A/40/PV.104 General Assembly
I propose that the list of
speakers in the debate on this item be closed t~is afternoon at 5 o'clock. If I
hear no objection it will be so decided.
It was so decided.
May I request
representatives wishing to participate in the debate to add their names to the list
of speakers as soon as possible.
Mr. NETANYAHU (Israel): I should like to start with a question. Why do
we have two debates this week? After all, the same points are going to be repeated
by Arab speakers and their supporters in both debates and here is what they will
say: "The Palestinian problem is at the root of all the turmoil in the ~
East." They will accuse Israel of causing this problem and then they will demand
that Israel comply with their ideas for a solution, which range from Israel's
political dismemberment to voluntary sui' ideo I do not think I am going out on a
limb if I make a forecast - and it is generally difficult to make forecasts on the
Middle East, but I will make one none the less. I think that in this second debate
we shall hear exactly the same points that those speakers have already made in the
debate on the question of Palestine. The question therefore is, Why have two
debates? If the same claims and arguments are going to be made twice, why not save
everyone the time, the trouble and the money and have just one discussion? And
since we are speaking of money, let me point out that each hour of a General
Assembly debate costs $8325. That is a lot of hours and a lot of money. Why not
save it?
The only possible justification for a second, different debate is to discuss
the real subject of this debate, namely, the 'situation in the Middle East. That is
precisely what I propose to do. I plan to talk about the ~ajor conflicts that
currently beseige the region and warrant the attention of the General Assembly.
Th~ General Assembly, after all, is ostensibly a body dedicated to helping resolve
these conflicts.
1 do not think that is an unfair or an unreasonable proposal. After alIi the
Arab-Israel conflict - or as it is called herle the -Question of Palestine- -
already receives a great deal of attention: in fact, it seems so far to have
dominated the agenda of all the plenary meetings this week. It has been discussed
in the SPecial Political Committee~ it has been discussed in the Second Committee~
it has been discussed in a host of other special committees, conferences, reports,
letters, documents. In fact I do not think there is any other item that consumes
so much of the General Assembly's - or for that matter the United Nations - time
and attention. But this General Assembly that finds all that time to discuss this
subject cannot find the time to discuss, say, a conflict - not a minor conflict, a
major conflict - like the Iran-Iraq war, which has so far devoured over a million
lives, or Libya's occupation of Chad, or the Syrian slaughter in Lebanon, or the
spate of hijackings, kidnappings, assassinations and other acts of violence
ingpired and ordered by leaders of Middle East countries.
I should like to set the record straight. 1 ~hould like to delve into each
and every case and give it, and give also the human suffering that each of these
conflicts generates, the attention it deserves. But I cannot. I am not going to
because that would take too much time and, as I have said, too much of our
resources. But I do have a suggestion. The Assembly has before it a list compiled
from the Foreign Broadcasting Information Servicp.. It is a calendar of Middle
Eastern violence for 1985 to date, or almost to date. This list is by no means
(Mr. Netanyahu, Israe~)
exhaustive, it gives only press reports of various incidents, mostly from Arab
sources. It does not include incidents relating to Israel, for the reason I have
just given; that is not even discussed adequately. Given that it is widely agreed
that we are dealing, at least in terms of violence, with what is generally
considered to be a non-eventful year, this is a remarkable compendium. I should
like the Assembly to turn the pages. I will have this distributed as an official
document of the united Nations under the relevant resolutions, but I should like to
read just a smattering of the most recent events, say from OCtober. These are:
8 OCtober, bombs explode in Libyan consulate in Athens; 9 OCtober, Achille Lauro
hijack; 10 OCtober, one passenger on Acbille Lau~ ki11ed~ 15 OCtober,
assassination attempt on saddam Hussein; 21 OCtober, Saudi authorities execute two
pr inces for attempted coup in september; 29 OCtober, two Japanese diplomats
kidnapped in Beirut; 7 Noverrber, Iraq bombs Kharg Island; 8 Noverrber, syria
explodes bombs in Nicosia; 11 November, Egypt uncovers Libyan assassination plot;
12 Noverrber, assassination attempt on Lebanese diplomat; 23 November, Palestinians
hijack Egyptian plane, 57 dead.
There have been more incidents since.
That is a catalogue of bollDingS, .kidnappings, assassinations, executions,
coups, hijackings and border incursions, not to mention outright war. The targets
are diplomats, journalists, emassies, airline officials - you name it. The
victims, and for that matter the perpetrators, are Iraqis, Moroccans, Sudanese,
Lybians - basically, people holding every passport in the Arab world. When it
comes to victims, the list expandsJ it includes Americans, British, French,
Italian, Swiss, Dutch, Soviets, Japanese and many others.
I defy anyone here to produce such a list for any other region in the world.
Tha Middle East, in fact, is ~~e most violent and turbulent area of the globe.
None of these conflicts, none of this violence, has anything whatsoever to do with
Israel or, as it is called here, the question of Palestine. None of these
conflicts and none of this violence was found suitable for discussion in the
General Assenbly, not even the use of poison gas in the Persian Gulf, the bonDing
of open citles by both Iran and Iraq, their attacks on neutral shipping, or their
torture and murder of each other's prisonars of war. None of those monstrous
violations of the most basic international principles was found fit for discussion
in this body, which is ostensibly the guardian of those principles.
I should like to ask one or two other questions. Why has not the General
~Bsembly found even a brief moment to discuss the international thuggery of Colonel
Qaddafi? What has he done in the past year? It is not fully itemized here, but I
should like to take the Assembly on a brief tour, counter-clockwise, stacting with
Libya's immediate neighbour to the West, Tunisia. In the past year Qaddafi has
supported an insurgency against Tunisia and massed his troups on Tunisia's border.
That, by the way, prompted Algeria, another neighbour to the west, to concentrate
its armies on Libya's border. There was a period then of great tension.
(Mr. Netanyahu, Israel)
What else has Qaddafi done? .Let us turn to Morocc:o. At the beginning of the
year he. supported the POLISARIO rebels against the M;)roccan regime, and then he
struck a deal with Morocco in which, among other things, he received an exiled
political dissident, Ornar fitJhaishi, whom his goons promptly murdered.
We move on to Niger, where Qaddafi fomented an insurgency, as he does in Chad,
wher~ he occupies one half of the country and to which he sent a suitcase full of
expluaives in an attempt to destroy Hissein Habre's cabinet. He financed several
abortive plots in the Sudan - I am now moving eastward - and he also trained
anti-Government rebels in the south of that country. He is also active in Somalia,
where he is bankrolling the insurgent Somali Salvation Front.
I now Skip across to Iran, where Qaddafi has sent SCUD missiles to bomb Iraqi
cities and has supported subversion within Iraq itself. And, of course, in recent
days he has come close to a full-scale military confrontation wi th Egypt, Which,
incidentally also foiled his last assassination attempt in Cairo.
We have almost closed the circle and I will close it now. We went from
west to south to east~ now let us go north. North is the Mediterranean. There is
a little island there - Malta. Qaddafi has been supporting the various
anti-Egyptian front groups that have staged many of the recent attacks, including
the hijacking of the Egyptian aircraft to Valletta. Apparently, those groups
carried out: that action on his behalf, probably led by Abu Nidal, who - not
coincidentally - now resides in Tripoli.
That brings us to Qaddafi's well-known support of terrorism world-wide, from
Latin American groups to the Irish Republic Army (IRA) in Ireland and the Red Army
in Japan. One would be hard pressed to find a region or a country which Qaddafi
has not meddled in or committed aggression against. Yet the General Assembly has
(Mr. Netanyahu, Israel)
not devoted a moment to this man or his regime, which poses these risks to
international peace and secur ity.
I wish now to give one other .example from the Middle East that I think drives
the point home: Syria. I should like to review its activities in the past year,
too, again going counter-clOCkwise, starting with Jordan. Syria began the year by
assassinating Jordanian diplomats abroad, setting off bombs in various facilities,
buildings and institutions in Amman and even dispatching hit teams into Jordan
itself to dispose of rival PLO leaders - that is, rivals of the Syrian subsidiary
of the PLO.
What about Syria's policy towards Iraq? We are now moving east. Aside from
supporting Iraq's rival, Iran, militarily, Syria regularly launches into Iraq
assassination teams whose predilection is the Syr ian special ity, car bonDs - ~
bombs a la Syrie. They really go at it. Here is how a press release from the
Iraqi Mission to the United tations described the latest of those attempts a few
days ago:
"Four terrorists admitted on Baghdad Television last night that they had
helped Iranian agents carry out bomb attacks in Baghdad over the last three
years in which many people were killed or wounded. The terrorists said they
were based in Syria and worked with Syrian intelliqence."
Then that detailed press release, of which I am sure all representatives have a
copy, describes, among other things, how those terrorists had taken a truck loaded
with 3 tons of explosives to carry out a Syrian mission, to cross into Iraq and
detonate those 3 tons of explosives. I do not know whether representatives know
"lhat 3 tons of explosives can do; 3 tons of explosives could destroy this entire
bullding - everything. It is a IllJch more power ful amount them was exploded in the
(Mr. Netanyahu, Israel)
barracks in Beirut. The truck, appare'ltly, was so heavy with explosives that it
,got stuck in the sand and did not make it.
Moving north, we come to Turkey, where the Syrians are supporting subversive
groups, providing them with training and money and helping them infiltrate the
country.
Next, and last, we come to Syria's real playground of horrors Lebanon" What
have the Syr ians not done in Lebanon in the past year? A few moo ths ago they
bombed and destroyed a good chunk of Tripoli. They killed 400 and wounded
thousands and theJ'!' installed Alawite bosses - fai thful to Syr ia, of course - in the
city. In the ~Jkaa Valley Syrian officers are busy collaborating and profiteering
to the extent of hundreds of millions in the international drug trade, which
crosses through the Bekaa to international drug routes.
In Beirut, Syria ordered the Amal militia to assault the refugee camps, and
this too resulted in hundreds dead and assorted atrocities - taking people out of
hospitals, murdering people - the lot. Representatives have read about these
things, 1 am sure. Syrian intelligence agents set off car bombs in east and west
Beirut, again resulting in hundreds dead. This is very much in line with Syria's
policy of divide and conquer. It sets one faction against another~ it sets the
Druse against the Shiite Amal, the Shiite Amal against the Sunuis and, of course,
all the Moslems against the Christians.
Syria is not exactly bashful about resorting to international terrorism of
terrorism against its immediate neighbours. It has a long record of using its
intelligence services, embassies, front groups like the Eagles of the Revolution to
spread terrorism throughout the Middle East and Western Europe.
Has the General Assembly devoted any time to this rr~nace to international
peace and security? It has not devoted a second to it.
(Hr. Netanyahu, Israel)
Why not? What prevents it from doing so? The answer is sillple and I think
everybody here knows it. The discussions in the General Assefti)ly have beco_ a
farce. They are used by the many to wage political war against the few. If enough
like-,linded countries decide to gang up on one country, they will do so. As we all
Jr..!!ow, the Arabs have the numersl they determine the agenda. They decide that the
queltion of Palestine will dominate the Assembly's time, and it does. They decide
that issues that deserve discussion should be swept under the rug, and they
are - although I must say that by now the pile of refuse under the rug is beginning
to bulge, and everyone can see it.
No fairminded person can accept the preposterous pretence that the turbulent
conflicts raging everywhere in the Middle East - I have just touched on a few - can
be forced into the so-called Palestinian straitjacket. If the General Assembly was
seriously interested in discussing the situation in the Middle East, it would
considelr resolutions very different from the ones that are presented during this
debate. I have a proposal for such a resolution. It would read something like
this:
-The General Assembly,
-Gravely concerned at the continuing wars and armed conflicts that ravage
the Middle East,
-Noting that the United Nations is determined to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war,
RRecalling that all Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any State,
-Noting recognized rules of international laws relating to armed
conflict, and
-Recalling further the Declaration on Principles and International Law
Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations, and the Declaration on the Strengthening of
International Security,
"1. Calls for the immediate termination of the use of warfare forbidden
and outlawed by international lawJ
"2. Calls upon all States in the Middle East to take tangible,
immediate, and effective steps to restore regional peace and stabilitYJ
"3 9 Invites ·all countries in the region to recognize that genuine peaee
can only be based on an effective dialogue between all States in the Middle
East, based on mutual recognition and respect for the principle of
sovereignty. •
We all know that such a simple, straightforward and truthful resolution does
not stand a chance here. Until it does, this debate is meaningless.
Mr. KASRAWY (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): When the Gener.al
Assembly discusses the item on the situation in the Middle East, it reviews a very
well-defined item. Its framework was structured at the special emergency session
held in 1967 and the discussions that took place during the 18 years that followed,
whether in the General Assembly or in the Security Council.
Those discussions have affirmed a basic fact that cannot be doubted. The fact
is that the core of the problem of the Middle East or the Arab-Israeli conflict is
the problem of Palestine and the continued Israeli occupation of Arab territories
since 1967. It has become clear to all that this conflict cannot be ended except
through a comprehensive settlement based on right and justice.
The Palestinian question has been with the United Nations since its inception,
and the United Nations assumed a special responsibility towards this problem when
it decided to partition Palestine in 1947. Its Members have bsen anxious to find a
just solution for that problem, beginning with a commitment to return to the
Palestinian refugees their homes and territory.
The Arab-Israeli conflicts arose because of the lack of a just solution to the
Palestinian problem. It led to five wars, causing havoc, d~struction and human
losses. Today, the General Assembly embarks once again, al1d for the eighteenth
time, on a discussion of this item, only to find that the much sought after
settlement still eludes us and that the situation in the area is fraught with
tension, violence and instability, and is creating a feeling among the peoples and
( tntries of the region that they lack real security and tranqltillity.
The question which suggests itself is: for how long will this area remain
prey to tension and instability? For how long will this vicious circle remain?
For how long will we remain bogged down in discussions and analyses without taking
effective concrete measures in order to break this vicious circle and without
putting an end to the cycle of violence and turmoil, and establishing peace and
justice and the restoration of usurped rights to their legitimate owners?
During the last four decades, the discussions in the united Nations,
especially after the war of 1967, produced declarations and resolutions, here and
in the Security Council, concerning the Arab-Israeli conflicts and the question of
Palestine. These resolutions emphasized the need for speedy action to achieve a
comprehensive settlement based on durable, honourable and just peace, a peace that
can be accepted by the present generation, a peace that can be recommended for
future generations to maintain and to develop. Parallel to these resolutions are
the peaceful ideas and initiatives proposed by nations w1.thin and out Bide this
Organization, all of which emphasized the need to put an end to the tremendous
sUfferings of the inhabitants of the region and on the need to create a climate of
peace and stability for all, through compliance with the basic principles which
command almost universal support.
The most important of these principles, which have been emphasized more than
once in the successive debates on this item and in the va~1ous relevant
resolutions, which formulated the framework for the much sought after settl~ment,
might perhaps be recalled. In doing this, I should like to emphasize that what we
need, first and foremost, is serious and earnest action in order to translat.e these
principles into action, away from sterilized debates or from any attempt to empty
these resolutions of their real content.
(Mr. Kasrawi, Jordan)
Among those impo~tant ptinQiples are the following: first, that a just and
durable peace cannot be brought about except on the basis of the principles of
international law and of the Charter. Foremost among these principles is the
inadmissibility of the acquiaition of territory by force and, consequently, the
need for Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories occupied in 1967, including
Jerusalem, on the basis of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), based on the
principle of -land for peace-. Secondly, there would be the recognition of the
legitiMate rights of the Palestinian peopl~, inclUding its right to
self-determination in its own land and national soil.
(Mr. Kasrawi, Jordan)
Thirdly, the right of all States and peoples in the region to live in peace and
security within internationally recognized borders. Fourthly, no action likely to
" alter the demgraPlic or geographic character of the occupied Arab territory should
be taken.
Israel should therefore abide by the pr inciples of international law regarding
the duties and responsibilities of the occupying State, especially those relating
to the prcwisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is no accident that the General Assembly hastened to adopt resolutions
2253 U:S-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of July 1967, by which it refused to recognize the
measures taken by Israel regarding the annexation of Arab Jerusalem, because it
realized the dangerous precedent created by such Israeli measures in the occupied
Arab territories.
This reflected the concern of the international community about Israel's
intentions as regards the acquisition of Arab territory. These intentions do not
serve peace but, to the contrary, render peace efforts more difficult and
COIIplicated •
We in Jordan took the initiative in the security Council and drew attention to
the seriousness of these Israeli measures, especially those regarding the
annexation of Arab Jerusalem, the creation of settlements in the occupied Arab
territories and the repressive measures taken againat the Arab inhabitants living
under occupation.
We wish to record our thanks to the States which responded to our efforts.
However, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the security Council has
emphasized in a number of resolutions its condemnation of the Israeli measures
regarding annexation of Arab Jerusalem; some of those resolutions were adopted
unanimously, including security Council resolution 267 (1969).
(Mr. Rasrawi, Jordan)
Moreover, the Council previously rejected the policy of establishing
settlements which it considers illegal and an obstacle to peace efforts and a
comprehensive solution. In addition, the Security Council rejected the annexation
of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.
I repeat these facts only to show how obstacles were placed in the way of a
peaceful solution, and to point out what was intended by those who say that the
road to a peaceful settlement is complex and difficult. The complications and the
creation of obstacles are due not to us but to Israel.
We wish to record with deep regret the fact that the international community
was somewhat complacent regarding Israel, and especially about those States which
assist and support Israel, thereby encouraging it to intensify its activities which
are at variance with the principles underlying a peaceful solution and which enable
it to counter any attempt to force it to refrain from such activities, thus giving
it the impression that it can cootinue its policy of holding on to the Arab
territories while expressing its desire for peace.
We in Jordan were the first to draw attention to the danger of this
developnent and its negative impact on prospects for peace in the region. This was
made quite obvious when His Majesty King Hussein emphasized clearly and forcefully
on more than one occasion that the option for Israel is either to keep the land or
to have peace, because it cannot have both at the same time.
We in Jordan and the Arab world want peace and the restoration of rights, and
have geared our foreign policy to this objective. Moreover, we have responded to
all serious peace efforts to find a comprehensive and just solution on the basis of
the principles recognized by the international community.
We have tried since 1967 to implement Security Council resolution 242 (1967)
in its entirety because we are convinced of the importance of a just peace, because
we are directly involved in the Arab-Israeli territorial dispute, and because of
our close historic ties with the Palestinian problem and the fact that we share the
tragedy of the Palestinian people which is unprecedented 1n history. Since the
beginning of this tragedy, Jordan has sympathized with the Palestinians and
believed in our colll!lOn destiny. We took action to defend them and their rights.
we have joined them in a display of historic unity which reflects the common will
of the Palestinian and Jordanian peoples. Jordan has shared with its Palestinian
brothers all its potential, including sources o'f livelihood. we and the rest of
the world have, for the past 18 years, come to kl'C7of the suffer ings of the
Palestinian population en the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip which were caused by
the repressive actions of the OCC"upation aut.horities arid the terrorism of the
settlers. However, we have not heard protests against or any cendellllation of the
violations of human rights in the occupied Arab territories such as we hear through
the mass IIedia when people are arrested somewhere else, as if the human rights of
the Palestinians - unlike others - can be violated with impunity as long as the
violations are committed by Israeli soldiers or settlers.
The fact which the international community should bear in mind is that Israel
has used the time factor during the past 18 years to establish settlements on the
west Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. The amunt of land confiscated on
the West Bank now represents almost one-half the total area of the West Bank, quite
apart from the settlement drive in the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Israeli
policy tries to deny Palestinians the right to live in the remaining 20 per cent of
the original land of Palestine, and our fear is that Israel will transform this
people into nomads who can be dr iven completely from their homeland. This Israeli
policy demonstrates that Israel prefers to keep the land and obstruct any progress
towards peace in this area.
(Hr. bsrawl, Jordan)
And yet efforts to achieve peace constitute the basis of security Council and
General Assembly resolutions, as well as all other ~nternational efforts and
initiatives designed to reach a comprehensive and just solution.
Aware of the dangerous situation in the occup~l.ed Arab territor tes, and of the
dangers of the time factor by wich Israel tries to proDDte its expansionist
policies to the detr iment of the Arabs and Palestinians., Jordan, together with our
Palestinian brothers, errQarlced on attempts to reach a just Md peaceful solution
based on the restoration of the occupied Arab lands and the rights of the
inhabitants to their legitimate owners.
On this basis; we adopted a clear a."d aDjective position reqard!ng the
situation inside the oc~pied Arab territories, since we feel it is important to
save the people and the land from occ"";ation and to break the deadlock over the
Palestinian question and the Arab-Israeli conflict that is a result of the state of
no war and no peace.
The colllllDn mcwement with our Palestinian brothers culminated in the
Jordanian-Palestinian Agreement of 11 February 1985 between His Majesty King
Hussein, and Mr. Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PID), wich emphasized the desire of the Palestinians themselves to reach a just
peace.
(Mr. Kasrawi, Jordan)
That agreement em~asized the desire of the Palestinians to reach a just peace
and was intended to break the deadlock in the peace process and give an impetus to
the efforts made within a practical and positive framework to reach a solution
based on the principle of "land against peace" and the various internaticnal
resolutions on the question of Palestine. The agreement called for a negotiated
settlement through an inte~national conference, to be convened under the auspices
of the United Nations, with the participation of the five permanent menDers of the
security Council, as well as all the parties concerned in the conflict.
we feel that effective and speedy action should be taken through the convening
of an international conference to achieve a negotiated settlement that will
guarantee justice, peace and dignity for all. We emphasize that we should not let
this opportunity slip by and urge all countries to work for the convening of the
conference. After four decades of the Palestinian problem and the Arab-Israeli
conflict, it is high time to achieve a just and lasting peace and create a better
future, through constructive action, not force and the imposition of
faits accoqJlis.
In this connection, I should like to pay a tribute to the 5ecretary-General
for his report of 22 OCtober 1985, in which he states:
"'we face today a world of almost infinite promise which is also a world of
potentially terminal danger'. In an age when technology threatens to run
ahead of our capacity to restrain the use of increasingly destructive weapons,
no regional conflicts confront the United Nations with a choice between those
alternatives more urgently than the Middle East problem." (A/40/779 and
Corr .1, para. 42)
(Mr. Kasrawi, Jordan)
That is the option that faces the region, the option of peace and justice, a
peace that can be accepted by present generations and passed on to future
generations, or the continuance of the conflict and violence that now pre~ail in
the region as a result of reliance on militaT.y force and the continuing use of that
force by Israel, which inevitably lead to counter-action. The present generations
have suffered enough. They have a right to look forward to building a future based
on security and stability and to conditions of a just and honourable peace in which
they can fulfil their aspirations and enjoy their rights.
The United Nations has a great responsibilty in this area and it is invited to
shoulder it effectively and firmly.
Mr. FAKHOURY (Lebanon) (interpretation from Arabic): Once again we are
discussing the question of the Middle East, a region that is greatly troubled and
suffers from instability, insecurity and the absence of peace.
The q~estion of Palestine remains the essence of the problem whose
consequences Lebanon has had to bear for 10 years, experiencing sUffering that no
other country has known. Lebanon is a country with a problem that must be solved
with the support of this Organization, its Members, its Secretariat and its
machinery.
The Secretary-Genera1's report to this session on the matter is clear and
frank and deserves our appreciation and attention.
It is only natural and logical that the Palestinian people should continue to
strive to regain its land usurped by Israel, after the failure of the United
Nations to enable that people to exercise its legitimate right of return to 'its
homeland, self-determination and the establishment of a State on its national ~oit.
Lebanon, which has embraced hundreds of thousands of our Palestinian brothers
evicted from their land since 1947, has for years been subjected to Israeli acts of
aggression and occupation in the south and in the Bekaa. The most recent of these
(Mr. Kasrawi, Jordan)
was the act of aggression in 1982 in which Israeli forces entered the Lebanese
capital of Beirut. Israel's justification for that act of aggression was the need
to protect its northern border by eliminating Palestinian resistance and
liquidating the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
Israel has deliberately not mentioned the most important of the objectives of
those acts of aggression, that is, the elimination of Lebanese democracy, which is
a challenge to the regime and the philosophy of the Zionist State. Israeli
occupation of Lebanese territory lasted more than two years, and had it not been
for the Lebanese national resistance - which is legitimate under international law
and norm - and the damage suffered by Israeli military forces it would not have
withdrawn from most of the regions in the south and the Bekaa.
