A/31/PV.77 General Assembly

The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 7 of its report fA/31/ 338/. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts that draft resolution? Wednesday, 24 November 1976, at 11.15 a.m. ~NEW YORK

The Assembly win first take up the report of the Sixth Committee on agenda item 107 [A/31/292j. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Sixth Committee in para- graph 10 of that report. The report of the Fifth Committee on the administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution is contained in document A/31/344. Since the Sixth Committee adopted the draft resolution by con- sensus, may I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? 14. The report deals exclusively 'with the rights of the Palestinian Arabs. It does not refer, in relevant respects, to the rights of Israel, The problem of Palestine is that both the Palestinian Arabs an.d Israel have legitimate rights. The challenge is to reconcile the competing rights of the Palestinian Arabs on the one hand, and of Israel on the other. 15. The approach of my delegation is an even-handed one. We believe that an acceptable solution to the question of Palestine must at one and the same time vindicate the rights of the Palestinian Arabs and preserve the legitimate rights of the State of Israel. We believe that Palestine is big enough to accommodate both the Jewish State and an Arab State.

The Assembly will now consider the report of the Sixth Committee on agenda item 111 [A/31/295j. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Sixth Committee in para- graph 12 of its report.' Since the Sixth Committee adopted that draft resolution by consensus, may I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? 16. My delegation can support the proposal to establish a Palestine Arab State on the West Bank and in Gaza. We can also support the proposal that the administrative control of such a State, should, at least in the first instance, be in the hands of the PLO. We understand, however, why Israel is perturbed by these proposals. Israel is perturbed because the PLO has never stated, in clear and unequivocal terms, that it is willing to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel and to live in peace and amity with it. In this respect, I wish to recall what was said by Mr. Fall of Senegal, Chairman of the Committee, on 15 November. Mr. Fall said:

Representatives will recall that the debate on this ite.F was concluded yesterday morning. The Assembly has before it draft resolution A/31/L,20 and Add.l and a report by the Fifth Committee on the financial implications of that draft resolution [A/31/346j. 10. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes before the vote.

My delegation would like to explain its vote on the draft resolution before us. The heart of the draft resolution lies in its operative paragraph 2. That paragraph takes note of the report of the Committee on the 17. We can support the proposal that the Palestinian Arab refugees have a right to choose either to return to their homeland or to be paid compensation for lost properties. 12. It follows that one's attitude towards the draft resolution depends upon one's evaluation of the recom- mendations contained in part two of the report. The report contains two main recommendations. The first affects the rights of the Palestinian Arab refugees as individuals. The second affects the rights of the Palestinian Arabs as a nation of people. "The Arabs ... must adopt a more realistic approach to the question and banish from their minds any idea of 'driving the Jews into the sea'. They must abandon the subjective and emotional approach which has so far characterized their relations with the Jews. The State of Israel is a reality of our time and its existence cannot be denied" [66th meeting, para: 36/. 18. Therefore, while my delegation can support the right of the Palestinian Arabs to a State of their own and while we can support the right of the refugees to return or to be paid compensation, we wish to make it absolutely clear that we also support the right of Israel to sovereignty, indepen- dence and territorial integrity. This being the case, our support for the report of the Committee is a qualified one. We believe that, when the Security Council meets to reconsider the recommendations contained in the report, the Council must necessarily also take into account the legitimate rights of the State of Israel. As the language of operative paragraph 2 itself suggests, the report forms only "a" basis, not "the" basis for the solution of the question of Palestine. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) must have a rightful place in any comprehensive framework for the solution of the Middle East question and the question of Palestine. 19. My delegation's affirmative vote must therefore be seen in the light of the above caveat and interpretation.

In view of the grave import of the subject matter of this draft resolution-a draft that is non-polemical in wording and in tone and that has attracted the support of many members of this Assembly-the Canadian delegation wishes to set out clearly the reasons which will cause it to vote in opposition to it. The main reason is essentially that my Government has serious reservations about some of the major recom- mendations that this draft resolution would have the General Assembly endorse and of which it urgesimplemen- tation. These recommendations, by laying down the details of, and even a time-table for the implementation of, measures that have not yet been agreed upon by the parties concerned, run directly contrary to the agreed framework for Middle East negotiations laid down in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). It is that frame- work which has found general acceptance and it is that same framework which continues to offer, in our view,the best hope for resolving the Middle East conflict. In the Canadian view, the effect of the present draft resolution is simply to endorse the substitution of an imposed solution for negotiations between the parties as called for in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). 21. We cannot therefore accept this draft resolution or the report to which it is related. As the agreed basis for comprehensive negotiations is already in place, Canada cannot be a party to any recommendation which would in fact undermine the framework which was so carefully and exhaustively negotiated during 1967 and which has in recent years been supplemented by a universal recognition of the political dimension of the Palestinian issue. 22. May I repeat that the draft resolution before us would bypass negotiations altogether and is tantamount to sup-

The position of the Brazilian Government regarding the rights of the Palestinian people has been stated by my delegation on a number of occasions in very clear and unequivocal terms. 24. It is our firm conviction that the Palestinian people have a legitimate and unalienable right to self-determination and independence. We further believe that the effective exercise of this right is an essential condition for; the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. 25. We have also on many occasions repudiated the acquisition of territories by force and we regard the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. 26. My delegation wanted to reiterate these positions while explaining why we shall not participate in the vote on draft resolution A/31/L.20. 27. The Brazilian delegation did not participate in the vote on what became resolution 3376 (XXX), which created the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. In line with that position, we have not taken part in the present debate and will not participate in the vote on draft resolutions concerning this item.

Within a few minutes the General Assembly will have to take a decision on the important draft resolution before it on the question of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. 29. Here in this hall we all regard the problem of the Middle East and of Palestine as among the most crucial of our times because of the lofty values at issue. Therefore the draft resolution before us and the vote to be cast on it will, in the opinion of my delegation, be decisive in seeking peace in that part of the world. The valuesand implications of the draft resolution are such that my delegation feels compelled to explain briefly how it viewsthe situation so as to ensure that the Assembly faces up to all its responsi- bilities. Indeed, our Organization's reputation, the serious- ness which characterizes our work, the sense and the duty of honesty, and of working for peace in the region, the goal of representing the universal conscience and a certain moral integrity must prompt us to avoid being carried away by words or any partisan consideration which could satisfy only the shallow. 30. In taking up this question we must therefore consider the interests of peace as we see them in relation to present realities. 31. This is not the first time that my country has had an opportunity to state its position on the question of Palestine. Whenever we have done so, we have approached it with a constant concern for justice, humanitarianism and realism. 32. We should therefore like once again to give a brief summary of our ideas and views on this problem. Our 33. Zaire believes that the Palestinian people have a right to a homeland, in order to live in dignity and peace, and to affirm their national identity. Israel and the Jewish people, which have suffered so much from the Diaspora and dispersal, should be the first to understand this legitimate aim. 34. There is no reason why what has so generously been accorded to the Jewish people should be refused to the Palestinian people. Above all, there is no justification for the Palestinian people to continue to be the unfortunate victims of the arrival of the Jews in Palestine. 35. The present situation not only denies all rights to the Palestinian people, but also leads to the very negation of that people. By keeping them scattered, it is intended to have them disappear, and that is inadmissible. 36. That is why, whenever the opportunity arises, Zaire has always condemned Israel's policy of expansionism and force. That is also why Zaire has unceasingly called upon Israel to restore the territories it has occupied since the war of 1967. That is also why Zaire has consistently condemned the policy of settlements practised by Israel in the occupied territories, which clearly shows that Israel has no desire to return these territories which it occupies without title or right. 37. In this sense, we cannot but associate ourselves with the recommendations of the Committee, which advocate the return of the refugees to their homes, from which they were uprooted as a result of the war of 1967. That seems to us to be indisputable. 38. But here ends our support for the Committee's recommendations. 39. Indeed, a careful analysis of the recommendations shows that they are, to say the least, incomplete. They err by omission. The identity of those who drafted the report would seem to indicate that this omission was not accidental. 40 The resolution affirming the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people should be brought into line with Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which affirms and recog- nizes the right of all the States of the region to exist within secure and recognized boundaries. But one would look in vain in these recommendations for the affirmation of the right of Israel to exist, in accordance with resolution 242 (1967). The recommendations which the General Assembly would endorse appear to us to be incomplete and therefore dangerous. 41. Thus, a literal application of the recommendations, which are, moreover, deliberately vague in character, would lead either to the partition or to the disappearance of the State of Israel. 44. The position of Zaire and that of the United Nations has two parts: on the one hand, the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, which have a right to an autonomous homeland and, on the other, the right of Israel to exist. These are the bases for a negotiated settlement of the question which the United Nations has accepted. 45. My delegation accordingly believes that it is not in the interests of peace to entertain or encourage illusions on either side. Israel and the Palestinian people are two facts and two tangible realities which cannot be ignored on the pretext of sparing the sensitivities of one side or the other. 46. We all know that the peace to which we aspire cannot be established and will not flourish in the Middle East without the support of the Palestinians and the Israelis. 47. It is true that there is rancour; but peace is a grand design which requires going beyond one's own interests and also a certain vision of the future. 48. Israel exists. That ts a fact. On the other hand, it must give back the occupied territories and recognize the rights of the Palestinian people. That can be brought about only through negotiations between the two parties. The real interests of all concerned must be taken into account. Israel, which exists, must agree that the Palestinian people is represented by the PLO, which is recognized in that capacity by the international community. However repug- nant it may be to Israel to accept the PLO, the existence of that organization is also a fact, and to refuse stubbornly to recognize it amounts to flagrant interference in the internal affairs of the Palestinian people. What would Israel say if another State were to recognize the Jewish State at the same time denying the right of the present Government to represent the people of Israel? 49. We cannot accept the argument that the PLO is a terrorist organization. And even if that were the case, is the situation any different from that which existed when the Jewish people installed themselves in Palestine? Need we recall the behaviour of the Stern and Irgun organizations? Finally, it is Israel which holds the negotiating cards; it is Israel which is unjustly occupying the Arab territories; it is Israel which has the force; it is therefore for Israel to take the first step and to demonstrate its good will. 50. I come back now to the draft resolution under discussion. Since that draft resolution would have the General Assembly endorse some incomplete recommen- dations, my delegation, regretfully, cannot support it. But we shall not oppose it. Our position is that these recom- mendations, as now formulated, are 110t likely to promote in a realistic way the search for peace in the Middle East. 52. Our delegation wishes also to stress its opinion that it is of basic importance to the settlement of the Middle East problem and to the establishment of peace and true stability in that region for the problem of Palestine to be solvedin a just way. 53. In our opinion, any so-called partial or temporary solution cannot contribute to the efforts towards a true and lasting settlement of that problem; on the contrary, it would delay even further and render even more difficult the achievement of such a settlement and would prejudice the interests of the Palestinian people and the other Arab peoples. The problem of Palestine and the problem of the Middle East cannot be solved by counting on the good will of the enemies of the Arab peoples, by pinning hopes on the role and the diplomacy of the two imperialist super- Powers, or by taking as a basis for a settlement documents and formulations which merely repeat the plans advocated for many long years by those two super-Powers. 54. We persist in thinking that the settlement of the problem of Palestine, like that of the Middle East, is within the purview of the Palestinian people and the other Arab peoples, and we are convinced that those peoples will succeed in regaining their national rights thanks to their determined struggle, by strengthening their militant unity and by counting on the solidarity of the countries that love freedom and of their true friends. 55. With regard to the draft resolution, which is based on the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the delegation of Albania would like to make Hie following clarifications. Although that draft resolution recognizes and supports certain rights of the Palestinian people, it nevertheless contains some formulations which, in our view, do not militate in favour of the struggle of the Palestinian people or of the restoration of their national rights. We think it would be a dangerous illusion to think that Israel will voluntarily, of its own free will, give up Its aggression against the Palestinian people and the other Arab peoples and withdraw from the occupied Arab territories. The enemies of the Arab peoples-the Israeli Zionists and the two imperialist super-Powers-could use several of the formulations in the above-mentioned document for their own ends, to the detriment of a true settlement of the Palestinian problem and to the detriment of the legitimate rights of the Arab peoples. That is what they have done with other resolutions and documents approved in the past. The attitude of the People's Republic of Albania to those resolutions is well known and will not change. Hence, we do not feel it necessary to set forth that attitude again. Since the delegation of the People's Republic of Albania has reservations about several parts of the report on which 57. We believe that the question of Palestine must be solved in a correct and adequate way as soon as possible, but we believe also that the solution must be carefully studied. 58. Hence, we felt it necessary to request the necessary instructions from our Foreign Ministry. We regret that "barely 24 hours have passed since the distribution of document A/31/L.20 and that we therefore have not had the time to receive a reply to our request for instructions. For that reason, we shall not participate in the voting. 59. That attitude should not be interpreted as indif- ference. The position of Argentina on this question has remained unchanged since 1947. At that time we were among the first of the very few countries that maintained that the sole solution in conformity with the United Nations Charter was to ensure and respect the self-deter- mination of the people of Palestine. 60. We confirm today our recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including its right to self-determination without foreign interference, to national independence and to sovereignty. We recognize also the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property. We consider that the satisfaction of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people is a basic condition of any solution to the Middle East problem. Similarly, we believe that there can be no just and lasting peace in the region if Israel does not withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied since 1967-that is, if Israel does not return to its original frontiers, within which it must be recognized that it has the undeniable right to security and a peaceful existence, through the intermediary of an inter- national instrument acceptable to and respected by the neighbouring countries. 61. In conclusion, my delegation hopes that in the future the text of draft resolutions-particularly those relating to questions that Governments must study with the greatest attention-will be distributed in sufficient time so that we may participate responsibly in the voting.

The Liberian delegation corn- mends the Committee on its report. Consequently, we have decided to vote in favour of the draft resolution. 63. The Liberian Government supports the Palestinians and their right to self-determination. We wish to make it abundantly clear, however, that we also fully support the right of the independent State of Israel to exist within secure and recognized borders in the Middle East. We wish to state unequivocally that we believe a peaceful solution to the Middle East must be based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). 65. The Chinese delegation would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm that the Chinese Government and people will, as always, firmly support the Palestinian and other Arab peoples in their just struggle against Israeli 'a,ionism and super-Power hegemonism, for the recovery of their lost territories and the regaining of their national rights. We strongly condemn the Israeli Zionist aggression and expansion. We are firmly opposed to super-Power rivalry for hegemony in the Middle East and to all their scheming activities of aggression, control, intervention and subversion. The road is tortuous, but the future is bright. We have full confidence in the future of the struggle of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples, who are strengthening their militant unity and persevering in protracted struggles. We are deeply convinced that these peoples will triumph in their struggles against aggression and hegemonism and finally achieve their national liberation. .

On 18 November {71st meeting] I had the opportunity to express the views of the nine member countries of the European Community on the question of Palestine. Now I should like to explain the position of the nine on the draft resolution which is to be put to the vote in our Assembly. 67. This draft resolution gives rise to a number of reservations on our part. Among the main reservations I should like first of all to recall those expressed with regard to the establishment of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. They deal essentially with the mandate of the Committee, for that mandate is founded on resolution 3236 (XXIX) and does not take into account all the factors which should be considered in the search for a just and lastingsettlement of the Middle East probler», 68. With regard to the recommendations in the Com- mlttee's report, we have stressed that they suffered from th"t &:1/11(' fundamental imbalance since they said nothing about respect for the right of all the States of the region, including Israel, to live in peace within secure and recog- 69. The nine members of the Community continue to think that the Palestinian problem is one of the central questions in the Middle East conflict. 1~i.ey believe that the solution to this problem cannot be found except as part of an over-all settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and taking into consideration the legitimate rights of the Palestinian peop'e. 70. We regret that the sponsors of the draft resolution have not managed to bring out with sufficient clarity the need for a global approach to the problem. 71. For all those reasons our nine delegations are unable to support the draft resolution. We should have liked it to have drawn greater inspiration from certain encouraging trends we thought we had detected in the debate.

The Dominican Republic reiterates that the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people must accompany, and not exclude, the exercise of the inalienable rights of the people of Israel. We are convinced that there can be no just and lasting peace in the Middle East until the inalienable rights of the peoples of Palestine and of Israel are recognized and respected equally. 73. The proliferation of General Assembly resolutions prevents us from seeing the decisive role which the parties must' play. Furthermore, resolutions which cover only certain aspects of the matter do not further, but make more difficult, the solution of a problem which must be considered globally, in all its implications. The large number of resolutions which the General Assembly has adopted is proof of its goodwill but is also proof that it is incapable of solving the problem. Only the parties them- selves-and only by means of negotiations-can achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. 74. Because this is our opinion and because we believe that draft resolution A!31!L.20 does not contribute to the holding of negotiations but might make them more difficult, the delegation of the Dominican Republic will abstain in the vote.

My delegation would like to explain its position with regard to the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the endorsement of which by the General Assembly is sought through the adoption of draft resolution A!31!L.20. In order to explain the vote my delegation intends to cast on this draft resolution, it feels constrained to indicate briefly my Government's understanding of the Middle East prob- lem, and in particular of the Palestinian question, and the requirements for a just and equitable solution. 77. However fundamental the right of the people of Palestine is to an equitable resolution of the Middle East problem, we recognize that, unfortunately, the problem asa whole has evolved to take on wider dimensions and newer ramifications, especially as a consequence of four wars. An over-all settlement of the Middle East problem requires, apart from implementing the rights of the Palestinian people to a homeland, the recognition of the existence of Israel asa sovereign State and the equitable implementation of all the principles and terms of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). 78. My Government does not subscribe to any view that the State of Israel should be supplanted and denied existence. My delegation does not read the recomrnen- dations of the Committee in part two of its report IA/31/35/, particularly paragraph 70, as suggesting that Israel should be supplanted. My delegation regards that paragraph as reaffirming the rights of the Palestinian people to a national existence within the frontiers of the former Mandated Territory of Palestine. Therefore it is with this clear understanding that the Ethiopian delegation wiIJ vote in favour of the draft resolution now before the General Assembly.

My delegation has on every occasion unequivocally denounced the acquisition of terri- tory by force and has held the question of the withdrawal of Israel from the Arab territories to be a sine qua non of the solution of the Middle East problem. The climate for negotiation and normalization may be improved by this one most important development, that is, the willingness of Israel to relinquish occupation and start negotiations with the Arab people of Palestine. 80. The uneasy situation of "no war, no peace" cannot last and it may abruptly erupt into a major conflict, In order to avoid such a situation, my delegation favours the early start of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East. 81. A just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established unless the following factors are taken into consideration simultaneously: there must be a just solution of the problem of Palestine on the basis of the recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people;the right of the State of Israel to exist within secure and recognized boundaries must be recognized; Israel must be willing to negotiate with the representatives of the Palestinian people, the PLO, and the PLO must be willing to recognize the reality of the existence of the State of Israel and to negotiatewith it. 82. A settlement has to be negotiated between the parties concerned, and the parties in this case are primarily the Palestinians and the Israelis. The mutual recognition of the existence of both the parties is an essential prerequisite to the start of the negotiations. A~ long as the legitimacy of 83. The report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People IA/31/35/ is largely acceptable to my delegation. However, the recom- mendations do not even mention the legitimacy and reality of the State of Israel and thus do not augur well for the chances of a pragmatic approach to the question. Only a solution based on realistic and human considerations can help in the solution of the problem, We do not think that the report takes ~h~s into account. Therefore we shall not be able to support the draft resolution.

The delegation of Ecuador will abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/31/L.20 because it considers asstillvalid the reasons behind the position we explained at the thirtieth session of the General Assembly in connexion with draft resolution AIL.770 and Add.l , which became resolu- tion 3376 (XXX).2 We are convinced that any international dispute must be settled not through violence, but peace- fully, by dialogue between the parties directly concerned At that time we regretted, as we do now, the ambiguity in the wording and ideas in the draft resolutions regarding the territory within which the inalienable rights of the Pales- tinian people areto be exercised. That lack of clarity could, in our opinion,give rise to conflictsconcerning sovereignty. 85. Likewise, the position of my delegation also takes account of the fact that the composition of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People should have included all parties directly concerned in the Palestine question. 86. At this time, Ecuador reaffirms its recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-deter- mination, independence and sovereignty, and consequently of the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and properties from which they were uprooted and expelled, a right that implies withdrawal by Israel from all the Arab territories that have been occupied since 1967, and once again reiterates its unalterable and absolute rejection of any practice that implies the occupation of territories by force, the inadmissibility and illegitimacy of which constitute one of the principles of international law on which my country hasalways based its foreign policy. 87. My delegation reiterates the view of the Government of Ecuador that the solution of the question of the Middle 88. On this understanding, we concur in the intentions of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in the hope "that all the parties concerned would show statesmanship and genuine willing- ness to negotiate-necessary prerequisites for achieving a comprehensive political settlement of the Middle East problem" [A131135, para. 56j. 89. Mr.HER-ZOG (Israel): I believe that my delegation has made our position very clear Oil the report of the so-called Committee of 20 [70th meetingj. We have analysed all the implications of that document and have them clear to representatives. 90. I can but repeat that for the first time in the history of the United Nations an ad hoc committee of the General Assembly has set out deliberately to distort the history of the Arab-Israel conflict-a history with which this Organi- zation has been intimately involved-to turn the clock back for the purpose of rewriting the history of the Middle East conflict. 91. I can but repeat that for the first time in the history of the United Nations a committee of the General Assembly has consciously ignored the Security Council and its resolutions and has adopted recommendations that conflict with existing Security Council resolutions with the obvious objective of circumventing them. 92. The absurdity of this situation was emphasized only yesterday by the representative of the United States of America[76th meeting], and again today by the represen- tative of the Netherlands speaking for the European Economic Community. 93. I can but re-emphasize the complete one-sidedness, bias and intellectual dishonesty of the Committee, which allowed itself to become a tool in the hands of the PLO and to adopt in its recommendations the political programme of that organization. 94. r pointed out the callous ignoring by the Committee of the entire Jewish refugee problem in the Middle East, a problem of 800,000 Jewish refugees driven from Arab countries. 96. I reiterated the fact that the report is primarily the work of the PLO, which, although it only has observer status, actually participated in the writing of the report. The report reflects the basic elements of the Palestine National Covenant to which the PLO is committed, a Covenant which was ignored entirely by the Committee. In its article 19 that Covenant declares the existence of the State of Israel to be null and void, in article 20 denies the existence of any historical or religious links between the Jewish people and the Holy Land and in article 21 rejects any form of compromise on that issue. 97. To make it clearer, point 3 of the PLO ten-point programme adopted in 19743 states: "The Palestine Liberation Organization struggles against any scheme or projected Palestinian entity the price of which is recognition [of Israel], peace [with it], secure boundaries, abdication of the national right ..." All of this was studiously ignored by the biased Committee. ()8. A terrifying implication of the report of the Com- mittee is the assumption that the General Assembly can impose a solution. It cannot, because we will not agreeto it. 99. The manner in which the General Assembly has dealt with the Middle East problem is a tragedy of major international proportions. Its implications are terrifying and sinister. It should have been acting as a body the purpose of which is to encourage negotiations and to strive for consensus and compromise, for that is th;:; only manner in which the problem of the Middle East will be resolved, 100. Instead,' the Assembly, by allowing itself to be dominated by a group of intransigent extremists whose declared purpose is to fight against any move towards peace, is encouraging dissent instead of accord, intransi- gence instead of compromise, fanaticism instead of accom- modation, and conflict instead of peace. By taking a subject which can, only be solved by compromise and bringing it to the type of discussion which w~ are obliged to listen to in the Assembly, the United Nations has been manoeuvred into the forefront of those elements which would sabotage every effort in the Middle East towards peace. By allowing small groups of irresponsible extremists to dictate to the United Nations, the tragedy of the Middle East conflict is being prolonged. 101. There are two very serious aspects to this debate that go far beyond the Israel-Arab conflict. 102. The first is that the whole concept of face-to-face negotiations between parties to a conflict is being negated and swept aside by these developments in the United Nations. 3 The transitional program of the Palestine Liberation Organi- zation, adopted at the twelfth session of the Palestine National . Council, held in Cairo from 1 to 8 June 1974. 105. How can anybody ever respect a General Assembly which, because of an Arab dictate, has not got the moral courage or integrity to stand up for the Charter of the United Nations, which insists that conflicts must be solved by negotiations? Indeed, how canone respect many of the members of the Assembly which do not demonstrate a degree of national independence and do not insist on what they, too, believe in this respect? 106. The second terrifying aspect of this debate is the fact that, once again this year as last year, some SO per cent of the time of this General Assembly is being devoted to Israel. Was this Organization established for this purpose? Are there no other problems in the world? Must the Arab States monopolize every single issue by injecting their own problems into every discussion? 107. Has the Assembly discussed the economic problems facing the world, or the problems of poverty, hunger, disease and oppression affecting millions-nay, billions-of people? Must this Assembly become a mirror of what passes for political discussion and debate in the Arab world? Have representatives no pride-if not as represen- tatives to the United Nations at least as representatives of sovereign States-that they allow this paranoiac obsession with Israel to occupy SO percent of the time of the General Assembly? Imagine what a senseless waste of public funds, not to mention of time. 108. What is the purpose of it all? Does it save the cause of peace to listen to these interminable diatribes, which are insulting to the human intelligence and degrading to the audience forced to listen to them? 109. Here WP. are on Wednesday concluding this debate. On Monday next a new debate on the Middle East is scheduled, to last four days, or almost a week. For what purpose? So that the Arab representatives and their satellites can have the satisfaction of monopolizing your time again, repeating their puerile repetitions? Will it bring peace closer? You know as well as I do that it will not. It will not affect anything or anyone in the Middle East. It will only waste time and money.here and divert you from the major issues withwhich you should be dealing. 110. And if that is not enough, we shall have at least four draft resolutions from the Special Political Committee Ill.. WI.JUld it not be reasonable to ask the Arab delega- tions to shoulder the financial implications of this mono- polizing of the time' of the Assembly? Why should the oil-producing Arab countries contribute together only 0.99 per cent-less than 1 per cent-of the United Nations budget, and in return for that ridiculously low contri- bution, having regard to their income, monopolize over SO per cent of the time of the Assembly? 112. For how long can this Organization permit this luxury, this shameful waste of money and time, to •continue? 113. As the representative of the United States said yesterday in regard to the discussions in the Security Council: "Over and over again the same speakers say the same things, and none of this excessive rhetoric advances the negotiations even by one step" {76th meeting, para. 85/. That, as you are aware, is the situation in the General Assembly too. 114. The solution of our conflict lies only in face-to-face negotiations between the States parties to the conflict on the basis of mutual respect and recognition. 115. We believe, and have always believed, that we can advance towards a comprehensive solution on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). We will not be dictated to. We will not agree to any attempt to impose solutions. We have no intention of committing national suicide. 116. We will not accept any alternatives to the conceptof the process of negotiation. We reject out of hand this report, which serves only to move the area away from peace, ignoring as it does Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), ignoring as it does Israel's rights, ignoring as it does the fact that no dictatedsolution will be accepted by Israel, ignoring asit does the centrality of the process of negotiation in solving any conflict, and being in fact, as it is, nothing more than a rewrite of parts of the PLO Palestine Covenant. 117. There has been talk of late about possible develop- ments in renewed efforts towards peace in the Middle East. My Prime Minister referred to this in a speech delivered in the Knesset two days ago. I should like to conclude my remarks by quotinghiswords: "1977 may well prove to be a year of new diplomatic testing and initiative. Israel is ready. Our agenda is flexible, "If our neighbours wish 1977 to be the year of Geneva we are very willing to join in the renewal of the Geneva . Conference for negotiations with them on an over-all peace. If they seek some other framework for genuine peace talks, Israel is not fussy. We are open to all reasonable suggestions. "It is up to them to decide. No one can decide for them. No one can serve as a substitute for their responsibility to negotiate with us. And no formula devised outside the region can take the place of a formula ~ which must be devised inside.the region. On the contrary: outside initiatives of this kind could prove fatal to the peace process itself. "Here, in Jerusalem, we have begun to hear all kindsof noises from Arab capitals. They come particularly from Cairo. We are listening to them very carefully. We note that the word 'peace' isbeingmentionedquite a lot. This, in itself, is interesting. What is not encouraging is that the word ;:; never addressed to us. "Sadat is saying very nice things about peace to all kinds of visitors to Cairo-to American Senators, to Congressmen and to foreign journalists. However, he 118S not said a word to us. Solet me saya word to Sadat. )~ " 'If you are serious about this word "peace", let us negotiate. You have explained your willingness to make peace to American Senators, Congressmen and other visitors. You have talked about peace with CBS, NBC and ABC; however, these are not partiesto peace. Peace in the Middle East can be negotiated only between us who live in the Middle East'. "I therefore say to Sadat: "'I have heard what you have had to say to others. Now, what do you have to say to me? If you want to talk at Geneva, Israel is ready. " 'If you and your colleagues have any other proposal where to meet about over-all peace, let me know about it. " 'If you prefer testing our ideas about an end to the state of war-please, let me hear from you. "'I say again: "If you really want progress towards peace, then let us-your country and mine-negotiate peace".' "

My delegation will vote in favour of draft resolution A/31/L.20 on the question of Palestine because it believes that that draft resolution is unique. It is a draft resolution on the implementation of other resolutions adopted by the United Nations. It is really a tragic situation that the international Organization, which represents the hopesand aspirations of humanity, needs, after 31 yearsof existence, a resolution tc implementits previous resolutions. 119. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was established for that purpose-to implement previous resolutions of the United Nations. Therefore, even without the establishment of that 120. I turn now to the Committee's report. In this regard I should like to say that Israel's attitude in respect of any committee which insists on the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East region has always been a negative attitude, one of complete defiance, insult and non-co-operation. We have seen that attitude by Israel in respect of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. We were told that the three 'Countries of which that Committee is composed did not have diplomatic relations with Israel and, therefore, Israel was not going to co-operate with it. Again we have heard from Israel that its attitude towards the 20 members of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People is alsonegative, because most-note, they did not say "all"-of its members do not at this time have diplomatic relations with Israel. 121. Who is responsible for that tragic situation in which the majority of the nations represented in this Organization do not at present have diplomatic relations with Israel? That is one more reason to condemn Israeli policies and practices; those Members do not have diplomatic relations with Israel because Israel is following a policy of aggression and expansion and violation of the rights of other peoples.' 122. The racist regime of South Africa is also in the same position. The overwhelming majority of the States Members of this Organization do not have diplomatic relations with the racist regime of South Africa. But that is no reason for the racist regime of South Africa to say: "We have been discriminated against because the majority of the Members of the United Nations do not have diplomatic relations with us." That is one more reason for condemnation. 123. The Committee's report is only a report on the implementation of previous resolutions-and I shall revert to that. But it is not based solely on General Assembly resolutions; it is based alsoon SecurityCouncil resolutions. It goes so far as to quote word for word the very resolution that is so dear to Israel's heart-Security Council resolution 242 (1967)-to which it has always paid lip service, but which it has never implemented. I refer the Assembly to paragraph 52 of the Committee's report in which three principles for a just and lasting peace in the region are mentioned, namely, Israel's withdrawal from all the oc- cupied territories; secondly, recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people;and, thirdly: "Appropriate arrangements ... to guarantee, in accord- ance with the Charter of the United Nations, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political indepen- dence of all the Statesin the areaand their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries." /A/31/35, para 42.1 That terminology is not strange to the members of the General Assembly or to me. That terminology can also be found in resolutlon 242 (1967). 125. In the very important section, which is part two of the Committee's report, there is also specific reference to the right of all peoples and States in the region to live in peace in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions. I do not know .whether Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) are considered by Israel to be relevant resolutions. If they are relevant, then they are mentioned word for wordin the paragraphs of the report and they are mentioned in spirit by the guarantees to every State and to all peoples to live in peace and security after the other principles of peace are fulfilled. They are also mentioned by the fact that the Committee's report is based on all relevant resolutions of the United Nations. 126. Last January the Security Council discussed the problem of the Middle East, including the question of Palestine. At that time a draft resolution.s which is also mentioned in the Committee's report, was presentedto the Security Council in which three principles for the establish- ment of a just and lasting peace were enumerated. The overwhelming majority of the members of the Security Council, representing all regions of the world, supported that draft resolution, including most of the countries of Western Europe. Those same principles, which were judged by the more than 50 States which participated in the Security Council debate last January as the only just basis for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region, are the same principles that are enumerated in the Committee's report, on which its reccmmendatlons are based. 127. What are the Committee's most important recom- mendations? The Committee refers in paragraph 68 to the return of those refugees who fled from their country in 1967. But that is the same terminology and the same provision as that contained in Security Council resolution 237 (1967). That is not a newaspect or a new request. The Security Council itself stated that all refugees who were uprooted from their territory after the aggressive Israeli war in 1967 were entitled to return to their homes and land. That iscontainedin paragraph 68 of the report. 128. Paragraph 69 of the report refers to the return of those refugees who were obliged to leave their country in 1948. Again, that has been provided for each year in a resolution presented to the General Assembly and spon- sored by none other than the delegation of the United 129. Paragraph 72 of the report mentions several stepsto be taken in order to implement the right to self-deter- mination, national independence and sovereignty of the Palestinian people. The most important aspects of those measures are, first, that Israel should withdraw from the territories which it has occupied since 1967 and that it should do so not later than 1June 1977. On 1June 1977 the Israeli occupation of the Arab territories will have lastedfor 10years. What is wrong in requesting an aggressor to withdraw its forces from a territory which it has aggressively occupied for more than 10 years? Again, Israel is asked not to establish new Jewish settlements in the occupied territory. But that is the overwhelming opinion of the Members of the United Nations and of the members of the Security Council. Only a few days ago the Security Council unanimously adopted a declaration condemning the Israeli estahlishment of settlements in the occupied territories and requesting Israel to desist from such estab- lishment. In those measures Israel is requested to abide by the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Again, that is the unanimous opinion of the Members of the United Nations. Israel has always been requested, and it is under the obligation, to abide by the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories. The very important paragraph 72 (g) of the report states: "As soon as the independent Palestinian entity has been established, the United Nations, in co-operation with the Statesdirectly involved and the Palestinian entity, should, taking into account General Assembly resolution 3375 (XXX), make further arrangements for the full implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, the resolution of outstanding problems and the establishment"-and I stress-"of a just and lasting peace in the region, in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions". 130. That is what the Committee is requesting in its report-the mere implementation of previous United Nations resolutions concerning the return of the refugees of 1967, the return of the refugees of 1948, which has been repeated by the General Assembly year after year, and the establishment of a just and lasting peace based on these three principles: Israel: withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories, recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people and guarantees for every State and people in the region to live in peace and harmony within secure and recognized boundaries. 13I. I do not see in this report any provision or recommendation, as claimed by the Israeli representative, which is detrimental to his entity or which would lead, as he said, to the dismemberment of a Member of the United Nations. 133. Secondly, Israel says that it has proposed the end of the state of war and that it is awaiting the response of the Arab countries. The military occupation of the territories of others is an act of war. When a country's soldiers are occupying the territory of another, then that country, pursuant to the Charter and the principles of international law, is committing and undertaking an act of war because it is militarily and by force occupying the territories of others. So how dare Israel speak of ending the state of war when its soldiers are occupying our territories? If Israel really wants to end the state of war,the first stage is that it withdraw its soldiers from our territories and then propose the ending of the state of war. 134. We have time and again repeated that the only two conditions we make for a just and lasting peace-which all of us want and whichwe have proved that we want-are the following: the withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied Arab territories and the recognition by Israel of the national rights of the Palestinian people. By agreeing to these two conditions Israel could reach the peace it pretends to be seeking; by fulfilling these two conditions a State could be created in the area, where a just and lasting peace would -stablished and where every State and people in the reg.on could live in peace and harmony.

I am rather disturbed that expla- nations of vote have taken on the character of general statements. The last two statements in particularfall under my observation. There are three more representatives who have asked to speak in explanation of vote before the vote, and I appeal to them to be as brief as possible as I wish to conclude consideration of this item today. As there is no meeting scheduled for this afternoon, explanations of vote after the vote will have to be postponed until Friday morning.

We are going to vote for the draft resolution because we realize that there is more awareness as a result of the efforts of the freedom- loving States Members of the United Nations to put the Palestine question in its own perspective, and we are heartened that the solution of this intractablequestion has gathered momentum and that year in and year out the 137. I shall not add anything more except to say to Mr. Herzog-who is not here, but I am sure that his delegation will report to him-that, if Israel should become reasonable and seek acceptance and adjust and adapt itself to the Palestinians, who have a right to their homeland, I would prevail on my Arab colleagues, who would then think of paying three times our assessments to the United Nations. And if Israel is finally assimilated-as I am sure it will be-then, if I am still alive, I shall prevail on my Arab colleagues to pay 10 per cent of the budget of the United Nations.

My delegation will vote for the draft resolution before the Assembly, since it provides for the continuation of the positive work done under the aegis of the General Assembly on the question of Palestinian inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms which have been violated, negated and resisted by the Zionist Government of Israel. 139. The representative of Israel spoke about the time consumed in the debates on the Middle East and Palestine. He forgets, or wants us to forget, the reasons why the Assembly debates the situation in the Middle East. The reasons are Israel's aggression and continued occupationof the Arab territories and the negation of the rights of the Palestinian people. He blames the Assembly for debating items relating to peace, to security and to basic human rights; but the Assembly blames Israel and holds it responsible for the violation of human rights and of the purposes and principles of the Charter and of the basic and fundamental rules of international behaviour. 140. The Israeli representative saw fit to show the annoyance of his Government at the expressions of peace, willingness and peacefulintentions of the Egyptian Govern- ment. We are fully aware of the fear of peace, on the part of the Israelis, because they thrive on war and tension, on aggression and expansion. Why would an interview by President El-Sadat to the American media drive the Government of Israel to such nervous attitudes asexpressed both by Rabin and his representative here? Perhaps they feel that their monopoly over international mass media has waned since the October war; perhaps they have reached the conclusion that any reasonable, peaceful and rightful voice would harm the Israeli cause of procrastination, defiance and expansion. 141. As for the peace process, Egypt is known for its co-operation with all peace initiatives and Israel is continu- ing its stubborn rejection of allinitiatives likely to lead to a just peace in the Middle East. I do not wish to go as far back as 1971 when Israel spurned the Secretary-General's initiative and stated officially that it would not withdraw to the 1967 borders. 142. This time, the Israeli representative went too far by insulting the General Assembly and its members. It was not fitting to use such words in this Organization, in which members represent their respective countries. He considers that the members in this hall do not represent sovereign, 143. I am sure that the vote today in this Assembly will be the proper answer to the insults by the representative of Israel.

The delegation of Peru will vote in favour of the draft resolution before the Assembly because it believes that many of the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People will lead to the goal of ensuring the exercise of the rights which the General Assembly recognizes as appertaining to the Palestinian people and also because the draft resolution establishes the proper link between the question of Pales- tine and the situation in the Middle East. The solution to both of these problems must be found within a context whose essential guidelines have been defined in Security Council resolutions 242 (I967) and 338 (1973), including, above all, respect for and recognition of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all the States of the region and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

The position of Iraq on the question of Palestine has been made amply clear in this Assembly and in all the Committees and other organs of the United Nations. Our support for the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine, including their right to national sovereignty, is constant and unwavering. 146. As the representative of Iraq stated during the debate on this item {76th meeting], we feel that the draft resolution on which the General Assembly is about to vote represents the minimum which could be achieved within the United Nations. We have a reservation concerning operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution. Despite that reservation, however, we find many positive aspects in the text and therefore shall vote in favour of it.

The list of representatives wishing to speak in explanation of vote before the voting is getting longer and longer. If we hear all those representatives, we shall not be able to proceed to the vote this morning. I know that that will cause great inconvenience to many members. 148. If the reason why many representatives are trans- ferring their names from the list of speakers in explanation of vote after the voting to the list of speakers in explanation of vote before the voting is that I said that the explanations of vote after the voting would have to be deferred to Friday morning, I am prepared to schedule a plenary meeting of the Assembly for this afternoon to complete the consideration of the present item. On that understanding, may I request those representatives who had already included their names in the list of speakers in explanation of vote after the voting to be kind enough to adhere to that list? As I hear no objection, I take it that that is agreed. 149. We have thus come to the end of the explanations of vote before the voting and shall proceed to the vote on the draft resolution immediately. 151. I now put to the vote draft resolution ,A/31/L.20 and Add.l. The report of the Fifth Committee on the adminis- trative and financial implications of the draft resolution is contained in document A/31/346.

The representative O!~ the PLO has asked to be given the opportunity to make a statement. Normally his statement would have been heard only after the statements of those representatives wishing to speak in explanation of vote after the voting. Since, however, that repr-sentative is scheduled to leave New York early this afte. '11, I would ask the Assembly whether it would be willing to hear him now. If there is no objection, I shall take it that members agree that the representative of the PLO should make his statement now. 154. We were anxious to have our point of view and our ideas imparted to the members of thisgreat family, but we were equally anxious to understand and appreciate the points of view of the members of the Assembly. To those who shared our understanding of the question, we express I our thanks and our appreciation. If we wish particularly to thank the members of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and its Chairman, Mr. Fall, it is because they have faithfully transmitted the feelings of the overwhelming majority of the members of this Assembly; they have also reflected the interest of world public opinion in our problem and our cause and the concern to find the means that could ensure the implementation of the relevant international resolutions and that could prepare the way for the restoration of peace andlaw in the Middle East. 155. We should like also to express our appreciation to the Committee whose task it is to investigate Israeli practices forits valuable and objective report. 156. Although there aresome who continue obstinately to deprive this international family of the exercise of its right to participate in defining the policy of peace in our Arab region, we nevertheless believe that in regard to the problem of Palestine, whose discussion began here, one cannot flnd a better political body to solve it than thisvery body. Those same persons cannot deceive the members of this Assembly by proclaiming their supportfor the interests and aspirations of our people, while at the same time denying our right· to self-determination and trying to prevent us from participating fully in the search for a solution of the problem of our homeland, when our delegation constitutes the principal party directly con- cerned in the problem of the Middle East. 157. Those persons have asked us to cease all discussion of the Palestinian problem and to turn to action in order to reach a solution of that problem, while at the same time they deny the very existence of the Palestinian people as represented by the PLO. That request cannot be taken seriously and they must realize that the power they represent cannot disguise either their political position or the contradiction betweenwhat they say and what they do. 159. We wish to reaffirm here that we have no intention of abandoning the struggle on the political level. Thus no one can accuse us of disregarding the possibility of a peaceful political solution; but we also want to continue to clarify the real position of our Israeli enemy and of the forces which support it, so that everyone may be fully aware of the fact that the principles and values that the people of Palestine are fighting for are the same asthose the United Nations has proclaimed with the same sense of urgency and the same vigour it brought to the recognition of the right of allpeoples to resortto force to defend those' principles andvalues. 160. We do not feel obliged to reply to the absurd statements of the representative of the Zionist entity, who has tried to ignore the very root of the problem so as to turn it into a refugee problem pure andsimple, aswas done in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). 161. In essence the problem of the Middle East is the Palestinian problem and the Palestinian problem can only be solved by recognition of the national rights of our people and by a commitment to implement and to permit the exercise of those rights. Any effort to the contrary would not only be a waste of time but would also considerably increase the tension existing in an area where everyone is aware of the grave danger inherent in the outbreak of a new war. As our brother Yasser Arafat said: "War flares up in Palestine, and yet it is in Palestine frlli1~ peace will be born."6 162. The confidence of our people in its leaders, repre- sented by the PLO, cannot be shaken, nor can our deter- mination to resist allmanoeuvres, for, despite all challenges and allmanoeuvres, we shall continue to fight vigorously on every front so that our people may be able to achieve what this Assembly and all the peoples of the world have recognized as its due: the restoration of its inalienable national rights. The meeting rose at 1.25 'p.m.