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

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



About the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS

UNITED
NATIONS
A

        General Assembly
Distr.
GENERAL
A/AC.183/SR.83
29 September 1982

ENGLISH
ORIGINAL: SPANISH

COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS
OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 83rd MEETING

Held at Headquarters, New York,
on Wednesday, 22 September 1982, at 10.30 a.m.

Chairman: Mr. SARRE (Senegal)

CONTENTS

Adoption of the agenda

Consideration of the draft report of the Committee to the General Assembly (continued )


___________________ Corrections should be submitted in one of the working languages. They should be set forth in a memorandum and also incorporated in a copy of the record. They should be sent within one week of the date of this document to the Chief, Official Records Editing Section, Department of Conference Services, room A-3550, 866 United Nations Plaza (Alcoa Building).

Any corrections to the record of this meeting and of other meetings will be issued in a corrigendum.
82-56265 0280r (E)
A/AC.183/SR.83 English Page 2
The meeting was called to order at 10.55 a.m.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. The agenda was adopted.

CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
(continued )

2. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, suggested that the Committee should resume its consideration of the draft report at the point where it had left off at the 82nd meeting. In the light of suggestions made at that time, several new paragraphs had been added and others that were considered important had been revised. He suggested that the Committee should consider those paragraphs which had reeceived the greatest attention in the consultations and invited it to take up paragraphs 32 (a) and 32 (b).

3. Mr. LOGOGLU (Turkey) said that his delegation had no objection to paragraph 32 (b) but asked whether the words “proposal of the socialist countries” referred to a specific proposal or to the general position of those countries.

4. Mr. BURAYZAT (Observer for Jordan) said that, like the representative of Turkey, he had doubts regarding the use of the word “proposal” and suggested that the word “call” should be used instead.

5. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, suggested that the word “proposal” should be replaced by the word “call” and that the paragraph should be adopted.

6. Mr. KRAVETS (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that he had no objection to the use of the word “call” in place of “proposal”.

7. Mr. DIACONU (Romania) suggested that, in paragraph 32 (b), the words “proposal of the socialist countries” should be changed to “call of the socialist countries”, that the words “just and realistic settlement” should be changed to “just and durable settlement”, and that the words “international conference with the participation” should be changed to “international conference under the aegis of the United Nations with the participation”.

8. Paragraphs 32, 32 (a) and 32 (b), as amended, were adopted.

9. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that the word “illegally” in the third line of paragraph 56 (a) should be deleted since every occupation was by its very nature illegal, and proposed that a paragraph should be included on the colonization of the sacred city of Jerusalem.

10. The CHAIRMAN explained that paragraphs 56 (a) and 56 (b) referred to a specific letter, which contained no reference to the colonization of Jerusalem. He appealed to the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic not to press his proposal concerning the use of the word “illegally” since in the future account would be taken of the definition of occupation which he had just given.

11. Paragraphs 56 (a) and 56 (b) were adopted.

12. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, said that paragraph 62 had been drafted in the light of the suggestions made at the preceding meeting, although an addition had been subsequently proposed which, in his view, should not give rise to any difficulties since it strengthened the paragraph. The first sentence should read: “at the request of His Majesty, King Hassan of Morocco, in his capacity as Chairman...”.

13. Paragraph 62 was adopted.

14. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that the change made in the second sentence of paragraph 66 gave the impression that the Committee was justifying or explaining the position of Israel by setting out that country's reasons for refusing to comply with Security Council resolutions. In his view, if an explanation of Israel's reasons for not complying was included, it would also be necessary to include an explanation of the reasons which the Government of Lebanon and the Executive Committee of the PLO had for complying with the resolution, indicating that compliance would have meant peace and the complete and unconditional withdrawal of the troops situated in Lebanon. Otherwise, balance and objectivity would require that it be made plain that one of the parties had agreed to comply with the resolution and the other had refused to do so.

15. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, said that the paragraph had been revised to take account of the comments made at the preceding meeting by the PLO concerning the first sentence of the paragraph, that the explanation of the facts contained in the second sentence was taken from the Security Council document and that the aim of the paragraph was to give a faithful and objective account of the facts.

16. Mr. BURAYZAT (Observer for Jordan) said that a faithful and objective account of the facts required that paragraph 66 be amended or else deleted. In the view of the delegation of Jordan, the arguments used by the Government of Israel were not truthful; the political situation and events in Lebanon showed that Israel had warlike and political aims in that country and that its intention was not simply to prevent hostile acts against Israeli citizens. It was inappropriate for the Committee merely to repeat or restate the arguments employed by Israel; it should instead, out of fairness to Lebanon, give a faithful and objective account of the facts by amending the paragraph.

17. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, said that the party which had complied with its obligations under the Security Council resolution did not have to account for its behaviour, whereas the party which had not complied with them had to give the reasons for its actions and therefore the Committee had no choice but to mention them. The truthfulness of those reasons had not been discussed in the Committee.

18. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that to include in the paragraph an explanation of the reasons of the Government of Israel for refusing to abide by the Security Council resolution was an implicit recognition that the Government of Lebanon and the PLO were carrying out hostile acts against Israeli citizens, and that was not an established fact. He maintained that either the reasons which the Government of Lebanon and the PLO had for complying with the resolution should be given or it should be stated that one of the parties had complied with the resolution and the other had not.

19. Mr. LOGOGLU (Turkey) strongly endorsed the position of the PLO since, undeniably, the Government of Lebanon and the Executive Committee of the PLO, unlike Israel, had shown their willingness to comply with the resolution. To provide an explanation of Israel's motives was beyond the Committee's powers; its duty was to reflect the facts faithfully in paragraph 66.

20. Mr. SHEHATA (Observer for Egypt) said that he fully supported the position of the PLO. However, the Committee could allow itself to express a value judgement. He proposed that the word “maintaining”, which rationalized Israel's position, should be replaced by the words “under the allegation”, which both faithfully reflected the facts and emphasized the Committee's rejection of the arguments employed by Israel.

21. The CHAIRMAN proposed, in order to avoid a reopening of the discussion on the matter, that the paragraph should be drafted in general terms, indicating that the Government of Lebanon and the Executive Committee of the PLO had shown their willingness to comply with Security Council resolutions 508 and 509, while the Government of Israel had refused to do so.

22. It was so decided.

23. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, said that paragraphs 82 (a) and 82 (b) should be read together and that they were the result of consultations held with various delegations.

24. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that the second sentence of paragraph 82 (a) should have a comma and give the full name of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

25. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that in paragraphs 82 and 82 (a), the terms “resolution” and “draft resolution” were used interchangeably. His delegation believed that the working paper submitted to the Security Council was still a draft resolution, which had been given only partial consideration in the Council. It was incorrect to say that that draft resolution, submitted by Egypt and France, had been debated in the Security Council, because not all delegations had had the opportunity to state their views thereon. As far as the sponsors of the draft were concerned, their ideas were subject to further modification and discussion.

26. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, said that the comments made by the observer for the Syrian Arab Republic could very well be incorporated in the text. The first line of paragraph 82 would read: “One additional draft resolution” and the second line: “and given preliminary consideration at that time without being put to a vote”.

27. Mr. SHEHATA (Observer for Egypt) stated that the aforementioned draft resolution had been the subject of an intense debate in the Security Council, recorded in documents S/PV.2384 and S/PV.2385. A number of delegations had participated in the debate.

28. The CHAIRMAN proposed that the Committee should adopt the text of the paragraph with the amendments suggested by the observer for the Syrian Arab Republic.

29. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that the Security Council debate recorded in the documents referred to by the observer for Egypt had not centred on the draft resolution submitted by France and Egypt, but on the bombing of Beirut. The Syrian Arab Republic, part of whose territory was under occupation, had not taken part in the debate, because the substance of the draft could not have been properly examined under pressure, at a time when the Palestinian refugees in the camps and the Lebanese population in West Beirut had been under bombardment.

30. Mr. SHEHATA (Observer for Egypt) pointed out that the agenda for the Security Council meeting held at 12.15 p.m. on 29 July 1982 had included the letter dated 4 June 1982 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon addressed to the President of the Security Council and the letter dated 28 July 1982 from the Permanent Representatives of Egypt and France also addressed to the President of the Council. As indicated in document S/PV.2384, the debate had centred on those letters.

31. The CHAIRMAN said he had no wish to reopen the debate on the question. The Committee was seeking to reflect the facts as faithfully as possible. The text of paragraphs 82, 82 (a) and 82 (b) was the result of long negotiations between the parties concerned. In his opinion, the amendments proposed by the Rapporteur in accordance with the observations made by the Syrian delegation would serve to maintain the consensus achieved thus far.

32. Mr. SREENIVASAN (India) suggested that, in the first sentence of paragraph 82, the words “One additional resolution had already been presented” should be replaced by “One additional draft resolution was presented”. The latter wording was more in keeping with the global historical overview of developments given in the report.

33. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, said that he would be willing to have the words “had already been presented” replaced by “was also presented”.

34. Paragraphs 82, 82 (a) and 82 (b), as amended, were adopted.

35. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that his delegation had never been consulted regarding the content of paragraph 82. It was therefore not true, as some delegations had claimed, that all the parties concerned had been consulted, unless, of course, it was felt that the occupation of the Golan Heights did not make his country one of the parties concerned. The Syrian Arab Republic believed that the parties concerned were, first, Palestine and, secondly the Syrian Arab Republic. It was clear that Egypt, on the other hand, was not one of the parties concerned, because the Sinai had already been returned. His delegation wanted the record to reflect the fact that at no time had it been consulted regarding the text of paragraph 82.

36. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that paragraphs 81 (a) and 81 (b) referred to the high degree of convergence and agreement between the principles set forth at the Fez conference and in the six-point plan for the Middle East and the Committee's recommendations. By the same token, the Committee should indicate that the proposals and the position referred to in paragraph 80 were inconsistent with its recommendations.

37. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, said the very fact that paragraph 80 contained no commentary by the Committee meant that it had found no convergence between its recommendations and the proposals made by the President of the United States.

38. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that the proposals referred to in paragraph 80 not only failed to recognize the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, but also were a denial of such rights.

39. Mr. LOGOGLU (Turkey), Mr. BURAYZAT (Observer for Jordan) and Mr. SHEHATA (Observer for Egypt) stated that the Committee should not pass judgement on the proposals or decisions referred to in paragraphs 80, 81, 81 (a) and 81 (b), because those proposals and agreements had not been discussed in the Committee.

40. Mr. RAHHALI (Observer for Morocco) said that paragraph 81, as it stood, gave the impression that only some members of the Arab League had met at Fez on 20 September, whereas an Arab League Summit Conference had been held. The first sentence of paragraph 81 should be replaced by a new sentence, which would read: "On 9 September, the XII Arab Summit Conference, held at Fez, Morocco, concluded its second part by adopting an eight-point peace plan..."

41. As to the question of Jerusalem, paragraph 81 referred first to East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestinian State and then to Arab Jerusalem as part of the Arab territories from which Israel should withdraw. His delegation proposed to consult the official text of the Fez plan and to communicate to the Rapporteur the exact terms in which reference was made to Jerusalem, so that those terms could be reflected in paragraph 81 of the report.

42. His delegation suggested that the words "As in the case of the Fez Declaration" should be deleted from the beginning of the second sentence of paragraph 81 (b).

43. Mr. CABALLERO (Cuba) said that Cuba had always welcomed all initiatives aimed at guaranteeing the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, regardless of where the initiatives originated. That should also be the approach in the Committee's report.

44. The proposals of the President of the United States (para. 80) omitted precisely the Committee's basic objective, namely to work for the effective attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and even stated that an independent Palestinian state must not be established. While the Committee had not considered the substance of the proposals mentioned in paragraphs 80, 81 and 81 (a) and (b), members of the Committee were aware of their content and of the aims which they pursued.

45. Mr. BURAYZAT (Observer for Jordan), speaking on a point of order, asked whether the Committee was considering the proposals put forward in the different plans and statements on the Middle East or the actual paragraphs of the Committee's report.

46. Mr. CABALLERO (Cuba) said that his delegation supported fully the proposal made by the Observer for the PLO regarding paragraph 80.

47. The CHAIRMAN, speaking as the representative of Senegal, recalled that since its first report in 1971 the Committee's mandate had clearly been to find ways to enable the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable rights. In order to reconcile the different points of view, in its present report the Committee could first present the facts and then include a special paragraph summing up all the proposals and plans put forward, indicating that the Committee had taken note of the fact that the latter all contained elements of convergence with the Committee's recommendations on the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. That would provide a way out of the problems raised by paragraph 80.

48. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) asked whether the proposal was to delete the words "The Committee noted with satisfaction the high degree of convergence", etc. from paragraphs 81 (a) and 81 (b) and instead to make such "convergence" applicable to all the initiatives without distinction.

49. The CHAIRMAN, speaking as the representative of Senegal, explained that he was proposing that all value judgements regarding the plans, statements and proposals mentioned in paragraphs 80, 81 and 81 (a) and (b) should be removed and a new paragraph added to the effect that the Committee had noted that such proposals and plans as a whole contained elements of convergence with the Committee's recommendations. In any case, it was clear that the Committee had a responsibility to refer to all the plans and proposals put forward.

50. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that, when it was stated that there was a high degree of convergence between the Fez Declaration and the Committee's recommendations, or that the plan put forward by President Brezhnev agreed with those recommendations on several major points, that was not a value judgement but a statement of fact. A similar criterion should apply, in paragraph 80, when referring to the proposals of the President of the United States. It should be made clear that those proposals offered no convergence or point of contact with the Committee's recommendations; such clarification would in no way constitute a value judgement with regard to those proposals.

51. Mr. KRAVETS (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that he supported fully the remarks made by the Observer for the PLO: it would be a mistake to place on an equal footing or under the same heading proposals whose scope and objectives differed considerably.

52. Paragraph 80 was adopted as amended.

53. Mr. SREENIVASAN (India), referring to paragraph 81 (a), proposed that the words "the principles of the Summit" should be replaced by the words "the proposals of the Fez Declaration".

54. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, reiterated that any textual amendments needed to make the references to the Fez Conference and the Fez Declaration correct would be made on the basis of the official documents of that Conference.

55. Mr. RAHHALI (Observer for Morocco), referring to paragraph 81 (b), proposed that the words “As in the case of the Fez Declaration” should be deleted from the second sentence.

56. Mr. KRAVETS (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), referring to paragraph 81 (b), recalled that the paragraph had been the subject of extensive consultations with the Rapporteur and that, initially, his delegation had proposed a more elaborate formulation which went into greater detail on points of convergence between the Soviet Plan and the text of the Fez Declaration. That formulation had included inter alia a reference to the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all the occupied territories, the dismantling of Israeli settlements in those territories and the creation of an independent State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. It had been agreed to include the phrase “As in the case of the Fez Declaration” in order to avoid a repetition of the list of such points of convergence. If the phrase was deleted as the Observer from Morocco had requested, then the word “several” in the following line must also be deleted.

57. Mr. RAHHALI (Observer for Morocco) agreed to the proposal.

58. Paragraphs 81 (a), 81 (b), 83 and 84 were adopted.

59. Mr. LOGOGLU (Turkey) said that his delegation accepted the Committee's decisions although he felt bound to reiterate that the Committee had analysed neither the Soviet nor the United States proposals.

60. Mr. RAHHALI (Observer for Morocco), referring to paragraph 85, observed that the word "Israne" should read "Ifrane" and that the final sentence should include the correct titles in connexion with the Summit Conference, on the lines of the amendment made to paragraph 81.

61. Mr. SHEHATA (Observer for Egypt) said that, after the bloodbath that the world had witnessed in recent days, it would be of marginal and even secondary importance to pursue the discussion of the present text, even if it was full of defects. In response to the appeal made by the Chairman, his delegation would co-operate in efforts to expedite adoption of the draft report, although it would place on record which paragraphs of that text contradicted his Government's official political line.

62. Paragraphs 85 to 87 were adopted.

63. Mr. RAHHALI (Observer for Morcoco) proposed that paragraph 88 should mention the sixth session of the Jerusalem Committee and that a new paragraph should be added after paragraph 93 (a) summing up briefly what had taken place at that session.

64. Mr. SREENIVASAN (India) said that, since the Jerusalem Committee formed an integral part of the Islamic Conference, it was sufficient to mention that Conference and unnecessary therefore to amend paragraph 88.

65. The CHAIRMAN observed that, in practice, the Jerusalem Committee was an entity separate from the Islamic Conference, although officially it belonged to it.

66. Paragraph 88 was adopted as amended.

67. Paragraphs 89 to 93 were adopted.

68. Mr. RAHHALI (Observer for Morocco) said that he would provide the Rapporteur with the text of the new paragraph to be inserted before paragraph 94, which would mention the proceedings of the sixth session of the Jerusalem Committee.

69. Paragraphs 94 to 100 were adopted.

70. Mr. SHEHATA (Observer for Egypt), referring to paragraph 101, proposed that the Committee should recommend that the Department of Public Information make a study of the reaction of the mass media to Israeli policies and practices, in particular to the invasion of Lebanon; such study should include an examination of the way in which the communication media reflected the struggle of the Palestinian people under the leadership of the PLO. That would provide valuable documentary evidence of the heroic struggle of the Palestinian people.

71. Mr. BURAYZAT (Observer for Jordan) deplored the failure of the Department of Public Information to publicize the Committee's activities adequately and called on the Department to take a greater interest in the question of Palestine. He left the matter up to the better judgement of the Rapporteur and the Chairman.

72. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that there was perhaps not much to be added to the statement made by the observer for Egypt. However, he urged the Department of Public Information to try to be more effective in disseminating information on the Committee's activities.

73. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, suggested that the following sentence should be added to the draft report, in order to reflect the views that had been expressed: "The Committee requested the Department of Public Information to expand its activities and coverage concerning the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people."

74. Paragraph 101, as amended, was adopted.

75. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) requested the insertion of the words “and in subsequent years” after the words “the Day in 1982” in the third line of paragraph 102, because by the time the General Assembly considered the report the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People would already have been observed.

76. Paragraph 102, as amended, was adopted.

77. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, referring to paragraphs 103 to 106, said that an additional document relating to that part of the draft report was being prepared. He suggested that the first part of paragraphs 103, up to the words "of the same resolution", should be retained and that paragraph 106 should become paragraph 104. He also suggested that the symbol of the additional report should be inserted in paragraph 106, after the words "has been issued as document", that paragraph 104 (b) should be placed after paragraph 106 and that the remaining paragraphs of that part of the report should be deleted.

78. Mr. KRAVETS (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that he had no objection to the Rapporteur's suggestions. However, if the first part of paragraph 103 was retained, a new date for the holding of the Conference would have to be given.

79. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, said that that would be done in the additional report.

80. The Rapporteur's suggestions concerning paragraph 103 to 106 were adopted.

81. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) requested that the words "in the Middle East" should be inserted in the third line of paragraph 107, so that the text would read "for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East", on the understanding that the Rapporteur would recast the wording of the paragraph as appropriate.

82. Paragraph 107, as amended, was adopted.

83. Paragraphs 108 to 110 were adopted.

84. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) suggested that the word "conference" in the first line of paragraph 111 should be capitalized and that the end of the paragraph should read "for effective implementation and the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people" instead of "for effective implementation of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people".

85. Paragraph 111, as amended, was adopted.

86. Mr. LOGOGLU (Turkey) said that paragraph 45 (a) did not reflect what had actually happened. He proposed a different wording, namely: "The Committee, whenever it was possible to do so, profited from playing an active role in the drafting of resolutions for consideration by the General Assembly, as such an exercise by the Committee proved to be highly useful and constructive."

87. The CHAIRMAN said that the amendment to paragraph 45 (a) proposed by the delegation of Turkey improved the text and reflected the true situation.

88. Mr. KRAVETS (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that, in the view of his delegation, the Committee had the right to play a major role in resolutions adopted by the General Assembly at all times and not only "whenever it was possible to do so", as stated in the Turkish amendment.

89. Mr. SREENIVASAN (India) said that his delegation also had some doubts about the Turkish amendment, which might give the impression that the Committee had had reservations concerning the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly. He therefore proposed that paragraph 45 (a) should read: "Members of the Committee played a constructive role in drafting resolutions for consideration by the General Assembly."

90. Mr. LOGOGLU (Turkey) noted that the report referred to the activities of the Committee, not those of members of the Committee. It was precisely because the Committee as such had not always played an active role in the preparation of draft resolutions that the proposed amendment included the words "whenever it was possible to do so".

91. The CHAIRMAN suggested that, in order to reconcile the different viewpoints, the amended text should read: "The Committee often played an active role in drafting resolutions for consideration by the General Assembly...".

92. Mr. SREENIVASAN (India) said that, in the view of his delegation, the Committee had always played an active role in the drafting of resolutions concerning Palestine and the word “often” should therefore be deleted.

93. Mr. LOGOGLU (Turkey) stated that his delegation accepted the amendments to its proposed new paragraph 45 (a)

94. The CHAIRMAN said that he had no objection to the omission of the word “often”.

95. Mr. GAUCI (Malta), Rapporteur, said that, since agreement had been reached, he would confer with the delegation of Turkey on the drafting of a final text for paragraph 45 (a) satisfactory to all parties.

96. It was so decided.

97. The CHAIRMAN said that, although there were differences of approach to the problem of Palestine, that problem had taken on a new dimension which compelled everyone to an awareness of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The report which the Committee had just adopted, while not yielding on the principles relating to the exercise of those rights, was receptive to any proposals that might promote the attainment of such rights.
The meeting rose at 1.35 p.m.

LOGOGLU = LO[G breve]O[G breve]LU = LOÐOÐLU


Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter