A/32/PV.49 General Assembly

The delegation of the People's Republic ofBenin supported the inclusion in the agenda of the question covered by item 126 relatmg to recent illegal Israeli measures in the occupied Arab territories for two fundamental reasons. First of all, the People's Republic ofBenin is fundamentally opposed to any policy of occupation ('1' annexation of territories belonging to other States because such a policy is tanta- mount to an act of aggression that we must, at all costs, condemn and combat. The policy of Israel in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, like all similar policies that my country has denounced, is an act of aggression fraught with danger to the peace and security sought by all States in the region. 2. The second reason underlying our support of the Egyptian initiative is the fact that the international com- munity is being given a new opportunity to take cognizance of a new and imminent danger threatening the peoples of the Middle East. The systematic colonization ofterritories, part of a global policy which the new, reactionary leaders of Israel seek to pursue, is tantamount to a policy of annexation of the Arab territories. Such annexation is undoubtedly an integral part of the panoply of arrogant and threatening acts to which the Zionists have accustomed NEW YOtK us. What is striking and even shocking, though, is the fact th~t this policy is being carried out at a time when every effort is being made to achieve a peaceful settlement ofan problems related to the Middle East crisis. 3. Why, then, this intransigence and this reckless policy precisely at a time when all efforts are being made to convene the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East? Why does Israel obstruct every attempt at a peaceful settlement? 4. To reply to these two fundamental questions,. my d~legation will not beat about the bush but will speak frankly. The People's Republic of Benin has statea again and again and has denounced openly the two-faced game of the reactionary, imperialist forces in this question of the Middle East crisis. 5. The reactionary imperialist forces talk a great deal about peace; they propose plan after plan and make countless declarations ofintent, in order to make the world believe that they want peace, that their protege, the State of Israel, wants peace, when in actual fact they are engaged in a well-organized scheme to deceive the Arab baders and stifle the determin&.tion of the Arab nations to free themselves from the Zionist yoke and from imperialism. . 6. Logically, when we speak of peace, all acts should be honestly placed in that context. But the imperialists obstinately refuse to match their words with deeds. Are we not therefore entitled to speak ofdeception? 7. If the supporters of Israel and the Israeli leaders want peace, it is now that they must take the opportunity to act accordingly. The supporters of Israel, the Western Powers, must understand the severity of our judgement of their actions vis-a.-vis the State of IsraeL We ask them to stop deceiving us. 8. If the Western Powers, and particularly the United States, are sincere in their peace initiative, in theIr various declarations of intention, then we ask them not only to denounce this policy of annexation-the establishment of Jewish settlements in the occupied territorie!.-but to loosen their ties of solidaIity with Israel and to condelDllit not only on paper but by taking appropriate measutes in order to exert pressure on Israel to induce it to renounce a poP~y that will certainly lead to further suffering for the Arab and Palestinian peoples. 9. My delegation is a sponsor ofdraft resolution A/32/L:3 and Add.l and 2. The contents of this very weH·balaDeed draft resolution submitted by the Egyptian delegatioa is further proof of the goodwill for peace ofthe Arab States.

When in the past the Arab delegations denounced from this rostrum Israel's policy, its expansionism and its PIDlexation of the occupied Arab territories and the establishment of settlements as a tactical measure and as part Qf this strategic expansionist plan devised by world zionism, represented by the Government of Israel, the representatives of Israel' denied that it was government policy to establish these settlements. ~ 12. That is a thing of the pP-at because Begin has assumed powet and he himseif has confIrmed what the representa- tives of Israel previously denied. Shamelessly and unscru- pulou~y Begin and yesterc:hw his representative here, have disclosed what his predecessors tried to conceal. He has arrogantly begun to state and execute an Israeli policy designed to annex AJi.'ab territories by force. Yesterday we had an example of this policy when the representative of Israel spoke [47th meetingj. 13. Successive Israeli Governments since the aggression of 1967 have without exception included in their plans the implementation of a Ziomst scheme to implant settlements. The only differen\':e has been the timing and approach chosen. Since 1961' there have been five Israeli Govern- ments: Golda Mek's first government in March 1969 her second government in December of the same year; her third ~ March 1974; the Rabin Government in June 1974 and fmally the present Begin government. }Jl of them, without exception, carried out a single plan, approved by everyone, a plan designed to' estublish more settlements in the occupied Arab territories in order to aFJlex more territory, to impose a fait accompli and to pr':',;ent any·initiative to establish a just and lasting peace in the area. 14. Bt,'gin's recent reply t\l the charge that his Government was establishing 2nd legitimizing settlements-namely that the settlements .nad been authorized by previous Israeli Governments-~onfrrms what we have just said and what Israel has denied in the past. Israel is hurling another challenge at us today, for it is neither denying nor concealing its illegal acts. It defies world opinion and even the advice of its close friends by trying to annex land and sabotage all peace efforts. 15. The Israelis claim that they are not ann.exing any occupied Arab territory because, according to them, these are not Arab territories or occupied te!ritories, but rather their liberated tenitories. Over these tt~nitories they ano- -gate to themselves rights which i~avc no basis in law, claiming that international law a.,d the fourth Geneva Convention relative 'to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Tirne of War, of 12 August 1949,. particlJarly its article 49,1 do not apply to the occupied territolies. They deny that they are annexing these territories. They use a strange logic by saying that they are not annexing anything, merely liberatir~g ~e territories. They claim that the Jews have the .lI!i!n·····••_~.-~~~,~·.·:,MIi<~'::,~··~!liI-il!I fI.!IL~ r•••• • ~oIllIlri"tee on settlements, declared on 10 October-havi 1 United Nations, Treaty Serie1, voL 7S (No. 973), p. 287. chosen a time when the world press was announcing the 16. The Begin Government persists shamelessly in defying the world by its choice of time to announce such a policy and to reaffmn it whenever attempts are renewed to bring about the convening of the Geneva Peace Conference in order to thwart every new endeavour to prevent the scourge ofwar in that region and in the world. 17. The number ~f Israeli settlements in the occupieJ Arab territories known so far are just the tip of an iceberg covered by waves of Israeli propaganda. In addition to those settlements announced publicly by the Isra~ti Govern- ment there are others set up by the Government in order to execute a secret plan, all the details of which have not yet been revealed. Furthermore, Israel's Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Ariel Sharon: has confrrmed this. He is the" Minister who presides over the ministerial committee concerned with the establishment of the St~ttlements in the various Arab territories. In a statement to the newspaper Ma'ariv, he refused to reveal the exact number of these new, secret settlements. He reaffmned what was said by The New York Times on 11 September last, namely, that many of these settlements have been established last month on the West Bank and that the time has not come to announce their axistence. I have no doubt that this will be announced when new measures are taken to try to achieve peace. 18. What the Foreign Minister of Israel, Mr. Dayan, said dUrL"lg this session [27th meetingj about the settlements, when .he claimed that they were not a" factor in the delimitation of frontiers, was nothing but a contradiction of what he had affirmed on other occasions, namely, that when Israel establishes settlements, it does not plant seeds in movable pots, but it plants trees whose roots run deep and cannot be pulled out. Do such facts agree with Israel's claim that everything is negotiable? According to Israel, the occupied Arab land is liberated land; Jerusalem, it believes, is a unified city; the return ofthe refugees and the establishment of a Paiestinian national homeland, according to the Israeli plans, can never be realized and the settlements are there to stay. I really wonder what it is that Israel has omitted from its calculations and what it considers to be negotiable. 19. Mr. Mordechai Zipori, member of the miniiterial Octo~er 1977. 20. As will be seen by the vote on the draft resolution submitted by Egypt yesterday [A/32/L.3/Rev.1}, the world is unanimous in denouncing the expansionist policy of Israel and its efforts to block peace, as well as in requ~sting Israel to stop establishing settlements,in the occupied Arab territories. Everyone has denounced this policy, even the press that is friendly to Israel. Israel has chosen to stand alone and to defy the world, but there is no doubt that this challenge and violation of the law is being supported, for I do not believe that any nation, regardless of its power or strength, could continue such defIance for so long. 21. What is encouraging Israel in its defiant attitude, even though such an attitude is dangerous for the world? Israel can accept these denunciations so long as it continues to receive economic and military aid and voluntary gifts from its friends despite all the efforts made to prevent this and to preveIlt Iarael from pursuing this policy. 22. I should like to comment on what the representative of Israel said yesterday. I do not know how he can be so arrogant as to talk in this way and to defy the world from this rostrum. We will not descend to the same level of fabri~ation and use the same words as he did. He accused the Arabs of being anti-Semitic because they claim their rights and want United Nations resolutions implemented. With his strange logic he accused those who do not agree with him of being Nazis. Has the representative of Israel forgotten that Ben-Gurion accused Begin of being a Nazi? To accuse tt..;; Arabs of being anti-Semitic is pure dema- goguery becaus;; the Arabs are Semites themselves and it is Israel that is practising anti-Semitism against the Arabs. 23. Faced with this constant challenge to international law, world public opinion and to all the values of world civilization, I wonder whether we should not take measures to put an end to this banditry and demagoguery practised at the international level.

The Government and people of Bulgaria have followed with increasing attention and concern the development of recent events in the Middle East. This is quite natural bearing in mind the fact that my cO't&ntry, situated in close geographic prox!mity to this area of conflict, is keenly interested in the establishment of a just and lasting peace there. 25. The general debate at the current session has shown unambiguously that it is high time that the present stalemate in the Middle East conflict which has lasted beyond all measure was ended and the matter was put on the road towards a comprehensive political settlement. Such a policy line has received favourable endorsement by the overwhelming majority of Member States. Furthermore, there is a propitious political momeutum at hand in this 27. These actions demonstrate the attempts of the Israeli authorities, through the tacticB of "faits accomplis", to prepare the ground for affirming the annexation of the Arab territories and to consolidate their domination there. As a matter of fact, Israel in all arrogance does not even bother to conceal its ~xpansionist intentions. In his statement yesterday the Israeli representative surpassed himself in his efforts, through legalistic'fallacies and the theory of the so-called "defensive conquest", to prove that Israel's presence in the occupied Arab territories wdS allegedly in conformity with international law. He tried in vain to find arguments both from history and as security considerations to prove his case. He tried in vain to convince us that the fourth Geneva Convention was not applicable to the occupied Arab territories. Claiming that delegations were either not interested in the facts or were ignorant or confused on the legal aspects ofthe matter, the Israeli representative spared neither time nor effort to enlighten the audience by abundant references to article 49 of the said Convention. But in his zeal for legal arguments he somehow indulged himself by one omission, namely to quote the last paragraph of article 49 which stipulates that: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." This provision speaks for itself and does not need the learned interpretation ofthe Israeli representative. So far as the facts are concerned there is no doubt whatsoever that the Israeli Government, in overt violation of international law, including the Geneva Convention to which Israel is a party, has taken all legislative, administrative and other practical measures to ch~e the demographic character and institutional structure of the occupied territories through the establishment there ofIsraeli settlements which in SOqle instances would qualify as a colonization of those terri- toms. The Israeli Government itself has unequivocally recognized these facts. 28. It is a generally recognized moral and legal tenet that there could be no legitimate recognition of territorial gains obtained as a result of the threat or use of force. Such acquisition of territory constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the principles of inter- national law. This fundamental principle was further reaffirmed in such important instruments of the United Nations as the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with.the Charter of the, United Nations [resolution 2625 (XXV), tmnex] and the Declara- tion on the Strengthening ofInternational Security[resolu- tion 2734 (XXV)). 30. The illegal measures enforced by the Israeli Govern- ment in the Palestinian and the other occupied Arab territories with the objective of changing their demo- graphic, economic, cultural and other characteristics are yet another proof of the intransigence of the Israeli Govern- ment and its deflaIlt refusal to comply with the over- whelming view of the international community and with the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations. It constitutes another !nadmissible manifestation or Israel's failure to live up to its fundament~ obligations which it assumed when it was admitted to the United Nations. Consequently, there are good reasons why this attitude of the Israeli Government should arouse such widespread condemnation. 31. The. provocative behaviour of the Israeli Government, substantiated by the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, not only is an expression of its aggressive and expansionist strategy but is further evidence of its policy of obstruction with regard to the peaceful settlement of the existing international conflict. This is all the more regrettable at this mom~nt when significant efforts are being made to convene the Geneva Conference on the Middle East. In our view, it is the duty ofthe United N:ltions to take the necessary political actions in order to avoid any further obstacles for the just solution ofthe Middle East crisis. 32. In our submission draft resolution A/3.2/L.3/Rev.l, while expressing deep concern about the situation created by Israel through its policy ef establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories, contains the appropriate political measures to be undertaken by the United Nations. 33. The draft resolution as it stands corresponds to the consistent policy of my country with regard to the situation in the Middle East. In his statement on 30 September in the general debate at the current session, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of Bulgaria stated: "The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria remains convinced that genuine peace in the Middle East is possible only under the fonowing conditions: the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967; the exercise of the legitimate national rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including their right to an independent State; and respect for the independence, existence and security of all the countries in the area. We believe that the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East should be reconvened, without any further procra!itination, with the participation of all interested parties, including from the very outset, and with e1ual rights, the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine." [14th meeting, para. 180./ 36. First, the Arab territories occupied at the end of the 1967 armed conflict do not belong to Israel and cannot be annexed. In the end they must be restored to their rightful owners. In this connexion, there are well-established and generally recognized rules of international law which proclaim the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and the obligation flowing therefrom to restore all tenitories occupied by such means. Those rules were recognized in the Declaration on Principles ofInternational Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations [resolution 2625 (X¥V), annex/of 24 October 1970, in which the General Assembly solemnly proclaimed that: "The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the US1 of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal." 37. Romania considers that the occupation of.foreign territories is in complete contradiction with the principles of the United Nations Charter ane with the provisions (~ other fundamental documents of this world Organization. In addition, as the evolution of the situation in the Middle East bears out, the occupation of foreign territories engenders a state of tension, is fraught with danger ofnew conflicts and constitutes a permanent source of violation of fundamental human rights. That is why my country has always emphasized the need for the evacuation of the occupied Arab territories and a just settlement of the question of the Paie.;tIDian people which would enable that people to decide its own destiny, to establish its own free and independent state and to enjoy all the rights flowing therefrom. 38. Secondly, the concern of the United Nations with what is happening in the occupied Arab territories is due to the fact that the occupying authorities have taken measures that are contrary to the obligations incumbent upon them under the conventional and customary rules of inter- national law. Thus, the Israeli Government announced last July and August that it was authorizinB the creation of three new Israeli settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan, and that it was granting legal status to the settlements already established in the Arab t~rdtories occupied after the 1967 war. At the same time, the Israeli authorities have stated their decision to apply Israeli laws and regulations in the occupied Arab territori~s. 39. It is obvious that such measures are in cont.radiction with the stipulations of the fourth Geneva Convention. In our vieyt, those measures represent acts having the most 40. We must not forget that the resolutions ofthe General Assembly and the Security Council themselves, which enunciate the fundamental principles on the basis of which the Middle East conflict must be settled, lay down, inter alia. the obligation on Israel to evacuate the Arab territories occupied after the 1967 war. Now, it is difficult to maintain that the measures we are discussing are compatible with such an obligation. Quite the contrary, those measures and any other measure of the same kind clearly show that an attempt is being made to promote a policy of fait accompli, something that is far from advancing the cause of the establishment of a just and durable peace in the region. 41. My country has always denounced acts and measures aimed at changing the status of the occupied Arab territories because it considers that neither Israel nor anyone else has the right to change the situation in those territories by force. We consider that the Israeli authorities must respect the United Nations resolutions by virtue of which it is inadmissible to change the demographic charac- teristics of the city of Jerusalem. My country speaks out fmnly in favour of the implementation of the United Nations resolutions relating to respect for human rights in the occupied Arab territories. 42. Of course, respect of the status of the occupied Arab territories can scarcely become an end in itself. Foreign occupation, even if it is exercised with the most rigorous respect for the rules of humanitarian international law, still remains an illegal, unjust situation which runs counter to the fundamental principles of the Charter. 43. That is why we believe that the fundamental objective of the United Nations must be to decide upon an over-all settlement of the Middle East conflict which would lead to the restoration of legality and die restitution of the territories that belong to other peoples. In this connexion I should like to recall that my country considers that in order to achieve a political settlement of the Middle East conflict it is necessary that Israel withdraw its troops from the Arab territories occupied after the 1967 war; that the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination be recognized, including their right to establish or constitute their own independent State; and that the existing territorial integrity and the right to the free and independent development of all States in the region be guaranteed. 44. The Palestinian people being one of the fundamental parties involved in the Middle East conflict, we are of the opinion that a just and durable peace could not be negotiated without the participation of its legitimate representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization. 45. It is in the light of these considerations that the Rotnanian delegation supports the draft resolution put

Regarding this specific item which has been added to the agenda of the current session at the request of the Government of Egypt, my delegation would like, fust of all, to reaffmn the basic view of the Government ·of Japan towards the peaceful settlement of, the Middle East problem, which can be summarized as-- follows. 47. The basis for attaining peace in the Middle East lies in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), plus the realization of the legitimate rights of the Pales- tinian people under the Charter of the United Nations, particularly their right to self-determination. 48. The acquisition and occupation of territories by force cannot be allowed and, accordingly, Israeli armed forces should be withdrawn from all the territories occupied in the war of 1967. At the same time, the political independence and territorial integrity of all the countries concerned, including Israel, should be guaranteed. It isjust as necessary that the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people be recognized and fulfilled in accordance with the Charter ofthe United Nations. 49. These points were underlined by a great number of delegations in their statements in the general debate at the current session, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that they constitute an international consensus on which the solution of the problem should be based. 51. My Government highly appreciates the painst~ and serious efforts of those Governments and sincerely hopes that the remaining obstacles to reconvening the Geneva Conference will be sunnounted in a spirit ofmutual accommodation among the parties concerned and that this Conference will become an important break-thr9ugh to- wards the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the MiddJe East. . 52. From this basic point of view, we cannot but exprCfSS our concern over the situation created in the occupied Arab territories by the measures and actions of Israel designed to change the legal status, geographic nature and demographic composition of the territories. It should be recalled that such measures of the Government of Israel have already been disavowed by the Security Council in November last year. In his statement on 27 September this year:!n/~e general debate of the current session the Foreign,~tt~~r ofJapan specifically stated that - c • '. .' • "•.. the Govemment of Japan considers most regrettable the measures which the Government of Israel has been.: - taking with regard to settlementson the West Bank: ofthe 53. It is therefore most deplorable that according to press ._Teports the Israeli Government still persists in carrying out tne establishment of new settlements in the areas concerned. 54. Since what is now at stake in the Middle East is to create conditions which would make possible the earliest -reconvening of the Geneva Peace Conference aimed at achieving a just· and lasting peace, it is to be deeply regretted that one of the parties concerned has taken measures and. actions which may obstruct those peace endeavours. 55. My Government would like strongly to appeal anew to the Governm~nt of Israel to desist from taking such measures and actions. Draft resolution A/32/L.3/Rev.1, which was introduced by Egypt and is sponsored by a number of delegations, goesaiong with our view. My delegation is ready to support it, if it is put to the vote.

For three decades now the question ofthe Middle East has been a source of concern to the United Nations. Four destructive wars and a permanent state of tension have been .: - -. tb~ predominating characte~ticsof the situation prevailing in th3.~regi~n for more than 30 years. si: In the px:esent debat(f, it should be noted that after the -1967 hoStilities Israel'hllsl~nm- oJ1ly continued to occupy ter_ritory of three States Members of our Organization but has, moreover, taken st~psdesigned to change the character and strUcture ofthose territories. - 58. The General Assembly and the Security Council have repeatedly considered thiS aspect of the question. That in~ans that the- question is not new to us; however, it has . now acquired~notherdimension with the recent prolifera- -. tion of settlements in the occupied territories. Those settlements are properly the subject of agenda item 126. '59. In this connexion my country's position has been clearly stated -on many occasions. Very recently, speaking in the General Assembly on 27 September 1977, our ._ Foreign -Minister specifically stated the .Iranian Govern- --ment's position as follows: - '~:Re-cent moves by Israel in imposing its laws on the inhabitants of the West Bank and authorizing new Jewish -·'<';'settlements in the occupied Arab lands have created new obstacles· on the road to peace. We hope, however, that genuine efforts will be made to put an end to this uneasy and precarious situation." [9th meeting, para. 220.} An a1anning situation has thus been created in a region which was already marked by great tension. But what alarms us even more is that the abovtr.rnentioned steps have been taken by Israel at rtime-when efforts to achieve a just anq.e...quitable settlement9fthe question are seriously under way. In-the circumshwees~-we_ cannot fail to point out a certain contradiction betVr~n fhe;J;ro-fessions of faith by IsraeJi authorities to avoid everYt1ting which might jeop- 'ar~~e- pl'ospeJ?ts·'of-a definitive solution of the conflict 60. The illegal nature of these steps is clear. First of all, the Charter of our Organization does not recognize the acquisition of territories by the use of force. Furthermore, the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which Israel has signed, together with many other States Members of our Organization, prohibits the occupying Power from transfera ring part of its civilian population into territories it occupies. Finally, the Security Council and the General Assembly have repeatedly requested Israel to refrain from taking such measures. All this clearly shows that this is a serious situation. 61. We believe that it is in the interest of Israel itself to respect its own international obligations and to comply in particular with the recommendations of the United Nations.. 62. During this year's general debate, Israel maintained that the settlements would not prejudge its fmal frontiers with the neighbouring Arab countries and will not impede the efforts to fmd a just and lasting peace in the region. Such a statement is surprising, because the least that can be said is that the establishment of these settlements in the occupied Arab territories, accompanied by other equally illegal steps such as the expulsion of the inhabitants of these territories and the extension of the occupying Power's laws and regulations to them, creates serious obstacles on the road to peace. 63. These measures are also out of keeping with the recommendations of the main bodies ofthe United Nations with regard to the preservation of the legal status and demographic nature ofthe occupied territories. 64. It is not enough to affiml the will to respect international law; it is also necessary to refrain from committing acts which compromise the prospects for a just and lasting settlement of the question. By the recent measures taken on the West Bank of the Jordan, Israel has disregarded the decisions of the United Nations. Faced with that situation, we must clearly reject all measures designed to change the legal status and demographic character of the occupie4 territories. Our Organization must remind Israel of its international obligations and strive to create condi- tions that will facilitate the establishment of a just and lasting peace throughout the region. 65. It is in this spirit that my delegtUon, together with more than 60 other delegations, has become a sponsor of draft resolution A/32/L.3/Rev.1. We hope that it will receive the unanimous approval of the General Assembly.

