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

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

See also: UN DPI Multimedia
Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS


        Security Council
1 March 1980

2203rd MEETING
Held in New York on Saturday, 1 March 1980, at 12 noon

President: Mr. Donald O. MILLS (Jamaica).

Present: The representatives of the following States: Bangladesh, China, France, German Democratic Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, Niger, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Zambia.

Provisional agenda (S/agenda/2203/Rev.1)

Adoption of the agenda

The situation in the occupied Arab territories:
(a) Letter dated 15 February 19890 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/13801);

(b) Letter dated 15 February 1980 from the Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/13802)

The meeting was called order at 12.20 p.m.

Expression of thanks to the retiring President

The President: I should like to begin by expressing my appreciation of and admiration for the manner in which Ambassador Florin of the German Democratic Republic performed his duties as President of the Council for the month of February. In a month in which the Council was called upon to deal with a number of very important issues, and at a time when the international community was troubled with grave problems and conflicts, the Council’s work benefited from the calm and purposeful manner in which he presided over its affairs. I am particularly grateful for the very able manner in which he has been dealing with the subject which has been before the Council precent days and which we will be considering today.
Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

The situation in the occupied Arab territories:

(a) Letter dated 15 February 1980 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/13801);

(b) Letter dated 15 February 1980 from the Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/13802)

2. The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the decisions taken at previous meetings (2199th to 2202nd meetings), I invite the representative of Jordan to take a place at the Council table; I invite the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, The Syrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam 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; and I invite the Acting Chairman of the committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to take the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Nuseibeh (Jordan) took a place at the Council table; Mr. Sahak (Afghanistan), Mr. Bouzarbia (Algeria), Mr. Roakouri (Cuba), Mr. Abdel Meguid (Egypt), Mr. Kamil (Indonesia), Mr. Blum (Israel), Mr. Bishara (Kuwait), Mr. Tueni (Lebanon), Mr. Filali (Morocco), Mr. Naik (Pakistan), Mr. Mansouri (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Dung (Viet Nam) and R. Komatina (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber; Mr. Terzi (Palestine Liberation organization) took a place at the Council table; Mr. Kane (Acting Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber.

3. The PRESIDENT: Members of the Council have before them document S/13827, which contains the text of a draft resolution prepared in the course of consultations. I wish to draw the attention of members to document S/3830, which contains the text of a letter dated 29 February from the representative of Tunisia to the President of the Council.

4. It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to vote now on the draft resolution contained in document S/13827.

5. The representative of Norway wishes to make a statement before the vote and I call on him.

6. Mr. ALGARD (Norway): Let me congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency for this month. We are all confident that you will discharge your duties with the same wisdom and firmness that you demonstrated so amply under difficult circumstances in January of last year. As always, you can count on the full support of my delegation.

7. May I also express my thanks and good wishes to the outgoing President, Ambassador Florin of the German Democratic Republic, for the skilful and constructive way in which he presided over our deliberations last month.

8. Once again the Council is discussing the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. My delegation’s position on this issue was stated during the Council’s deliberations in July of last year (2159th meeting). The Norwegian Government with international law and the fourth Geneva Convention of August 1949. The settlements policy is also an obstacle to peace. During the Council’s meetings last July the Norwegian Government joined in the Council’s appeal to Israel to cease its settlements policy. We did so because we fell that the policy undermines the ongoing negotiations and prejudges the outcome of negotiations on the future of the occupied territories. We regret that appeal has not been heeded.

9. The Norwegian delegation has carefully studied the second report (S/13679) of the Commission established under resolution 446 (1979). In our view, the commission, under the most able leadership of Ambassador Mathias of Portugal, has dealt with highly sensitive and delicate problems in an even-handed manner, despite the many difficulties it encountered in discharging its responsibilities. The work of the commission has served to underline the far-reaching importance of the matters dealt with in its report as regards the peaceful development of relations between States and peoples in the Middle East.

10. My own delegation joined with others in supporting the invitation to the Mayor of Hebron to appear before the council. It must be regretted that he was denied an exit visa and thereby prevented from presenting his views to the Council. The decision to bar his travelling to new York may further increase tension in the occupied territories and further complicate ongoing negotiating efforts regarding the future of the occupied territories.

11. A just and lasting peace in the Middle East can be brought about only through a comprehensive solution. Such a solution must be based on recognition of the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognized boundaries and of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people. Norway lent its support to the process which has brought about the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. It is of the utmost importance to bring the ongoing negotiations on the occupied territories to a successful conclusion. The final status of these territories can be established only through a comprehensive solution negotiated by representatives of all the parties concerned, including the Palestinian people. In order to achieve such a solution, all parties must show flexibility and refrain from actions which may complicate the search for peace. In this respect we deeply regret the Israeli Government’s policy of settlements in the occupied territories and its decision to establish further settlements there.

12. Since the draft resolution before us reflects, in principle, the views of the Norwegian Government on the situation in the occupied territories, we shall vote in favour of it.

13. The PRESIDENT: I now put to the vote the draft resolution contained in documents/13827.

A vote was taken by show of hands.

The draft resolution was adopted unanimously (resolution 465 (1980)).

14. The PRESIDENT: A number of representatives have expressed the wish to be allowed to speak after the vote and I now call on them.

15. Mr. McHENRY (United States of America) Mr. President, I should like to take this first opportunity to congratulate you upon your assumption of your duties and express our confidence that you will perform in your present office in the same high manner as you did on an earlier occasion. I should also like to express our thanks to our colleague from the German Democratic Republic for the very competent way in which he performed his task in the preceding month.

16. As always, the middle East is subject to many trends and influences, some of which are contradictory in nature. In the view of the United States, one of the positive trends in the area is reflected in the current series of negotiations for a comprehensive settlement which resulted from the historic breakthrough at Camp David a year and a half ago. A peace treaty has been signed and large areas of occupied Arab territory have been evacuated by Israel. The parties have taken concrete steps in the cause of peace, even in the face of issues which touch upon their most vital national interests and on which there are particularly in Israel, sharp but honest differences of view.

17. Significant as these developments are, we recognize that there can be no comprehensive peace in the Middle East until the Palestinian problem, in all its aspects, is resolved. The ongoing negotiations on the West Bank and Gaza are, admittedly, difficult and even if they are successful, they will constitute only a first step. But progress is being made for the first time in 30 years the core issues are being addressed seriously and, I believe, with determination.

18. Everyone recognizes that the problem of Israeli settlements is one of the issues that must be dealt with. The position of the United States on the question of settlements is clear and consistent. In particular, the United States has had occasion to state its views both publicly and privately concerning the situation in Hebron.

19. We regard the settlements in the occupied territories as illegal under international law, and we consider them to be an obstacle to a successful outcome of the current negotiations, which are aimed at a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

20. We have supported the resolution before us. We have done so despite reservations with regard to certain of its provisions, which we consider to be recommendatory in character. We believe that the Commission’s report (S/3679) on the settlements is a generally fair-minded and objective one. We do, however, question the recommendation in paragraph 54 of the report as to the best means to deal with the settlements problem in the occupied territories. I should also add that we do not read the reference in paragraph 5 of the resolution to changes in the institutional structure of the occupied territories as in any way prejudicing the outcome of the autonomy negotiations.

21. The basic framework for all our efforts, including the Camp David accords, is resolution 242 (1967), which calls for negotiations to resolve the many and difficult aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Such negotiations are currently under way. One of the issues which the negotiators will have to address is the matter of existing settlements. There are a number of factors of a practical character that make impractical the call, in paragraph 6 of the resolution, for the dismantling of existing settlements. Some projects are not so easily dismantled; moreover, whatever the future status of the occupied territories, there will be a need for housing and there will be a need for related infrastructure for the inhabitants.

22. My delegation is pleased that the council has spoken unanimously on this important issue. At the same time, we believe that we must all recognize that the solution of the problem lies ultimately in the negotiating process. For our part we are committed to the negotiations in which we are currently engaged as a full partner, and we are determined that they shall bring a comprehensive peace closer to reality. In the final analysis, all of us here will be judged by the contribution we make to that objective.

23. Mr. KHARLAMOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): Mr. President, first I should like to wish you every success in your functions this month. You have tremendous experience and great tact and it is my hope that if matters arise that need to be resolved by the Council, you will be able successfully to bring them to a positive outcome. As far as our delegation is concerned, you can expect full co-operation in your search for such an outcome.

24. At the same time, I should like to thank the outgoing President, Ambassador Florin of the German Democratic Republic, for the work he did during the month of February. I should like to say that the results of his work are evident. The very resolution which we adopt today is one that was by and large prepared while Mr. Florin was occupying the very responsible post of President of the Council.

25. The Soviet delegation considers that the discussion that we have had in the Council on the situation prevailing in the Arab territories occupied by Israel has been both timely and useful. All those who have spoken-except one representative, of course -have once again reaffirmed that the policies and practices of Israel in the Arab territories which were seized by military action and Israel’s practices towards the Arab and Palestinian population which lives there should be decisively condemned. The numerous facts which have been presented by the Arab representatives have convincingly shown that Israel, in continuing to implant settlements in the occupied Arab territories, is pursuing a far-reaching expansionist plan with respect to those lands, and that fact has not been refuted.

26. The spearhead of those Israeli actions is directed first against the vital interests and inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine. The Israeli authorities are obviously attempting to perpetuate their control over the Arab lands, including the Palestinian land, in order to keep the Palestinian Arabs in the position of exiles, in which they are deprived of their property and their national homeland.

27. At meetings of the Council we have frequently had occasion to hear statements to the effect that Israel would never have dared to ignore the opinion of the international community, the option of the United Nations, which has been expressed in numerous decisions adopted by the Organization, had it not received support from protectors abroad. We cannot but agreed with that opinion. As recently as 25 February in Washington, it was once again openly stated that the United States would not permit the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, nor would it recognize the Palestine Liberation organization. For some reason, the right of the Palestinians to have their own State in the place where they live is even regarded as a “destabilizing factor”.

28. During the discussion which took place in the Council, we once again reaffirmed the close interrelationship between the policies of Israel in the occupied territories and the separate anti-Arab transaction carried out between Egypt and Israel with the active participation of the United States. As those who spoke in the discussion here have stated, the plan of so-called administrative autonomy completely ignores the right to self-determination of millions of Palestinian Arabs who have been obliged to leave their homeland and live in exile. It also completely overlooks the rights of the many hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs who live in the occupied territories. It is becoming more and more obvious, even for those who harboured any doubts about this question, that the so-called administrative autonomy is simply a smoke screen that will permit the perpetuation of the occupation, allow the Israeli authorities to continue their illegal practice of expelling the indigenous population from Arab lands and torpedo the very idea of setting up a Palestinian State and securing peace in the Middle East. Israel needs this, and it is needed by its protectors in order to give the green light to those countries that are attempting to increase the number of their military bases in the Middle East and to keep the entire region in a state of tension.

29. The Soviet delegation supported the draft resolution contained in the document which is before us today since, to a certain extent, it does reflect the growing concern felt by the international community at the illegal and dangerous practices of Israel in the occupied Arab territories. In this text the Council expresses its indignation at those illegal acts, requires Israel immediately to cease the establishment of new settlements in the occupied lands and calls for the dismantling of already existing settlements. I should also like to draw attention to the appeal to all States not to provide Israel with any assistance which might be used in connection with settlements in the occupied territories. It is important that all States heed this appeal of the Council and implement it.

30. At the same time, the Soviet delegation considers that this resolution which the Council has adopted does not fully respond to the demands made by the very serious and peace-threatening situaiton created by Israel in the occupied Arab territories. It is our conviction that in the existing circumstances the Council should more decisively and roundly condemn the colonization being carried out by Israel and its acquisition of Arab lands. We consider that it is now time for the Council carefully to weigh the question of Israel’s failure to implement the resolutions previously adopted by the Council and also to ponder steps which would ensure the implementaion of those resolutions. The council should have clearly stated at least that if the present illegal acitons of the Israeli authorities continued in the occupied territories and if those authorities refused to implement the relevant Council resolutions, the Council would seriously consider taking the necessary effective steps. Only a firm position on the part of the council can secure the implementation of its previous resolutions and help in establishing a stable and sound situation in the Middle East which will serve the interests of all peoples in that region and the interests of universal peace.

31. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the representative of Jordan, on whom I now call.

32. Mr. NUSEIBEH (Jordan): It is my privilege and my pleasure to congratulate Ambassador Mills on his assumption of the presidency for the month of March. His versatile statesmanship and graceful manner give every assurance of most successful and constructive Council action. He is true reflection of friendly and beauiful Jamaica.

33. I feel in duty bound to make a few remarks following the voting on the draft resolution presented to the Council. I need hardly express our satisfaction with the outcome of the voting.

34. First, I wish to commend the President of the Council for the month of February, Ambassador Florin of the German Democratic Republic, for the patient and exemplary manner in which he presided over the deliberations of the Council on this most crucial issue.

35. Secondly, I wish to reiterate my Government’s deep appreciation to the Council Commission and its Chairman, Ambassador Mathias, for their comprehension and deep concern over the ominous situation which has arisen in consequence of Israel’s ongoing and ever-accelerating seizure of the occupied lands, including Jerusalem, and for their warnings concerning the disastrous consequences which the commission of such horrendous acts of blatant illegality would inevitably have on the survival of the Palestinian and Arab peoples held captive for almost 13 years, as well as on the prospects of reaching the long-delayed goal of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East.

36. Thirdly, I wish to express the profound appreciation of my Government to all those members of the Council who have spoken out forcefully and understandingly on the unique plight which our people are confronting both in the homeland and in exile in the face of indescribable adversity and agony.

37. Fourthly, the draft resolution just adopted unanimously by the Council, commendable as it is in reflecting the spirit as well as the considered judgement of the Member States, is and I must be genuinely candid in voicing the considered judgement of the Government and people of Jordan, not to mention that of the Palestinian people woefully inadequate as a response to and as redress in concrete terms of a unique catastrophe, an evil confluence of prolonged occupation lasting 13 years, relentless colonization, and what seems to be tantamount to the permanent dispersal of more than 2 million Palestinians. But it is my delegation’s conviction that this resolution could be a landmark on the way towards translating the collective will of the Council into concrete action and deeds.

38. Fifthly, the Council has on previous occasions not only deplored Israel’s illegal practices but warned the aggressor to desist, rescind the measures of Israeli illegal colonization of the occupied lands and the plundering of their meagre resources, and to dismantle the existing settlements. Not only has Israel refused, with shocking contempt, to heed the Council’s decisions, it has gone beyond that in officially declaring before the Council on 27 February that-and I take a very, very serious view of this statement-:

“it is imperative that it be clearly understood that the Jewish people and the State of Israel”-and I emphasize the State of Israel-” have the right in principle, as well as in law and in terms of national security, to a permanent presence in Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza District” (2202nd meeting, para. 6).

The gauntlet has been thrown in the face of the Council, challenging its numerous resolutions on Israeli colonization, not least its basic resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and other relevant resolutions of the Council and the General Assembly as the framework for a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement predicated on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.

39. Sixthly, in view of the extreme gravity of the officially declared determination of Israel, which has put the Council on notice that both the State of Israel and the Jewish people are determined and entitled to what its representative has called a permanent presence in what he has termed Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, one would have expected the Council to tell Israel in unmistakable terms that such a policy of permanent occupation and colonization would be met by the sanctions that the Council may impose under Chapter VII of the Charter against a declared and self-confessed aggressor and By the aggressor’s expulsion from the world body for having torpedoed the very foundations upon which the United Nations rests.

40. Today’s unanimous resolution, in my opinion, constitutes a substantive response by the Council on behalf of legitimacy and international law. However, appreciative as my delegation is of the sincere, forthright and undaunted stand which the members of the Council who have spoken have taken, it is unavoidably disconcerting to the Government and people of Jordan, on whose behalf I have presented the complaint, to find that the brave, sincere and forthright words of the resolution have not as yet been matched by concrete action to stop the haemorrhage and end the cannibalization of the Palestinian people, on the spot. Indeed, even before we started this debate, one of the leading newspapers in Amman asked what was the use of obtaining more verbal condemnations and more admonitions when the real issue at stake was nothing less that the fat an survival of a whole people. Judging by Israelis practices and declared policies, I am sure that the Council would agree with me that verbal resolutions, though reflecting the conscience of mankind, international law and basic human rights, will be of little avail until the time comes-as surely it will-when they are given concrete embodiment.

41. Colonization has already absorbed more than 31.4 per cent of the total area of the tiny occupied West Bank and Jerusalem alone, let alone the other occupied Palestinian and Arab territories. What can I or anyone else tell hard-working farmers and other categories of the population? Would the best of resolutions have restored an inch of their usurped lands or a cubic metre of their limited water, or would it have enhanced by one iota the chances of the Palestinian exiles returning to their rapidly shrinking homeland? But I should not belittle the fact that, perhaps for the first time in the deliberations of the Council, there is an action-oriented reference to dismantling the illegitimate Israeli settlements. This is, in my opinion, one of the magic keys to the prospect of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East.

42. I should be less than fair if I did not express appreciation for the spirit that prompted the formulation of the resolution; but I should be a hypocrite if I danced with joy over its adoption, however glad I may be that it has been adopted. Our people have been matured by monumental adversity and know how to distinguish between words and deeds; they have been through such adversity for decades and decades on end. But they will be encouraged by the knowledge that the highest executive organ in the world has reached unanimous agreement as to the crux of the issue. I wish to express my satisfaction that the Government of United States has joined in that agreement, which had hitherto existed among other members of the Council I owe it to the Council to tell the truth as best I can and to convey on behalf of my delegation our heartfelt misgivings at the fact that the resolution does not as yet provide practical and effective measures to safeguard the Palestinian people in their hour of distress.

43. However, I should like to say a few words in conclusion.

44. Justice and freedom will always prevail in God’s measured time over injustice and tyranny. Our people will never, until eternity, forsake their ancestral and hollowed soil. The fascist aggression during the Second World War and the imperial Reich and its New Order were tailored to last for a thousand years; they lasted a handful of years. Not being endowed with any gifts of prophecy I cannot foretell the duration of Greater Israel’s new Reich, but I can foretell one thing: that being inherently and monumentally unjust, it has sown the seeds of its own undoing in its expansionist form when the dynamics of history and eternal justice will have run their course. We have pleaded over the years for just coexistence, only to be brutally rebuffed. In fact, at certain moments, there were doubts whether the Palestinian people existed as a people at all. The Israelis have conclusively chosen the path of a monolithic, exclusivist existence. Time alone will reveal to them the folly of their choice, but it is our earnest hope that such a dangerous course will soon be reversed for the sake of would peace, justice and the rule of law.

45. I trust that the Council will be closely monitoring the outcome of its resolution and the compliance or otherwise of the Israeli authorities.

46. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the representative of Israel. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

47. Mr. BLUM (Israel): Mr. President, I should like to begin by paying my warmest respects to you as President of the Council for this month. We are pleased to see you, as the representative of a country with which we have the most cordial of relations, assuming for the second time the presidency of the Council. We are confident that you will carry out your duties, as you did in January 1979, with all the wisdom and skill that you have so amply demonstrated in all your other manifold capacities within the United Nations.

48. This debate was staged by its sponsors as a diversionary and obstructionist attempt to frustrate the ongoing peace process in the Middle East. The outcome of the debate has fully vindicated this assessment of it.

49. A deliberate attempt has been made again to fragment the Arab-Israeli dispute and to focus attention exclusively on one or another of the secondary aspects taken out of context. This has been done with conscious disregard of the broader considerations, which, from Israel’s point of view are crucial. As a result, in the resolution that has just been adopted Israel’s fundamental right to self-preservation and its legitimate concern for its security and defence have been ignored. The resolution is the product of a combination of various partisan interests, and of political expediency in one from or another. It lacks all balance and is riddled with formulations which, in their bias and one-sidedness, can only play into the hands of the enemies of peace in the Middle East, in both the Arab world and beyond.

50. Prominent among the Arab States that reject peace with Israel, and highly representative of them is Iraq. that country has just circulated its so-called “National Charter” as an official document of both the General Assembly and the council. That document refers to Israel as a “deformed entity” and a “Zionist entity (which) is not considered a State” (S/3816, annex, para. 3). The document goes on to commit Iraq to waging an all-out war against Israel and to call upon all other Arab States to join in that war.

51. Some members of the Council may choose to ignore these and similar threats to Israel, which are being translated on the ground into a massive war machine deployed in the so-called “eastern front” which is made up, in the first instance, of the combined armed forces of Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia. That “eastern front” regards Judaea and Samaria as a potential forward base and bridgehead for its aggressive designs against Israel as a whole.

52. Israel cannot, and will not, ignore these threats. It will therefore relate to the resolution just adopted accordingly.

53. The PRESIDENT: I call upon the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

54. Mr. TERZI (Palestine Liberation Organization): Mr. President, I am very pleased to see you sitting in the Chair. We are certain that this month of March will have a few other items dealing with this issue and that under your prudent, wise and experienced leadership the Council will be very constructive, as it has just proved it could be.

55. Of course we should like to extend our congratulations to Ambassador Florin, who tried his utmost and did succeed eventually in achieving a constructive and positive outcome of the current debate.

56. The unanimity that was shown just now helps to entrench and restore our confidence in the effectiveness of the United Nations as a vehicle for peace. Our resort to the United Nations is not selective. It is not a matter of convenience; it is rather a question of deep belief and commitment to the principles enshrined in the Charter and our strong belief that the United Nations is the vehicle for peace.

57. Naturally, there is a considerable distance between the adoption of a decision and its full implementation. We know that the Charter has prescribed the means of securing the full implementation of all decisions of the Council and we trust that, when the Council considers the question of full implementation, a unanimous vote will also be taken on methods to secure it.

58. We have noted that among the recommendations that have been unanimously accepted by the Council was the commission’s recommendation that the Council adopt effective measures to prevail on Israel to cease the establishment of settlements in occupied territories and to dismantle the existing settlements accordingly. We believe that by this unanimous vote the Council is called upon to take effective measures to prevail on Israel and to secure the full implementation of its decisions. It is no longer a question of recommendations but of decisions of the council.

59. It has been said that Israel finds itself in a minority of one, at least on the issue of settlements. The result of the debate has shown that Israel finds itself a “zero” on this issue rather than a minority of one. By at least two of the conclusions that have been accepted, and perhaps more, the Council has decided that the policy of Israel contributes to a deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories and that the policy is incompatible with the pursuit of peace. That has become a decision of the council by its acceptance of the conclusions in paragraphs 45 and 51 of the Commission’s report.

60. There is no doubt that the Council has also reiterated its past stand on the question of Jerusalem. It has reaffirmed its resolution 252 (1968) and accepted the recommendation contained in paragraph 56 of the Commission’s report, which has become part of the Council’s resolution, that it urge the Government of Israel to implement fully the Security Council resolutions adopted on the question of Jerusalem as from 1967 and further desist from taking any measures which would change the status of Jerusalem. That is a clear statement that the Council considers Israel to have violated and disregarded those resolutions. But that was no secret: the representative of Tel Aviv here had earlier announced that his Government rejected the resolutions of the Council, notwithstanding Article 25 of the Charter.

61. With reference to paragraph 7 of the resolution, concerning assistance to Israel, although the wording is, “specifically in connection with settlements”, we realize and we know that not a single State says that its assistance is earmarked for settlements in Jerusalem or in Hebron. We also know that those same States of Israel, they are also directly contributing to Israel’s violations of United Nations resolutions and of the Charter-whether specifically or otherwise-because giving Israel F-16s and F-15s, cluster bombs and billions of dollars necessarily encourages it to pursue the very policy which the Council has just strongly deplored.

62. The representative of the United States has reaffirmed that his country believes in negotiations as a path to peace. I wish only to remind him, Mr. President, through you-because I cannot remind him directly or he might lose his job-that the General Assembly adopted resolutions 3375 (XXX), which calls for a meeting within the framework of the United Nations of all the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, on the basis of resolution 3236 (XXIX), which defines and affirms the rights of the Palestinian people. If that is not calling for negotiations within the framework of the United Nations, then what is it?

63. When that resolution was brought to the attention of our National Council in March 1977, it unanimously agreed that the resolution represented a positive and constructive step towards the attainment of peace in the area. But unfortunately, some States thought they could work outside the United Nations, because it was not convenient for them to negotiate within the framework of the Organization and they thought they could negotiate on their own. Those States therefore started bilateral approaches which could not be conducive to peace. I should like simple to remind the representative of the United States that this framework, the United Nations, remains the only one for negotiating peace; that all endeavours to attain peace can be made within that framework; that the formula is there and that the United States should only respect the resolution that I mentioned.

64. The PRESIDENT: There are no further speakers on my list. The Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda.


Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter