? Then they would have a homeland." These fools think that Palestinians are still fighting for a piece of land. They just do not understand the meaning of cultural background, heritage, responsibility, tradition, homeland, sanctuaries. They just step on everything, like an elephant which walks over anything: it can be a piece of the Holy Koran, it can be any paper. They just come to Palestine, just like animals. They destroy: they have technology, therefore they can use it. They use it against civilian sites. Of course they do this: they think it is possible; they can do it. They think it is a "counter-terrorist act": they can always give it a label.

But it must stop. Either this Council will join the entire population of the globe against State hijacking and State air piracy, or many more incidents will inevitably take place. Your delegation, W. President, has rightly and courageously sponsored the draft resolution before the Council. All the blame will rest primarily with the United States, because the Zionist base is not really a serious entity. It is there only because the United States installed it in the bottom of Palestine. Throw it out, and peace will prevail, and what they call terrorism will come to an end.


>> Complete document (pdf)

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter