A/33/PV.69 General Assembly

As members are aware, the meeting scheduled for yesterday afternoon had to be cancelled owing to lack of speakers. In order that we may better organize our work in the very limited time at our disposal, I propose that the list of ~peak-ers in the debate on agenda item 30 be closed at 12 noon today. If there is no objection I shall take it that the General Assembly adopts that proposal.

The closely-knit political, military and econonti~ system of the wcrld of today has made our planet very small, and perturbations arising anywhere on the globe cannot fail to have repercussions even in remote places. Some of them, through their nature and the efforts of the international community, fortunately remain localized. Some of them affect the world as a whole. The conflict which has juxtaposed Israel and its Arab neighbours is of the latter kind, and we are all aware of this. 3. For historical and geographical reasons, Europe's rela- tions with the Middle East have been and will contirme to be close. We are convinced that Europe needs co-operation with the Arab world, in which today an old civilization is experiencing an intellectual and economic renaissance. However, the precondition of a fruitful exchange and complementary activity is a fmal and lasting settlement of the whole Middle East conflict. 4. This conflict has been before the United Nations for 30 years now. It has been debated at every session of the General Assembly, it has constantly been on the agenda of the Security Council and numerous resolutions have been adopted, without any sign of a solution. It is therefore understandable that the agreements achieved at Camp David 1 through the untiring efforts of the President of the 1 A Framework for Peace in the Middle East, Agreed at Camp David and Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty betwe'en Egypt and Israel, signed at Washington on 17 September 1978. NEW YORK United States were met with hope in Austria, as in most other European countries, although we are aware that the agreements cover only a part of the problem. In our opinion the agreements reached at Camp David ought to be viewed as a step towards a comprehensive settlement ofthe Middle East conflict: a settlement with which the other Arab States can associate themselves and one which has to include the necessary provision for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. 5. Furthermore, in attempts to tackle this C<Jlil1ict we have come to be aware that so far no viable substitute has been found for Security Council rerolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). The basic principles ir:corpo1'ated in those resolutions should form the basis from which we start a framework for peace negotiations. 6. It has been g:meraIly recognized that no settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict can be durable which does not deal With; or is neglectful of, the rights of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian problem is still at the core of the whole Middle East conflict. The Palestinians must be given the chance to participate in determining and shaping their own future. 7. To solve these problems is an enormous ~sk, but b,as not significant progress been made througliout the last years? Have the countries of the region not movEJd to what might very well be an understanding on many of t~e issues? Now,negotiationshave been taken up and a dynamIC effort for peace has started. We sincerely hope that thf;'Jse negotiations will result in a treaty which will constirnte a fITst step leading to a comprehensive and lasting solution of the Middle East question in its manifold aspects. 8. Some days ago [65th meeting] the representative of Israel stresse-d the fact that his people scattered over the globe have throughout the centuries striven for their homeland. Israel was founded with the help of the United Nations and the support of the major Powers. Israel is now accepted within the borders of 1967 not of:lly by the world community but also by its Arab neighbours. There is ample reason to apply the same logic to the solution of _the question of the Palestinians. 9. Decisions are to be made in the coming weeks which will be most consequential, decisions on the road to peace which involve risks. But we should be conscious that it would be more risky as regards the final consequence not to seize this unique chance which is offered to all the parties to the conflict. 10. Austria itself could not fail to be affected in many ways by the continuation of the Israeli-Arab conflict. We have friendly relations with all the countries involvedinit. A/33/PV.69 11. Austria has always tried to be helpful in finding a solution for this tragic conflict not only in the political field but also by material contributions. We are for instance significantly supporting the present armistice between Syria and Israel through the 500 Austrian troops that are on the Golan Heights as part of UNDOF. 12. It is not easy to reverse a process of mutual fear and distrust. It took political courage to break this vicious Circle, courage which was exhibited by the President of Egypt, Mr. EI-Sadat, in his historic visit to Israel. A bridge has been built and the opportunity thus presented must not be lost. 16. The Charter of the United Nations and the authority vested in its executive arm, the Security Council, should have seen to it more than a decade ago that the occupation, aggression and m21ssive violation of all the human rights of the popll1ation under occupation, protected under the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,2 should have ceased forthWith in accordance with Security Council resolutions themselveS\, failing which, the provisions of Chapter VII should have been applied against the recalcitrant party. The vetoes cast at the Security Council by certain major Powers have notoriously paralysed the efficacy of an international order-as enshrin~d by the founders of the Organization in the Charter-to be governed solely by legality and inter- national law. Instead, a calculated policy of procrasHnation, delays and endless d~bates has rendered the Security Council, and hence the United Nations system, a lame duck and has afforded the Zionist entity the precious time it needed to colonize, subjugate, and play havoc with the occupied lands and their people, while the world watched with agonizing frustration and helplessness as the effec- tiveness of the world body dwin~led under the devastating blows of its own impotence. Ne wonder that attendance and participation at United Natioris deliberations have fallen to an all·time low

The situation in the Middle East, which is the subject of our current debate, has been succinctly and most tellingly portrayed in the Secretary- General's 24-page report of 17 October 1978 [A/33J311- 8/12896]. Impeccable in accuracy, comprehensive, though condensed in size, it must have been a most exacting and frustrating exercise in consequence of the bewildering proliferation of events which has become a hallmark of the situation in the Middle East. A mere cursory look at the items covered by the report shows the extent to which the situation in the Middle East has deviated 0ver the years from the central issues into a heavily burdened listing of ramifications, which render the situation in the Middle East the awesome powder-keg which it is today, with no flicker of light to brighten an incredibly sordid and trai,ic bleakness. 14. A reading of the Secretary-General's report reveals a most conspicuous inability to report any progress on either the core issues or their ramifications. Even the status of the cease-fire hangs precariously in the balance by a tenuous. dependence upon peace-keeping forces, commendable as their brush-fIre role has been, on demarcation lines between an aggressive and expanding Zionist entity and the victims of its blatant aggression. In sisterly Lebanon Israel will not 17. The Secretary-Generars report, in its section Ill, describes the situation in the occupied territories. What can a situation be in an occupied territory? Many venerable States in this hall hardly need any refreshing of their memories as to what foreign occupation means in terms of physical and psychological suffering, deprivation, humilia- tion and the abominable practices of the sadistic inter- rogator and torturer, which inevitably dehumanize the fabric of whatever human impulses he and his superiors might have had. ~ven allow the breathing-space of a cease-fire and persists in carrying on, covertly and overtly, the total devastation of what used to be the lighthouse of the Middle bast. History will never forget or forgive that fiendish conspiracy to turn brother against brother, through a premeditated plan, which will be unravelled one day-and there are already some documents to support this-and which has brought so much suffering and devastation to a peaceful and highly civilized people. 18. Only this morning The New York Times showed the picture of six children stranded on the rubble of their demolisheq house in Silwad village. And yet another house near Nablus was blown up. On what. pretext? Because one person was suspected of killing Arabs said to have col- laborated with the Israeli authorities. Now, I wonder what six innocent children have got to do with a deed which was done by an individual who is already in gaol and who is probably undergoing torture. 15. The Israeli entity destroyed the L~banon because it wanted to destroy the feasibility and naturalness of a democratic society in which citizens, belonging to various creeds and persuasions and living in brotherly amity, would have presented an invidious comparison with the kind of exclusive, bigoted, self-centred and intolerant society which the Israeli entity personifies. And adding insult to injury, the Israelis blamed the Lebanese holocaust on the Pales- 19. I would only add at this point mention of the new dimension of Israeli occupation: the destruction and the 2 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. 20. Notwithstanding the Israelis' blatant, persistent and relentless undermining of the United Nations system, which is the world's only remaining hope that sustains and embodies the yearnings of humanity for legality, peace, decency and progress for all mankind, the representative of Israel, in his statement of 30 November' 1978 {65th meetingf, on the question ofPalestine, chose to malign the very United Nations as th3 reckless culprit, oblivious to the fact that the Israeli entity owes its very existence to this world body, albeit conditionally and in an areg totally different and smaller, and without the banishment of the Palestinian people from the ancestral homeland which had been theirs for tens of thousands of years of unint.errupted history. These are the indigenous people, no matter what they were called in the past. The leader of the WorId Zionist Congress, on the United Nations International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, on 29 November 1978, had the audacity to call the United Nations a cesspool. That was a calculated and" mean insult to its venerable Member States and all the great world civiliza- tions which they represent. And what sin did the United Nations commit to evoke his wrath? A few words of sympIlthy, an exhibition and a fdm-a mm which has not yet even been shown-depicting the shattered lives of an ancient and indomitable people. It was a small reparation for a colossal injustice. If the representative of the Israeli entity and the Zionist iceberg yearn to impose censorship and to silence all voices of non<onformism that speak against their rapacious and reckless ambitions, then they must search for a more subservient and accommodating forum. 21. The States members of this General Assembly are motivated by a noble motto: "Give me liberty or give me death." Their peoples fought and died for deliverance from colonialism, nea-colonialism, imperialism, nazism and fas- cism. They are a breed that cannot be scared by calumny or intimidation. 22. What do Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter have to say about illegal acquisifon and occupation, which are the core of the item at present under discussion? During the Israeli, French and British invasion of Egypt in 1956 a great President of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower, in a radio and television address on 20 February 1957, explained categorically what they mean. He said: "The use of military force to solve international disputes could not be reconciled with the principies and purposes of the United Nations. We are approaching a fateful moment when either we must recognize that the United Nations is unable to restore peace in this area, or the United Nations must renew, with increased vigour, its efforts to bring about Israeli withdrawal." President Eisenhower added: "Israel seeks something more. It insists on fIrm guar- antees as a condition of withdrawing its forces of The President added: ''We cannot consider that the armed invasion and occupation of another countl)' are 'peaceful means' or 'proper means' to achieve justice and conformity with international law. But the United Nations faces im- mediately the problem of what to do next. If it does nothing, if it accepts the ignoring of its repeated resolutions calling for the withdrawal of invading forces, then it will have admitted failure. That failure would be a blow to the authority and influence of the United Nations in the world, and to the hopes which humanity placed in the United Nations, as the means of achieving peace with justice." How timely and pertinent his warning sounds today. 23. President Eisenhower followed his words with deeds. He made it unmistakably clear to the Israelis that, unless they withdrew their forces fQrthwith, all economic and military assistance would be discontinued. It did not take the Israelis long to heed the message and to withdraw forthwith. 24. That was a kind of heyday, when the United Nations, international law and legality were both the arbiters of disputes and the sanctuary in which the victims of aggression obtained redress. 25. But when the Israeli entity today receives close to $6 billion annually in aid, directly and indirectly, through tax-deductible transfers siphoned off from the hard- working American taxpayer, who is already over-burdened with taxes, and when the Israeli military arsenal is continually swelled by the most sophisticated and massive armaments, it ·is hardly surprising that the Israelis are not accommodating, even to their greatest benefactor, much less to the United Nations, which depends for its effec- tiveness upon the collective wm of its Members, and particularly a confluence of the mighty Powers. 26. Lauterpacht, in his book Recognition in Inte171lltional Law states: "This construction of non-recognition is based on the view that acts contrary to international law are invalid and cannot become a source of legal rightJ for the wrongdoer."3 McMahon, in his book Conquest and Modem International Law, 4 states a similar view. Further, Lauterpacht- Opp~nheim'sInte171lltional Law states: "After the end of hostilities, there is full room for the application of the principle that no rights and benefIts can accrue to the aggressor from his unlawful act."s 3 H. Lauterpacht, Recognition in Internatioml Law (Cambridge, University Press, 1947), p. 420. 4 Wash~on~ The Catholic University of America Press, 1940. 5 L. Oppenheim, InteTmtioml Law: A Trelltise, 7th ed., H. Lau- terpacht, ed., vol. 11, Disputes, War ani] Neutrality (London, Long- man's, Green and Co., 1952), p. 219. 28. Indeed, the second paragraph of the preamble to Security Council resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. just as all United Nations resolutions. based on the Charter. have emphasized that no Israeli measures in the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories have any validity whatso- ever and that such measures are null and void and should be rescinded. Has adherence to the Charter and the recognized principles of international law turned the United Nation::) into a monstrous sinner in the eyes of the representative of the braeli entity and its brain-washed supporters? Perhaps tb.e Israelis, by some divine oldinance, regard themselves as above the law, which applies only to the Gentiles and to the rest of mankind. We are simple. ordinary human beings; perhaps they have a different set of laws. They may wish to present a draft resolution to this effect for the considera- tion of the General Assembly £0 we may know where we stand. 34. Since the problem of the Palestinian refugees, sub- stantially augmented since 1967 by the displacement of almost 400,000 persons, is central to the question of Palestinian national rights, it was only logical that section V of the Secreta'ry-General's report should address itself to Palestinian rights. What has become of those rights is common knowledge and I need hardly dwell on it. These rights simply do not exist in the context of the Zionist ideology of apartheid-and I repeat, ofapartheid-conquest and despoliation. 29. The exorbitant and unbearable price which the Israelis have been demanding for their mock withdrawal-at least as far as the occupied territories beyond Sinai are con- cerned-has reached the point where, in article 6 of the proposed draft treaty with Egypt, Israel demands that the proposed peace treaty should have precedence over any other document Egypt has signed in the past. 35. The Law of Return codified the Jewish people's concept of the promulgation on 15 May 1948 of its State as the State, not of the Israeli people living in the territory, but of the Jewish people everywhere. It accords to every Jew of whatever nationality or race the automatic right to colonize Palestine, while the indigenous Palestinian is committed to squatting in refugee camps-and members of many delegations have seen them with their own eyes-or to roaming the world seeking asylum,.which is in most cases denied him" Where does the world community want those 3 to 4 million Palestinians to go? Are they not human beings? 30. But Egypt is an ancient and a proud nation and it is inconceivable that it would mortgage its sovereign indepen- dence to the dictate of an aggressor. I know Egypt, and have the highest regard for it. and I am convinced, even. though I have no right to say anything defmite in this regard, that Egypt would never agree to such a diktat. Would it have to dissociate itself, for example, from its commitments to the non-aligned movement, the Organiza- tion of African Unity, the Islamic Conference, the covenant and conventions of the League of Arab States and its world-wide network of relationshj~.) with the rest of the world, let alone its commitment to the cause of the Palestinian people? 