The policy of the Sierra Leone Government on the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East has constantly been baseG, flIStly on the inadmissibility of Israel's acquisition of Arab lands by force and the restoration of those Israeli-occupied territories; secondly, on the recognition of the right of the Palestinians to a homeland of their own; and, thirdly, on the right of each and every State in the area, including Israel, to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. 68. Outside this Assembly several untiring efforts 'have been made towards peace in the area by our own Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldhelin, and his representa- tives, by African leaders, by the United States and the Soviet Union jointly, and by the United States alone. The latest efforts of the United States towards the convening of peace talks in Geneva with the appropriate participants have, again to world disappointment and· dismay, been prejudiced by the action of Israel's new Government of Prime Minister Begin in deciding not only to recognize and legalize existing Jewish settlements but to establish new ones in the Israeli-occupied Arab territories. 69. Of that act the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sierra Leone and leader of its delegation to the thirty-second session of the General Assembly, Mr. Abdulai Conteh, had this to say: "... we regard the establishment of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and other areas of Israeli-occupied territory and the recently disclosed Sharon plan for further settlements in those areas to be not only patently illegal. .. but also a real impediment to the efforts now being undertaken to bring peace to that area ... "We therefore call upon Israel to discontinue plans for lhe establishment of new settlements and to dismantle those already established." {17th meeting, paras. 127-128./ 70. In the general debate dUring the thirty-first session of the General Assembly also, Mr. F. M. Minah, then Minister for Foreign Affairs and leader of the Sierra Leone delega- tion, said: "The Middle East continues to present a problem of grave dimensions. Israel continues to occupy Arab lands and, contemptuous of public o.utcry, is going ahead with its plans to build Jewish settlements on those lands. The continuing presence of Israel in the Arab territories it acquired by force, and its violation of the sacred rights of the Palestinian people must clearly be regmded as a grave threat to peace and security in that region. We advocate full compliance with Secnrity Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as we feel sure that a lasting solution can only be found through compliance with the provisions ofthese resolutions."2 72. Sierra Leone has joined the sponsors in requesting the General Assembly to determine Israel's action as consti- tuting a serious obstruction of efforts towards a lasting peace, because Israel's action can only be intended to retain permanent controlover Arab lands, thereby prejudgiligwhat may be the outcome of any negotiations in Geneva or elsewhere. Israel cannot want peace and at the same time infuriate the opponent. My delegation joins the other sponsors in deploring this act and calls upon Israel to desist forthwith from any further such action. ~ 73. Israel has often posed as an outpost ofhuman rights in the Middle East, battered left, right and centre by Arab nations whose sole aim, it thinks, i1> to annihilate it completely. This posture has not failed to win Israel world sympathy, as evidenced by statements even of representa- tives who have no diplomatic relations with it reaffmning Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized bound- aries. And, among other things, it has also guaranteed Israel a steady flow of United States anns, money and goodwill, not to speak of emotional support from the large Jewish community of the United States, all of which, it would seem, it his not used wisely. 74. The sympathy and support Israel has thus received has been used only to grab extra territory in support ofa plan which we suspect is inspired by a Jewish lebensraum, as was stated in my Minister's statement in the general debate. Thus Israel's latest move in the occupied territories is a clear indication of who is the real oppressor in the Middle East: it is the many millions who have been dispossessed,if not displaced, that are the victims who have lost their human rights. 75. The statement of Israel to this Assembly invites all members to visit the territories to investigate conditions for themselves. Well, an account of one such recent visit by ME'f.D.--AHman of the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley provides useful information. Allow m~ to read j'Jst a few excerpts from that account. It states: "In Tel El Beida and Al Berdlah, the long Arab-Israeli conflict is a daily problem afflicting human lives. The situation there is one that few Israelis will even admit "Only a few years ago, the most significant thing about villages, with their mud brick houses, some of them sprouting television aerials, was not that they lay atop the fault line of one of modem history's most perplexing problems. It was that in spite offour Arab-Israeli wars the villagers of these two cities had made some progress. At _ Tel El Beida, a modem irrigation system had doubled crop yields. At AI Berdlah, the villagers had constructed a municipal water system that piped drinking water to each household. "Today, the two ~villages are much changed. The irrigation system is now a ruin of dusty culverts. The pipes are also dry, and the village women must fetch water from a distant well; the round trip, down and up a rocky hillside, is nearly a mile. "Not that either village has suffered a drought. Rather, the inhabitants are afflicted by something which for them has assumed all the characteristics of a permanent natural calamity. The source of their misfortune is the nearby Maydah co-operative farm, a new Jewish settlement. One o(neaily 100 such settlements Israel has established in the occupied territories, Maydah is a cluster of modern bundings surrounded by high fences where thirty Jewish families now live. "A year after Israeli forces originally swept through the area, just west ofthe Jordan River and south of the Israeli town of Beit She'an, Israeli engineers surveyed the two Palestinian villages. Then, in violation ofJorda.11ian water law-which even official Israeli publications eay that Israel is obliged to respect-the Israelis drilled a new and deeper well only a few yards fro~ the Palestinian well: "Since then, the Palestinian water supply has steadily diminished. But the Israelis not only have forbidden the villagers to drill an artesian well, they also refuse to sell them water. The thousand Palestinians of AI Berdlah and Tel El Beida formerly consumed 270 cubic metres of water an hour, but the 30 Jewish families at Maydah now consume 1,500 cubic metres of water an hour and the two Palestinian villages are slowly dying of thirst. "The Israeli co-operative has become an island of 81. My delegation would have preferred the present item Jewish affluence wInch has created around itself a sea of to have been considered under a simpler and more neutral Palestinian desolation. When, as planned, Maydah doubles title. We would not necessarily have wi~ed draft resolution in size, the nearby Arab villages may be left with no water' A/32/L.3/Rev.1 to take precisely the form in which it has at all.~' ' . \ been presented. We appreciate that it addresses only one _. . .'-'" ~'. ~. . aspe~t of a complex problem. Nevertheless, it raises an '-. ····»aafis the account-ofsofilebodY who.has_beento the arell~- - -urgent an~Jegitiinateissue. We agree with the basic thrust Now that I l1ave~read'tha(aceount~allQ~meto ~yjhat·the. of!lte-cdwt resolutIon. We shall vote for it as it stands, and peace__wa ~d~~e}n the MfddltEaSt-;-O!,:.sh.Puld r ~a~- the -.. wehopeit Will meet with a positive and early resPonse. .' peace in theJ}ffddle East which·means- ~(f nluclt':!o -my'- ~ . Gove~nt-:-and has inspired us to spri1"!sor the---llr:aft --·_82.:ML·AMERAS~Gtlli (Sri Lanka): The General As- ,- resol\ltion p~nted by the representative of Egypt:-is-a: : Semblyhi:ls berofe-it teQay draft resolution A/32/L.3/Rev.1 ._, , realan4lastin8peice.Jor all States in)he re&ion~acearid of 26 Octo!':er t977. - _ _ -~ .S;ecuriiY~fIsrael too, ;md for the wortd. There-Jian jreno:- . ,';;' ----- '.' ~.; -~.- - - - ~'cio~bt:tpat the;.Ara1i;;rsraellconflicth8s·liad seriQUS- reper':' 83. &<a ~~hainnanof the Special Committee to cUssions far and wide. ------- '~7' • " _ ~nv~~_~lsmeli Pra~t~~e;s.~.ffectingthe Hu~an Right.s of 77. Israel must therefore take the hint and act now.

The New Zealand Government's general position on the Palestine question has very recently been explained by my Minister of Foreign Mfairs In the general debate [26th meeting!. Our over- riding concern at this rather critfcaljuncture is that nothing should be done by any of the parties or by any other State or entity that would prejudice the chances of bringing about an early resumption of peace talks in Geneva. It is from that point of departure that my delegation approaches this item. 79. New Zealand believes that a peace settlement in the Middle East should be in accordance with, inter alia, the terms of Security Council resolution 242 (1967). That resolution envisages the provision in a peace settlement of secure and recognized borders for Israel and at the same time withdrawal from the territories occupied by israeli armed forces in 1967. The establishment of Israeli settle- ments on the West Bank at a significant distance, in some cases, from the pre-1967 borders is clearly incompatible with that requirement. It seems to us especially regrettable that additional settlements are apparently being planned or created at this time. 80. I reiterate our earnest hope that, during the current negotiations directed towards the early resumption of the Peace Conference in Geneva, all the parties will refrain from any action which might make those negotiations more difficult or which could prejudice the implementation of resolution 242 (1967) as part of a defInitive peace settlement. 84. It has therefore come as no surprise to us that such preposterous arguments as those presented to this Assembly by the Israeli representative should have been urged here to justify their Jewish settlement policy. 85. It was many years ago that a former Prime Minister of Israel pronounced the dictum: "The Palestinians-they do not exist." By diktat of the a former Prime Minister of Israel, these Arab peoples-and their rights, acquired over centuries-were unceremoniously cast into oblivion. And that is the position that the Israeli representative expects this Assembly to accept seriously. 86. The present position, taken up in the draft resolution, is described as a falsification of history. History for the representative of Israel means only the Bible and not those other acts and facts by which, under any system of law, a people acquire the right to live in a territory and call it their own. 87. If we were to accept this Israeli claim ,seriously a~a principle of international law, there would have to be a cataclysmic movement of populations which would trans- form this world completely and perhaps lead to the greatest holocaust in history. 88. The argument should be dismissed summarily as a harebrained theory, founded on and sustained by a fanati- cism that is more appropriate to the Dark Ages than to the enlightened twentieth century. 89. I once described Israel as the most undutiful child of the United Nations, to which it owes its existence. Despite the fact that my Government and people have no quarrel with the Jewish people and bear them no ill-will but, on the contrary, have the friendliest feelings towards them, as we have to all other peoples, I am constrained to observe that it would have been better for this world if the Unitet: Nations had on that occasion suffered an abortion. 90. The representative of Israel has quoted a previous permanent representative of the United States of America who in this Assembly described the United Nations as a ''theatre of the absurd". It is in this very threatre, I should _ like to remind the representative of Israel, thatihe Israelis produced the present farce. 91. We must make it clear that we do not question or challenge the right of Israel to exist as a State and the right-which is the right of every State-to live in security, and peace. But we recognize this as a right acquired under a United Nations resolution which also called for an Arab State of Palestine-the famous partition resolution of the second session {resolution 181 (11)/.

Ecuador, a country that maintains friendly and cordial relations with the parties concerned in this serious dispute, would like to see Arabs and Israelis, similar peoples coming from the same region, both with age-old and noble traditions and both having made great contributions to the history of mankind, sitting as soon as possible at the negotiating table in Geneva and laying the bases for a peaceful and fruitful coexistence, which would be mutually beneficial for their peoples and which, in time, would become permanent. 94. Ecuador's position on the Middle East question has remained unchanged, as stated on repeated occasions by Ecuador's Foreign Ministers when they have had occasion to address the General Assembly. 95. If we are to achieve a just and therefore lasting solution to this problem, a number of fundamental factors must be taken into account. Among those elements specifically mentioned in his statement in the general debate by the Foreign Minister of Ecuador, Mr. Jose AyaIa Lasso, are that: "Occupation by force does not create any rights; therefore the territories held must be returned promptly, and the work done to establish Israeli settlement in the occupied Arab zones must be undone." [9th meeting, para. 17./ 96. Such an assertion is in keeping with the cardinal principles of Ecuador's foreign policy, namely, the non- recognition of annexation or the acquisition of territory by the use of force. Moreover, this principle is of deep historical significance for my country. A century and a half ago, in the early years of our life as an independent nation, the most faithful and loyal collaborator of Bolivar, Marshal Antonio Jose de Sucre a man with a di"itinguished record in the liberation of several countries in South America, enunciated on a memorable occasion a thesis which bears his name, the "Sucre Doctrine",which was incorporated in various resolutions of our regional system and in the Charter of the Organization of American States, namely, "Victory does not give rights". This doctrine was later developed in article 17 of that Charter, in the follOWing terms: "The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the abject, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, <Frectly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No ter: ~urial 98. Ecuador, in its international action, has done no more than reflect filL.damental norms of its conntitutionallaw, which represent the major'expression of its domestic law and which at all times bas reiterated that: 99. The creation of Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, in our view, runs countE:r to the very clear rules of intemationallaw. Their maintf3nance, as well as other measures and acts designed to change the legal status, the geographic nature.and the demowapJllic composition of such territories, as stated in diaft resolution A/32/L.3/ Rev.1, certainly do not contnoute to the just and peaceful solution of the problem, which is the greatest desire ofthe international community for this explosiive situation, which should no longer remain unsolved since with the passing of time its potential danger for world peace: increased.

Mr. President, since for the flISt time I have the privilege to make a statem~nt before this gathering of distinguished representatives from all over the world, let me say how happy I am to see you occupy the Chair ofthe President ofthis General Assembly. I know you from India and look upon you as :l personal and a dear friend of mine and of my country, and that gives me a personal sense of pride that you have been chosen for such an honour. 101. My delegation is a sponsor of draft resolution A/32/L.3/Rev.l, because it stems from the well-established principle of non-acquisition of territory through military conquest. The logical coronary of t!his fundamental prin- ciple is that the fmits of aggression shall be denied to the occupying Power. Occupation as a result of military necessity does not confer on the occupying Power the authority to alter the legal status of the occupied areas, or to change their demographic cbaralcter, or to administer such areas asifthey are its own territories. Sovereignty over the occupied lands continues to remain with the indigenous people, who retain their right to self-determination. The fundamental rights of the people: are in no way extin- guished by the mere fact of militllry conquest or occupa- tion. This principled position is ba:sed on the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, which holds that the interests ofthe people are paramount. 103. Furthermore, the occupied Arab territories were part of the former British Mandated Palestine. They do not form an integral part of Israel within the terms of the General Assembly resolution that flISt established the State of Israel. The British Mandate having lapsed, no subsequent occupymg Power can claim any right that even preceding alien occupying Powers had not·exercised. In other words, Israel has no right to annex or otherwise dispose of the occupied lands, such as by establishing settlements. The civil,political and religious rights of the Arab people of Palestine were- expressly and specifically protected, and no occupying Power may take away or usurp those rights. In any case, the law of the Charter of the United Nations, which is what now prevails and binds us together in this common world Organization, stipulates respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinc- tion as to race, sex, language or religion. These fundamental freedoms include the right of every human being to an equal share in the political sovereignty and independence of his own country. There is no doubt that the Arab people of Palestine are entitled to these rights and freedoms ~md to their protection by the United Nations. The fourth Geneva Convention clearly applies to all territories occupied by Israel since 5 June 1967, and the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied area is a glanng violation of international law. 104. So much for the law on the subject. Practical good sense also would suggest that the policy of establishing settlements in the occupied zone is not calculated to facilitate the negotiating process for an enduring and just peace. On the contrary, the policy of Israeli settlements casts doubts on the bona fides and intentions of the occupying Power. It is also of questionable value to the security of Israel, as these settlements are a permanent source of provocation to the Arab people. Isolated islands containing a total of only 6,000 Israelis in a vast ocean of Arab po!lulation cannot be more than'of symbolic signifi- cance to Israel. The overriding considerations ofpermanent peace clearly indicate that the policy of Israeli settlements is unwise and misconceived. We trust that on deeper reflection Israel would decide to follow the course of practical wisdom and dismantle its settlements in the occupied Arab areas. We also hope that the draft resolution will be adopted with an overwhelming majority, and thereafter the Secretary-General can undertake urgent contacts with Israel to ensure that this obstacle is removed from the road towards the negotiating table. 106. The Israeli leaders talk about secure boundaries in that part of the world and the recognition of Israel. In 1967 a former PriIne Minister, Golda Meir, said that Israel's secure .frontiers would extend as far as the Jewish popula- tion lived. Now Israeli official documents detennine Israeli foreign frontiers from the Nile to the Euphrates. Are these really secure boundaries that Israel wants to secure? 107. This is not the first time that this question has been considered. It has already been discussed in the General Assembly and in the Security Council many times and important resolutions have been adopted, but they have not all been implemented. 108. In view of the deterioration of the situation in the region, my country would like this question to be studied in the most detailed manner, and the resolutions emanating from the United Nations should be binding on all parties. We would even go further and provide for the application of strict sanctions against parties which do not scrupulously respect United Nations Charter and resolutions, because the state ofneither war nor peace that prevails in the region can only serve the policy of annexation of territory by Israel and its expansionist designs. Israel is defying world public opinion by occupying Arab territories and by trying to change their legal status, geographical nature and demo- graphic composition, in order to wipe the Islamic patri· mony from that part of the world as it has done in the case of the Al Aqsa mosque. We must fmnly denounce the establishment of Jewish settlements in the occupied Arab territories, and Israel must be compelled to respect its international commitments and the fourth Geneva Conven- tion in all the occupied Arab territories. 110. My country has become a sponsor of the draft resolution introduced by Egypt and we fully support it because we are convinced that the conflict in the Middle East is not merely an Arab conflict but a problem for the whole world and all those who espouse the cause of international peace and security.

On the proposal of the Egyptian Government we are dealing with an item on illegal Israeli measures in the occupied Arab territories in contravention of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. 112. We can say that for almost 10 years the situation in the occupied territories has been deteriorating dangerously. Repeatedly, either in the Security Council or in this Assembly, we have expressed our serious alarm and profound concern about the measures taken unilaterally by Israel to change the social, demographic and political nature of the occupied territories. Such acts, in addition to being an obstacle to the establishment of peace, constitute a flagrant violation of the rules. established by the fourth Geneva Convention. That Convention states very clearly that no occupying .Power is entitled to change the physical, demographic and legal nature of the occupied area. The international community cannot long tolerate the arrogant behaviour of the Israeli authorities, which continue to disregard the relevant rules and int~mational conventions. 113. The condemned measures are too numerous to be analysed in detail here in this deb9.te. I will limit myself to those which, in our view, are the most instructive. First of all, with regard to the Israeli decision to establish new settlements on the West Bank ofJordan on Palestinian land which quite clearly does not belong to Israel, Israel, to justify its true purpose which, in the end, is annexation, appeals to the dangerous expansionist doctrine of "Greater Israel", according to which the territories in question are part of the natural frontiers of the State of Israel and must not be considered as occupied territories within the meaning ofinternational law. 114. By such arguments, which to say the least are fallacious, Israel thinks it can shirk its responsibilities under the fourth Geneva Convention. 115. On another level, our Assembly must bear in mind the various measures taken by Israel to change the institutional organization of the holy places in the city of Jerusalem, in particular the El IbrabUni Mosque. 116. Very recently, when our Organization was striving to establish an atmosphere more conducive to negotiations for the establishment of peace, the Israeli Government, under cover of mere administrative considerationst tried to extend its legislation to the West Bank, clearly wishIDg to change the institutional framework ofthe occupied area. 118. We are not the only ones to reach this shocking conclusion, because the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices has already reached a similar conclusion. Moreover, the Israeli authorities do not conceal the fact. Mrs. Golda Meir asSerted a few years ago that frontier~were determined by the people that lived behind them and that if those people pulled back the frontiers would pull back with them. Recently an Israeli Minister, appealing to an aberrant notion of legal vacuum-which is supposed to apply to the West Bank-stated from this rostrum that Israel could not be reproac4eq for establishing Jewish settlements on the land of its Bibli~al ancestors. 119. Thus, the declared purpose of Israeli policy in the occupied territories is to change the general nature of those territories and to create a social, economic and cultural en°lironment which will produce an irreversible situation. . . 120. Therefore, in the foreseeable future we risk being confronted by a new fait accompli in which, in the 121. We have the right and the duty to warn the international community that, without an urgent and comprehensive solution, we may fmd ourselves in the very near future embroiled in a new and terrible crisis with the threat to international peace no longer a hypothesis but a real:danger. 122. My delegation has become a sponsor of draft resolution A/32/L.3/Rev.l because it is convinced that this condemnation of the measures taken by Israel, which have already been' disapproved of by world public opinion, will strengthen the isolation of the Hebrew State and force it to come to terms. 123. We hope that this condemnation by the world community will receive· the maximum support so as to bring Israel back to the Geneva negotiating table with a view to the establishment of peace and the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to its country. The meetingrose at 12.55 p,m. "