36. Since there is almost universal recognition that the Palestinian people, though exiled, do indeed exist in flesh and blood and are not phantoms created by the Arab States to serve some mysterious and sinister purpose-and what mysterious and sinister purpose they could serve I honestly do not understand-and since the whole world is agreed that the question of Palestinian restoration and redemption is at the core of the Middle East conflict, the Secretary- General's report concludes with section VI entitled "Search for a peaceful settlement". The report enumerates the painstaking efforts exerted over past decades, and partic- ularly over the past decade, to bring about a peaceful settlement, but to no avail. I remember a frustrated Gunnar Jarring going to ·and fro between the c;apitals directly concerned, and I remember meeting him in the United Nations Secretariat, when I told him what was happening and he said, "Well, do you have anything to tell me? I do not have anything to say. I do not have anything to 31. It is very reminiscent of the d~ys of the British protectorate over Egypt-and I still remember the writings of Lord Cromer-before mankind surged forward, with Egypt in the vanguard taking pride of place in the glorious procoss of emancipation, decolonization and the achieve- ment of sovereign independence. 32. Most of the libr.ration movements in the world have had their abode and have found sanctuary in Cairo, which was their focal-point, and I am sure that the people of Egypt will Jive up to their great traditions. 38. First, it was a matter for the Palestinians to decide, in an appropriate way, by a plebiscite or by an election, to accept the plan or not. That was never done, either by means of United Nations machinery-I believe there was a Committee created by the United Nations Special Com- mittee on Palestine-or by the British Mandate authol'ities. The Palestinians did not have a Government to dec~de on at::ceptance or a declaTation of war. We had no Government. There were local national committees attending to the day-ta-day needs of the ordinary citizens but, I repeat, we had no Government and therefore we could not, even if we had· wanted to, declare war-after which we would have been told that we were not entitled to what was our share of Palestine under United Nations resolutions. The Pales- tinians were naturally dismayed It the dismemberment of their cmUltry and expressed their disenchantment in speeches-I remember those speeches-in declarations and in a few riots and protests, immediately after the adoption of the partition plan. But it was the Israeli military machine which seized the opportunity, a few days later, to launch an organized, all-out attack against the wholly disarmed Falest:nian people during the Mandate. Any Palestinian who had even a bullet on him was liable, under the British Mandate, to death by hanging. I can very well understand the Israeli military machine defending the newly created Jewish State within tte boundaries ,delineated by the General Assembly relOolution. But what was totally in violation of the resolution, the Charter and international law was for Israel to have attacked and seized four fifths of Palestine, including substantial areas earmarked for a Palestine Arab State, even before the British Mandate came to an end, on 1S May 1948. The British Mandate authnrity simply disintegrated, melted away. 39. Secondly, the contingents from neighbouring Arab countries did not enter Palestine after the end of the Mandate to destroy Israel, but simply to save the remnants of the Palestinian people from relentless attacks, massacres and evictions by the Israeli forces. 40. The British Foreign Secretuy of that period, the late Mr. Bevin, was given assurances to that effect by the Arab States which had sent limited contingents of their troops for this humanitarian re~cue operation. They had no 6 See Ofrrcilll Records ofthe General A ssemb."y, Fourth Sellion, Ad Hoc Political Committee, AM~, voJ. 11, document A/927t aMexes A and B. 41. Since 1967 the Israelis have striven tirelessly to prevent the implementation of resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (l973), adopted unanimously by no less a body than the Security Council, while they have paid lip service to those resolutions. The Israeli entity has declared an official annexation of the whole of Jerusalem and, by on-the- ground colonization, a de facto annexation of substantial portions of the occupied Palestinian and Arab lands. My delegation has listed these annexations and colonizations in statements in the Special Political Committee on the item concerning Israeli practices {item 55/; I therefore do not need to repeat that list here. The whole world has, naturaiiy enough, categorically rejected these expansionist measures as null :md void. But the Israeli entity regards itselfas above and beyond international law. For, after all, how can humanity cOmpete with alleged divinity? I think we should be more modest in our attitudes. How can a peaceful settlement be achieved under such a false, distorted and spurious perspective? Are the Israelis serious in thinking that the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world would ever agree to capitulate and sign their own death warrant? 42. To revert to the Law of Return, it evidently provided a built-in expansionism that no boundaries, however they may be drawn-at Geneva or anywhere else-can hold. To substantiate this fact, I should like to quote from the horse's mouth. After the 1967 war, General Dayan, the present Foreign Minister of Israel, giving expression to the expansioniSt dogma, stated the follOWing: "Our fathern had reached the frontiers which were recognized in the partition plan. Our generation reached the frontiers of 1949"-the Israelis grabbed land and expanded here, there and everywhere; that is what General Dayan was referring to-"Now the six-day g~nera­ tion has managed to reach Suez, Jordan and the Golan Heights. That is not the end. After the present cease-fue lines, there will be new ones. They will extend beyvnd Jordan-perhaps to Lebanon, and perhaps to central Syria as well." 43. Israelis have good centres for Arab and Islamic studies. They have been capitalizing on this claim and selling it as a commodity to other Governments' intelligence services, alleging that they know the Arab mentality best. All I can say is that they have never seriously probed or understood the innennost psychology of the Arab peoples, who are patient but never prone to abject surrender. 50. At the request of the British Government, the Council of the League, on 16 September 1922, passed a resolution effectively approving a separate administration for Trans- jordan.t 0 That separate administration continued until the Territory, on 22 March 1946, attained independence as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. 45. Does the representative of the Israeli entity not know that Sherif Hussein of Mecca was not only irrevocably opposed to the alienation of Palestine-the heartland of Arab and Islamic history and its legacy-but also chose to give up his throne over a great and united Arab domain rather than consent to the illegal and immoral Balfour Declaration. In that age of colonialism-that was many decades ago-Sherif Hussein was put on a British warship and exiled to Cyprus, where, as one of"the first martyrs of the Palestinian .cause, he died a lonely but honourable death. The people of Palestine honoured his fidelity and great patriotism by insisting that he be buried in the holy sanctuary which comprises the AI-Aqsa Mosque. As his body rests in the sanctuary of the Haram e]-Shareef, his soul will forever live in the hearts and minds of every Palestinian Arab. 51. It was only in Palestine that the Mandate, with its inherent injustices and contradictions, deprived the Pale,;- tinians of their independence-which had been provisionally recognized in the Covenant-and created the conflict which has afflicted and continues to afflict the Middle East and, indeed, the world in its entirety. 52. Where do we go from here? The only way to achieve a peaceful settlement is as follows. 53. First, any resolution of the conflict in the Middle East should be within the framework of the United Nations and its relevant resolutions. 54. Secondly, such a settlement should be reached with the participation of all the parties to the conflict, including, of course, the Palestine Liberation Organization /PW/, which has been recognized by the United Nations as well as by all the Arab States as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. :46. As for the claim of the representative of Israel that a Palestinian Arab State had already been in existence for 32 years on more than three-fourths of the territory of Mandated Palestine-the State which is now called Jordan- my Government takes it as further evidence-if evidence were needed-that General Dayan was indeed expressing Israel's unalterable designs of eX9ansion into the State of Jordan. Let me answer as follows. 55. Thirdly, such a settlement should be based on justice and equity and the right of every people to self-deter- mination and statehood. This is one of the cardinal principles fIrst enunciated by that great idealist, Woodrow Wllson, and now universally and unquestionably accepted as the inalienable right of all peoples everywhere. 47. Firstly, the Palestine Mandate itself was invalid be- cause it incorporated the B ~four Declaration?-3 deal between two men, Rothschlld and Balfour-in violation of the sovereign rights of the people of Palestine and against their will. Those two men sold a whole nation into slavery. That was a deal made between two gentlemen while th~y were probably sipping scotch and smoking cigars. That deal also violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which had recognized the provisional indepen- dence of the people of Palestine-and here let us also recall the King-Crane Commission-with a view to the achieve- ment of its basic objective of ensuring the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the Mandated Territories. It also violated the solemn pledges regarding independence made in the Hussein-McMahon agreements.8 After all, it should not be forgotten that we fought for four years on the side of the Allies. 56. Fourthly, the Vance-Gromyko.statement of 1 October 1977 on the convening of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East must be implemented. I did not draft that declaration; it was the Secretary of State of the United Sta~es and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union who came to that agreement. 57. Fifthly-and. last but by no means least-a change of heart on the part of the Israelis is required for them to accept to live and let live in amity and equity with their Palestinian and other Arab neighbours. 58.. Justice, peace and security abide in the minds atid ~ hearts of people. ] have said so on several previous occasions. Raw power can never be a substitute. That is the reason why the Ninth Arab Summit Conference, held in Baghdad in November, recently rejected not peace but th~ 48. But, quite apart from the inherent invalidity of both the Mandate and the BalfouT Declaration, and even though Palestine and Transjordan-as it was then called-were included in the same Mandate, they were treated as distinct districts and Territories. 9 See The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem, Part 1: 1917-1947 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.78.1.19), an- nex V. 10 See league of Nations, Official Jou17I/l1, 3rd Year. No. 11 (November 1922), Armex 420, pp. 1390-1391. 7 Ibid., Second Semon, Supplement No. 11, vol. U, annex 19. 8 See Co"espondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif HUSlein of Mecca, Parliamentary Papers, Cmd.5957 (London, H. M. Stationery Office, 1939). 60. The history of the conflict between the Arab countries and Israel proves that neither peace nor security in the Middle East can be achieved without the settlement of all the basic issues in the region. A fUndamental issue in the Middle East conflict is the question of Palestine, lying as it does at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East. It was decided 30 years ago that a Palestinian State was to be established on an area twice as large as that of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but that land was occupied and annexed by Israel during the four wars it waged against the Arab countries. It is essential to remind those who disregard the realities, the roots and the current dimensions of the conflict that today Israel is established on Palestinian lands and that ever since 1948 Israel has persisted in its expansionist policy, until it seized the larger part of Palestine. 61. In recalling these historical facts we endorse the right of the Palestinian people to existence, to their land a.nd to a State of their own within secure borders; those are the rights of oppressed people who live in exile or under the yoke of occupation as aliens in their own land. The Palestinian people possess the right to an existence free and safe from occupation and subjugation. Yet they are ignored by certain States, which negotiate at their expense, in their absence and in total disregard of their usurped rights and their heritage. Those States refuse to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people and to accept the establishment of a Palestinian State. But no State can exist at the expense of another. The ,Palestinian people have the same right as the Israeli people to self-det:rmination, and the same right to set up their own State in Palestine. 62. One of the fundamental conditions of establishing a' just peace is that the Palestinian people be allowed to exercise their inalienable national rights, to set up an independent State on their land and to enjoy the right to self-determination on equal terms with any other people. This will lead the region towards peace. We cannot but deplore the reluctance of certain States to support the cause of the Palestinian people within the framework of a comprehensive Middle East settlement. It has been and remains our basic position that the question of Palestine- namely, the implementation of the legitimate and inalien- able right of the Palestinian people to sovereign national existence, to a homeland and to return thereto-is the 63. My country has always supported the genuine libera- tion movement of the Palestinian people. We feel that the participation of the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, on an equal footing with the other parties is really indispensable to any efforts, delibera- tions and conferences relating to the Middle East. 64. Another basic factor in the Middle East crisis is Israel's occupation of Arab territorie$ and its refusal to withdraw its military forces within the boundaries that existed between Israel and the Arab countries prior to the war of 1967. In fact, ISrael has taken effective measures in the occupied Arab territories in order to alter their geo- graphical, demographic, political, social and cultural char- acteristics, and to annex those territories. Such steps constitute an overt violation of the fourth Geneva Conven- tion relative to the Protection ofCivilian Persons in Time of War. The expansionist nature of Israel's policy has 'been confirmed once again by the invas!on of south Lebanon. At the same time, the military, economic, political and moral support of certain States only encourages Israel's per- sistence in its aggressive policy and its usurpation of Palestine. Such a policy does not, of course, help the search for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. It is in fact a flat violation of the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring territories by means of war as embodied inter alia, in the' Charter of the United Nations and in the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. It is an indication that Israel is carried away by expansionism. Obviously, annexation and integra- tion of the lands of other peoples can only lead to a perpetuation of enmity and hatred. Such a policy endangers the foundations of a possible understanding between Israel and its Arab neighbours. The continuing occupation and the possibility of a consequential new military explosion represent a permanent threat to the whole world. We believe that the recognition of the boundaries that existed prior to the 1967 war between Israel and the Arab countries is the only reasonable basis on w}1Jch a settlement of the Middle East conflict can be reached. .. 65. The international community is faced with a most dangerous conflict in the Middle East, which poses a grave' threat to international peace and security. Unless a solution is found, the tension could ea!lly spread beyond the confmes of the Middle East, and thus turn a regional conflict into a major international catastrophe. This lllakes it necessary to adopt decisive measures for a- political settlement of the conflict: fllSt, on' the basis of a comprehensive settlement of the complex issues; secondly, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and with the resolutions of our Organization; thirdly, with the participation of all the parties directly involved in the conflict; and fourthly, in the framework of an international peace conference. All of us know full well that there exists already appropriate international forum for the consideration of all or several of the basic issues of the Middle East conflict and, as a result of deliberations, ,the formal endorsement of the right ofeach country in the Middle East to be absolute IlUiSter of its own destiny and to ~ould be reached within the framework of a comprehen- Sive settlement. It is explicitly noted in that statement that negotiations within the framework of the Geneva Con- ference set up for this purpose are the only correct and effective way of achieving a settlement of all aspects of the conflict. It is noteworthy also that in that statement one of the Co-Chairmen admitted for the first time that a Middle East settlement should ensure the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and that representatives of all the part.ies invo~v~d, in~luding those of the Palestinian people, should partIcIpate ID the Conference. Wf believe that the impor- tant provisions of that joint sta'.ement are still valid and serve as a basis for a comprehensive solution. We are nevertheless at present witnessll,,'8 attempts to replace an over-all settlement by separate deals. The related talks create a climate that places in jeopardy the vital interests of the peoples of the region and impedes the achievement of a :stable and lasting peace. This situation emphasizes anew the need to return to the international Peace Conference, to be convened on terms which exclude the possibility of separate deals and ensure consideration of the whole range of questions involved in the Middle East crisis . . 67. In conclusion I should like once again to reaffirm our position that a global settlement of the Middle East conflict can be achieved only through the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from all the territories occupied in 1967, the restoration of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to establish its own State, and guarantees of the peace and security of all the States of the area. Unless a solution to these problems is found, the situation in the Middle East will remain a source of permanent danger to world peace.

The General Assembly is discussing the question of the Middle East at a time when that sensitive part of the world is going through a very decisive and serious phase of its existence. It would not be exaggerating to say that the Middle East for some time now has been at a cross-roads: either there will be a just and lasting peace in the area that involves all the peoples and States of the region, or the status quo of obstructionist policie~ will be preserved, which would undoubtedly plunge the area into an ex- tremely serious situation that would affect peace and security throughout the entire world. 69. That is why the Secretary-General is not going too far when, in his report to the General Assembly on the work of the Organization for 1978, he states: "The Middle East situation, for a mixture of compelling reasons, vitally affects not only international peace and security, but the interests of the world community as a whole." {See A/33/], sect. IlL] 70. On various occasions during discussions in the General Assembly Egypt has observed that the international com- munity represented in our Organization is fully aware of the consequences that might flow from preselVation of the status quo and also of the delaying tactics that hamper the achievement of peace and the attempts at sabotage that are sometimes made. That is why, mindful of its respon- sibilities, the General Assembly, on behalf of the inter- national community, has indicated that it categorically rejects any attempt to validate Israeli occupation or to continue to obstruct asolution or to reject the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, and it stressed the need to take appropriate action should it prove difficult to make further progress towards a just and lasting peace. That is why we consider it the duty of the international community to encourage all efforts likely to lead to a just and lasting solution and to adopt. a firm attitude in connexion with any manoeuvres that would be likely to impede or sabotage the process towards peace. 71. It is in this cause that Egypt has formed its own policies and taken various steps in the past. Egypt will spare no effort to undertake initiatives, particularly within the United Nations, with the aim of rmding a comprehensive ~lution to the Middle East problem. The General Assembly IS already aware of Egypt's pOSition, which has been stated at various sessions of the General Assembly, and has always supported that position unanimously. However, it seems that some of those that advocate peace are at the same time trying to impede or even to sabotage peace. But Egypt is determined to work towards peace; it is the path we have chosen, and it has been supported by the international community. As I have said before at this very rostrum, the process of peace is much more difficult and complicated than fighting a war because it is a process that requires a considerable sense of responsibility and a tremendous capacity to stand up to any attempts that may be made to block a solution. . 72. Egypt has always persevered and will continue pa- tiently and resolutely to persevere in its efforts to ensure ' the restitution of Arab rights and the withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces from Arab territories. It goes without saying that the international community as a whole observed closely the efforts being made by Egypt, and particularly the initiative taken by its President, Mr. EI-Sadat, last year. This is an initiative which the Secretary-General referr~d to in his most recent report [A/33/311-S/12896]. _ 73. The efforts that have been made up to now have led to the drafting of the Camp David documents. I should like to make it quite clear here that this was not the ultimate goal of the process ~ut rather only the very beginning of the process. This is a context which we hope will produce the sort of lasting and just peace which we all advocate and for which we are all working. According to President EI-Sadat, those agreements are a fundamental step forward towards this goal. 75.. First, since the Israeli aggression against the Arab countries in 1967 and since the occupation of the terri- tories of three Arab countries, the international community and, particularly, the United Nations have constantly affirmed the need for the faithful implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (l967) in all its parts, as well as the need for all ways and means to be explored to put an end to Israeli occupation and to ensure that the Palestinian people recover their legitimate rights. This is why the first Camp David document, which is entitled, "A Framework for Peace.in the Middle East", dwelt on the fact that the peaceful settlement must be based on Security Council resolution 242 (l967) and that all its paragraphs, of which the most important concerns the inadmissibility of the acquisition of the territory of others by force, must be implemented. The document further stipulates that peace in the Middle East must be based on the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant provisions of international law. This is the solution which Egypt has always advocated. 76. Secondly, the international community has expressed grave concern about the fact that the situation in the Middle East is frozen and about the preservation of the status quo. That is why the international community has made an appeal for the creation of conditions which will make it possible to overcome the obstacles and difficulties which Israel has tried to put in the way of the international community. The latter has always affirmed the solution which we ourselves have advocated: namely, a just p:;ace in the Middle East that must necessarily be based on the total withdrawal of Israeli troops and the restitution of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. 77. Thirdly, it is on this basis that Egypt has built its own policies. Egypt has endeavoured by every means in its power, by using all its potential since 1967, to achieve these two major objectives, basing itself fir~t on the adoption of resolution 242 (1967) and then subsequently on the efforts of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to The Middle East, Mr. Gunnar Jarring, and the negotiations between the four Powers held in New York and taking other initiatives in various internat;onal bodies, of which I will not give an exhaustive list here. Then came the October war of 1973 which completely changed the situation as it then was and produced evolution in the status quo as a result of which the region had been about to founder by reason of the adamant intransigence of Israel and its obstructionist policies. 78. Fourthly, Israel tried to minimize the consequences of the October war and to resume its delaying tactics and its obstructionist policies, until the initiative was taken in November last year by President EI-Sadat to try and unfreeze the situation so that the necessary efforts could be made to reach a just and lasting peace in that part of the world. 79. Fifthly, I fear it is my duty to reaffirm here two fundamental principles, namely, that the twv Camp David 80. Sixthly, the principles and the provisions dealing with the West Bank and Gaza aim at the creation of a new state of affairs which will run completely counter to Israeli plans and will mean that the just Arab demands will be met, including that for the particiption of all parties, without exception, in the negotiating process in order to solve the Palestinian problem in all its aspects and to ensure the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, as is clearly and frankly stated in the Camp David documents, for we remain convinced and persuaded that the very heart of this problem is the Palestinian cause. President EI-Sadat made this abundantly clear in the message which he sent on 29 November last to the United Nations on the occasion of the celebration of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People [A/33/401, annexl. 81. Seventhly, Egypt's view of the Israeli settlements in Arab territories and occupied Palestine is well known. Not only the General Assembly but also the Security Council shares our view. 82. Eighthly, and lastly, the principles and the framework which have been worked out for the withdrawal of Israel from the Sinai confmn the application of the principle of withdrawal up to the international frontiers. This principle is equally applicable to the Golan Heights. The inter- national interpretation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) requires withdrawal by the Israeli troops from all occupied Arab territories and not merely from portions of those territories. 83. It is my pleasure in this connexion to state that the international support given to the attempts made by Egypt, whether in the past or in the present-a support that has been maintained o'ver the years-crowns the efforts and sacrifices made by Egypt throughout its history, both ancient and modern, out of a conviction of its mission to promote civilization· in this world. It is to be noted that, fortunately, only a few disagreed with the consensus which emerged to that effect by continuing to opposcf'peace effocts and turning the Palestinian question and the question of the future of the Palestinian people into a subject for barter, like the policies which have been quite recently practised by others. 84. The path leading to peace in the Middle East is an open one, and every person who truly believes in peace must take part in the efforts being made to bring about a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. As far as we are concerned, we will continue to persevere until Arab rights have been totally restored. At the same time we will oppose all those who are impeding the peace process.

The Middle East crisis is considered to be one of the most grave issues threatening international peace and security. In the past 30 years the Middle East region has been the theatre of four destructive wars and a zone of unceasing conflict. If the conflict were·to continue it could wen give rise .to an international conflagration of un· imaginable dimensions. 87. In the face of this crisis the international community has expressed its disquiet through the medium of this Organization by adopting various resolutions calling upon all Members, and in particular the members of the Security Council, to meet their commitments entered into under the I United Nations Charter and to strive in all sincerity to eliminate focal-points of tension and the threat to inter· national peace and security. 88. The question of Palestine and the tragedy of the Palestinian people are the fundamental causes of this crisis. Ever since the United Nations assumed the responsibility of fmding a solution to it this problem has been on the agenda of the General Assembly. This was so even before the treacherous aggression committed by Israel against its neighbouring Arab countries in 1967-an act of aggression which was part of the implementation of the Israeli policy of expansion and of extending Israeli control over all of Palestinian territory and the regions belonging to neigh- bouring Arab countr:~s. 89. Since then, Israel, with the support of its allies, has tried to make the Middle East crisis a frontier crisis between it and the neighbouring Arab countries, and has tried to make the question of the Palestinian people, whose territory has been usurped, a problem of refugees in the care of UNRWA and other humanitarian organizations. The occupation of the Golan Heights, Sinai and the rest of the territory of Palestine, namely, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, by Israel in 1967 has never concealed the substance of the problem. 90. Resolution 242 (1967), which the Security Council adopted after the aggression of June 1967 did not really go to the heart of the problem, and even disregarded the existence of the Palestinian people. Israel has done nothing to implement that resolution, particularly as regards with- drawal from all the occupied Arab territories and recog· nition of the inadmiSSibility of the acquisition of territory by force. Aside from the flaws in the resolution, Israel has made no effort to implement it, continues its occupation of the territories, and seeks to consolidate that occupation by 92. Any attempt to solve the Middle East problem must be concentrated on the Palestinian problem, which is the very heart of th~ conflict in the region. My delegation believes that the following principles should constitute the basis for any negotiations designed to bring about a just and las~ing over-all settlement of the Middle East problem; first, the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their horaes and the right of those who do not wish to return to be compensated must be recognized; secondly, the inalien- able right of the Palestinian people to self-determination must also be recognized. The right of the Palestinian people to set up an independent State on their national territory ill Palestine, and the need for the withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied Arab territories, including the Arab city of Jerusalem, follow from these two principles. 93. An overwhelming majority of the States Members of this Organization have alre~dy endorsed these principles and recognized their legitimacy. Indeed, the entire world has adopted the principles contained in Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which af(U'ms the necessity of Israel's withdrawing completely from all the occupied Arab territories and recognizes the inadmissibility of the acquisi- tion of territory by force. It would be paradoxical if ongoing negotiations and peace efforts disregarded the will of the majority in respect of a settlement of the Middle East problem. Every effort undertaken to bring about peace in the region must be conducted within the framework of the United Nations, the Organization which was originally responsible for the crisis from which the Palestinian people have been suffering. We are convinced that the talks held outside the framework of this Organization in recent months· constitute a challenge not only to the United NatiQn~ and its Charter but also to the Geneva Peace ~ Conference on-the Middle- East,. which was established to seek an over-all settlement of the problem. Attempts to bypass the Geneva Peace Conference and to search for solutions outside the framework of the United Nations, in disregard of the' principal party, represented by the PLO, are manoeuvres designed to ignore the main feature of the crisis, which is the right of the Palestinian people to return to, and to fonn an independent State on, their national territory. Nothing that is done without regard fa:: this

The problem of a Middle East settlement has been at the very centre of the attention of the General Assembly for many years. It has frequently been considered by the Security Council, which has adopted some extremely important decisions designed to bring about a just and peaceful settlement ofthe Middle East conflict. These decisions of the Security Council and those of the General Assembly adopted at -its most recent sessions have defined the basis and the means of bringing about a political settlement of the Middle East problem. 95. Important aspects of the Middle East problem, includ- ing the question of Palestine, have been considered at this session of the General Assembly, which has again confIrmed the inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine and the need for the participation of the PLO in any negotia- tions or agreements concerning Palestine. 96. TUs Organization's constant and close attention to the situation in the Middle East is fully understandable and justifIed. It is prompted by the fact that a hotbed of explosive tension has long existed in the region of the Middle East, threatening world peace and security. The absence of a settlement of the Middle East conflict gives rise to serious concern among those who cherish the interests of the people of the region and the cause of peace and security not only in that region but throughout the world. 97. As can be seen from the discussion of the Middle East question in the United Nations, in recent years the content of the decisions adopted by this Organization has been significantly strengthened and understanding not only of the substance of the Middle East conflict but also of the ways and means of solving the problem has increased. The overwhelming majority of States Members of the United Nations proceed from the premise that, if a just and lasting peace is to be achieved any settlement of the Middle East problem must be based on the following conditions; Israeli troops must be withdrawn from all the Arab territories occupied by Israel in 1967; the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including their inalienable right to form their own natio,nal State, must be guaranteed; and the security of all-I emphasize "all"-States of the Middle East and their right to an independent existence and develop- ment must be guaranteed. 98. These basic and interrelated requirements for a Middle East ~ettlement take due account of the legitimate rights of all parties directly involved and form a just and realistic basis for a settlement. 99. At the same time, it is particularly important that there be ever greater recognition in the world ofthe need to solve the Palestinian problem, within the framework of a comprehensive settlement, through the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine: Such recognition has been clearly reflected in the decisions of the 100. Although the basis for a radical and comprehensive political settlement of the Middle East conflict has been clearly set out in pertinent United Nations resolutions, there still exists in the Middle East tension that is fraught with the danger of fresh outbreaks, and the reason for this is also clear. It derives from the stubborn refusal of Israel and those forces on which it relies to take into account the legitimate rights and interests of the Arab peoples, and from Israel's determination, either by force of arms or through diplomacy, but in any case from a position of strength, to impose its will on the Arabs. 101. The ruling circles of Israel pursue a policy of colonization of the seized Arab lands, a policy of annexa- tion and inclusion of those lands in Israel itself. They stubbornly impede implementation of the legitimate na- tional rights of the Arab people of Palestine. 102. Bent on consolidating the results of its aggression against neighbouring Arab countries and peoples, the Government of Israel, with the aid of the United States, is actively accumulating armaments and equipping the Israeli army with new deadly forms of weapons producea by the United States·and is carrying out the broad militarization of the country. From the very beginning of its existence, Israel has accounted for approximately one half ofall the military and economic aid provided by the United Statps to foreign States. Israel annually spends for.military purposes approxi- mately one half of the State budget and ranks frrst in the world in terms of per capita military expenditure. The policy of the militarization of the country has converted Israel into a producer of weapons and, in fact, a weapons dealer. It is typical that the main importers of Israeli armaments are the racist regimes of southern Africa. 103. As Mr. A. A. Gromyko, a member ofthe Politburo of the Central ~ommittee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Minister for Foreign Affairs of tJie USSR, stated at this session of the General Assembly: "If Israel genuinely cared for its security-real, not illusory, security-it would ·seek a political solution. For the fact is that with existing means of warfare the distance from the borders to which a neighbouring State has withdrawn its guns is of little consequence. What is required here is a radical break-through towards a situation in which the guns would be altogether silent." [8th meeting. p(,'!'a. 59.1 104. Reports that Israel has or in the near future will have nuclear weapons are particularly sinister in this respect. There is no need to prove the danger that would entail for the peoples of the Middle East, including the Israeli p,;ople themselves, for suclt a new complication could certainly threaten the peace of the whole world. It is no coincidence that the participants at the Belgrade Conference of Min- isters for Foreign Affairs of Non-aligned Countries deci- 105. The situation in the Middle East is gravely com- plicated by the recent attempts to undermine an over-all Middle East settlement by separate deals, by the attempts to divide the Arab people and to impose upon them unequal conditions in such deals, conditions which favour only Israel and the imperialist forces supporting it. Agree- ments concluded on a separate basis under the auspices of the United States can only be regarded as a conspiracy planned at the expense of the Arabs and behind their backs, for the purpose of helping Israel to consolidate; its position in the occupied Arab territories and Palestinian territories, and preventing the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. 106. The separate deal at Camp David expresses a virtual refusal of the participants to accept those principles of the settlement of the Middle East conflict which are contained in resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly and which are generally recognized. 107. Instead of the withdrawal of the Israeli troops from . all of the Arab territories occupied by them in 1967, the separate agreements in effect endorse the continuance of Israeli occupation of a considerable part of Arab territories. 108. Instead of satisfying the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including their right to form their own State, the basis of those agreements is the Israeli position of sabotage of those rights, a position which is designed to perpetuate the plight of the Palestinian people, so that they would remain completely without rights, and, in effect, to eliminate their national existence altogether. 109. Instead of guaranteeing a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East with the participation of all the interested parties, the Camp David agreements provided for the conclusion of a separate peace between Israel and Egypt by the acce~}tanceof degrading Israeli conditions. . 11o. It is clear that separate steps on the basis of such agreements do not resolve any of the main problems of the Middle East and do not remove the factors which have given rise to the Middle East conflict. 111. It is therefore quite natural that the policy of separate agreements has been broadly condemned, partic- ularly by the Arab States and peopl~s. It has already been pointed out that the -participants at the Baghdad Con- ference of Heads of State and Government of Arab countries decisively rejected the results of the negotiations at Camp David and opposed those separate deals, pointing out that they will not lead to the establishment of a just peace in the Middle East. 112. The Baghdad Summit Conference statement [A/ 33/400, annex] confirmed the dedication of the Arab countries to the cause of the establishment of a just peace on the basis of tlte withdrawal of Israeli troops from all 113. The decisions of the Baghdad meeting represent a major accomplishment of the patriotic forces of the Arab world. 114. A meeting was recently held in Moscow among the leaders of the Communist and Workers' Parties and the Governments of the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Hungary, th~ German Democratic Republic, Poland and Czechoslovakb, at which the present situation in the Middle East was discussed. That meeting issued a precise statement about the question in which "it resolutely condemned the policy of separate Egypt·Israeli deals under United States auspices, which can only lead to new dangerous complications in the region". The participants expressed their conviction that such separate anti-Arab deals clash with the aim of the at~ainment of a comprehensive political settlement in the Middle East that would satisfy the interests of all the peoples of the region, including the Israeli people, and are contrary to the cause of i..1'J.ternational security and the provisions of United Nations resolutions. 115. The leaders of the Communist and Workers' Parties and Governments of the fraternal States declared their support of the decisions of the Baghdad Conference of Heads of State and Government of Arab countries and considered that thos~ decisions would play an important and positive role in the struggle to bring about an effective and just settlement of the Middle East problem in the interests of the Middle 2al.-. and the whole world. 116. An unjust peace, no matter in what manner it is foisted upon the Arab peoples, 'cannot be durable. The General Secretary of the Communist Party 'Jf the Soviet Union and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet ofthe USSR, Mr. L. I. Brezhnev, emphasized: ..Any attempts to ignore the radical prerequisites of a true settlement of the Middle East problem and to exclude or circumvent these or those legitim~te parti- cipants in a settlement, to sacrifice their interests and to dictate terms to them, can provide nothing more than the lllusion of a settlement. No matter what the 'framework', the separate conspiracy covering up the capitulation of one party and consolidating the fruit of aggression of the other-the aggression of Israel-is capable only of making the situation in the Middle East even more explosive." 117. The perpetuation of constant tension and hostility in the Middle East, as a result of the absence of a settlement of the basic causes of conflict, is not in the interests of the Arab peoples or of the people of Israel. The Soviet Union has frequently emphasized the need for a prompt, funda- mental and comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, in 118. Attempts to proceed by means of separate deals are in contradiction with the task of eliminating the dangerous focal-point of tension in the Middle East. The attainment of an authentic settlement will be possible only if the policy of separate deals is abandoned and there is a return to the principle of collective efforts by all the parties concerned. 119. The Soviet Union proceeds from the premise that, as in the past, objective possibilities continue to exist for the solution of the fundamental problem of a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East. The reliable course to adopt towards such a settlement is that of negotiations within the framework of the mechanism specially estab- lished for such a purpose-the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East-with the participation of all parties directly concerned, including the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The Soviet Union ~ntihues to advocate the holding of such a conference. It must be held in conditions which would make it impossible for it to be turned into a screen to hide all kinds of separate deals which would be detrimental to the attainment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. 120. The Soviet Union will continue to pursue a con- sistent policy of seeking to eliminate the dangerous focal-point of military tension in the Middle East, particu- larly as that region is very close to the borders of our own country and other countries members of the socialist community. 121. The Soviet Union maintains unswerving solidarity with the Arab peoples who are struggling to eliminate the oonsequences of Israel's aggression and bring about a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East. 122. In this situation it is the duty of the United Nations, we believe, actively' to support efforts to bring about a comprehensive Middle East settlement with the participa- tion of all interested parties, in keeping with the funcia· mental resolutions of the United Nations on the subject. 123. We are convinced that a just and comprehensive settlement in the Middle East will be possible if the deci~ionsof the General Assembly and the Security Council are complied with by all parties couccrned.

We fmd in the Middle East one of the most dangerous sources of international tension, consti- tuting a threat to universal peace. This thirty-third session of the General Assembly has a particular responsibility for settling the Middle East conflict. The hope that the peoples and States concerned, using the machinery set up for that purpose-the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle "... vital interests of the peoples of this area as well as the interests of strengthening peace and international security in general urgently dictate the necessity of achieving as soon as possible a just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This settlement should be comprehensive, incorporating all parties concerned and all questions.... including such key issues as withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict; the resolution of the Palestinian question, including insuring the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people; termination of the state of war and establishment of normal peaceful relations on the basis of mutual recognition of the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence." The joint opinion was expressed that negotiations within the framework of the Geneva Peace Conference which was specially designed for that purpose, with the participation of rep,resentatives of all parties to the conflict, including the Palestinian people, would represent the only reliable and effective course to pursue. The Geneva Conference was to have resumed its work not later than December 1977. All parties to the conflict were invited to recognize the need for a sober acknowledgement of each other's legitimate rights and interests and to demonstrate their mutual readiness to act accordingly. 125. All peace-loving people throughout the world wel- oomed that important statement, but the agressor was seized with. fear, because it appeared that for the flut time it would be isolated and its protr.acted aggression would be brought to an end, in accordance with the provisions of United Nations resolutions adopted by various United Nations bodies over a number of years. What then happened? Under the influence of the Zionist "lobby" and of its great Power interests, the United States embarked on another course, a course which led to Camp David and to the drafting of documents which favoured the aggremsor. The ruling ci1cles in that country were unable realistically to assess the course of events in the Middle East. By means of separate agreements, they attempted to bring about ~"n imperialist settlement-in other words, an imperialist deal- and for that reason we are now witnessing a worsening of the situation in the Middle East. 126. The results of the Camp David meetings have turned the facts upside down. They deny that the Israeli aggression against Arab territories was the direct cause of the Middle East conflict. They overlook the fact that the key problem in reaching a settlement of the Middle East crisis is the enjoyment by the Arab people of Pal~~tjF'3oftheir right to self-determination. They affIrm their intention to exclude &I1d eradicate-although this is impossible-the sole legiti- mate representative of the Palestinian people, the PLO. The chief culprit, Israel, can continue its aggressive colonial policy of occupation. This, as it happens, is borne out by the news that has just :eached us of the brutal destruction of settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan. dow the continued presence of the forces of occupation can be 130. The Government of the German Democratic Re- public supports the demands made by most of the Arab States for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories occupied in 1967; the recognition and assurance of the national rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including their right to self-determination and to the \::reation of their own State; and the guaranteeing of the security of all States and peoples of the area, including assurances of their independent development, the recogni- tion of and respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of each and every State in the area and of the right of its citizens to live in peace and security. Y,27_ Last week, in the debate on the question of Palestine, some of the representatives w~n spoke attempted unsuc- cessfully to hoodwink the General Assembly and even to insult the United Nations. They stated that the debates here had not changed in 30 years and that the resolutions adopted by the United Nations on ~he ~it~,atio~ ~ th.e Middle East were one-sided or, as they put It, sterile. It IS not particularly surprising that those representatives should continue to attempt to play down the fact that there have been repeated Israeli acts of aggression over the last 30 years. Nor is it surprising that the emergence of an unshakable will on the part of peoples to receive justice in the United Nations is regarded by those representatives as "sterile"_ This ploy, which consists in shouting "s~op, thief" and at the same time wheeling and deaIi--:g on one's own is too familiar to be effective. The Arab peoples and most other peoples throughout the world have, despite such manoeuvres, seen quite clearly the anti-Arab orientation of the Camp D'~'l'dd agreements. The Conference in Baghdad of leading representatives of Arab countries gave those who offer these separate deals an unambiguous reply. In the joint statement of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of the German Democratic Republic and the Council of Ministers of the German Democratic Republic on 1 December this year, the follow- ing is said: 131. The German Democratic Republic believes that, by reaching a settlement, it will be possible to put an end to the state of war and eEtablish peaceful relations in the Middle East on the basis of binding obligations undertaken by all parties. All parties must participate in any attempt tl) settle the Middle East conflict. This is particularly relevant with regard to the PLO, which has been recognized by the United Nations as the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people ofPalestine. 132. The German Democratic Republic also believes that, through the collective efforts of all parties concerned, it will be possible to get the Middle East conflict out of the deadlock reached as a result of the separate talks. The most acceptable way would be to make active preparations for the Geneva Conference on the Middle East to resume its work under the co-chairmanship of the USSR and the United States of America and with the participation of the PLO. The Government of the German Democratic Republic supports the r~solutions of the Ninth Summit Conference of Heads of State or Government of Arab States in Baghdad aimed at strengthening the united front of Arab States in promoting peace and security. Those resolutions, as is stated in the Moscow declaration [A/33/392-S/12939/ by leading representatives of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, the Hungarian People's Republic, the German Democratic "The German Democratic Republic resolutely con- demns any such separate deals as those concluded at Camp David which bear in themselves the seeds of fr.esh confrontation and which have been unanimously rejected by the Baghdad Summit Conference of Arab States. The German Democratic Republic will continue to advocate a just and comprehen~ive settlement, since this is the only way to establish a genuine, just and durable peace in the Middle East." Repl~blic, the Polish People's Republic, the Socialist Re- public of Romania, the Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, will play ~n important and positive part in attempts to bring about an effective and just settlement of the Middle East problem in the interests of furthering peace in the Middle East and throughout the world. 128. A perusal of the Camp David documents has prompted us to attempt the following clarification. Those who were directly or indirectly involved in those separate agreements have no right whatsoever to play fast and loose with the institutions of the United Nations or with the United Nations flag. The delegation of the German Demo- cratic Republic shares the view that the Camp David agreements have absolutely nothing to do with the United Nations and that they 'Ire fundamentally at variance with both the Charter of the United Nations and its resolutions on a settlement of the Middle East conflict. 133. On the occasion of the recent visit paid by the President of the Syrian Arab Republic, Mr. Hafez AI-Assad to the German Democratic Republic, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Gennany and Chairman of the Council of State of the German Democratic Republic, Mr. Erich Honecker stated: 129. In this connexion I should like to remind the Assembly of resolution 31/62, adopted by an overwhelming majority, which states: "A just and democratic settlement of the Middle East conflict is a matter of the highest priority for ensuring tlte rights and the freedoms of peoples in that part of the world and also peace throughout the world. We continue ..