That withdrawal was in no sense implementation of the relevant resolutions of
the Security Council and the General Assembly. It came about as a result of the
strikes against Israel by the Lebanese resistance. Proof of that is the fact that
Israel still refuses to implement those United Nations resolutions, still refuses
to withdraw completely from Lebanon and still insists on maintaining a security
cordon on Lebanese territory, where it maintains some units of its regular army in
addition to illegal surrogate forces, such as the Lebanese army of the south or the
so-called Lahad army. Israel still prevents the United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon (UNIFIL) from carrying out its mandate and stationing men on the common
frontiers to assist the Lebanese State in exercising its sovereignty throughout its
territory to its internationally recognized borders and making the south a region
of s~curity and peace.
As long as Israel continues to reject those resolutions, Lebanon will need
UNIFIL to fulfil its mission and demonstrate the effectiveness of the United
Nations and its machinery in implementing its resolutions.
(Mr. Fakhoury, Lebanon)
It is worthy of note here that those international forces, which have limited
potential, are carrying out their work in very difficult circumstances and are
frequently subjected to harassment, violations and aggression by the Israeli army
and its agents, as is mention~d in the Secretary-General's report on the Force.
We should like to express the thanks and appreciation of Lebanon and its
people to the international Force, its leadership, soldiers and personnel.
In addition to its continued occupation of some Lebanese territory, Israel
maintains a right it has given itself: the right to re-enter areas it has already
left, blockading cities and villages and bombing them, kidnapping the young people
of thoge cities and villages, intimidating the elderly~ the women and the children
there, violating the airspace and territorial waters of Lebanon with its military,
naval and air forces, and bombing civilian targets.
Today Lebanon has submitted to the Security Council and the secretary-General
a complain~ against Israeli practices against Lebanon. That complaint will be
circulated as an official document of the General Assembly and the Security Coun~il.
Though Lebanon has previously submitted many complaints concerning such
practices to the Security Council, calling for the adoption of purely humanitarian
resolutions seeking to end the Israeli practices and to protect civilians under the
Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the Security Council has regrettably been unable
to arrive at a unanimous resolution on the subject.
We have issued repeated warnings that the Council's inability to adopt such a
resolution will lead Israel to believe that it has no obligations as a Member of
this Organization and that it can persist in its practices and its aggression with
impunity. As a matter of fact, the day before yesterday Israel launched an
aggressive attack deep inside Lebanese territory, when a military force of 250
(Mr. Fakhoury, Lebanon)
soldiers supported by tanks and personnel carriers raided the region of Rashayya,
north'of the so-called security zone. That raid lasted for 12 hours and claimed
the lives of more than 15 people, including an officer of the Lebanese army, while
three members of the local security forces are wounded or missing.
The Israeli Defence Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, has confirmed that raid,
describing it as part of Israel's general strategy to combat terrorism and protect
Galilee. To what terrorism is Mr. Rabin referring? Was not that raid itself an
act of terrorism by the Israeli State against the civilian population and villages
in the south, in the Western Bekaa and in the Rashayya district in Lebanon? The
Secu~ity Council's mandate gives it a direct and L~ediate responsibility for the
maintenance of security and the prevention of aggression. That is a heavily
responsibility, for the verdict of the people is harsh, and the judgement of
history is harsher. The responsibility of the Security Council is not confined to
adopting resolutions; it extends beyond that, to implementing them, to demonstrate
its real will to fulfil its mandate to maintain international peace and security,
and preserve the credibility of the United Nations.
It is a duty of all the Members of this Organization, particularly the
members, both permanent and non-permanent, of the Security Council, to support the
efforts of the Secretary-General and his assistants. The solution of the Lebanese
problem depends on a solution of the problem in the south; until that is achieved,
the continued crisis must not prevent the search for solutions. Lebanon has a
right to receive assistance from the international community, and it has a right to
seek such assistance from this Organization.
According to Lebanese law, all Lebanese have equal rights and duties. All who
reside in Lebanon are subject to Lebanese authority by reason of national
sovereignty, which is indivisible. Lebanon will never renounce any part, no
(Mr. Fakhoury, Lebanon)
etter how small, of its sOl7ereignty a.Ter its territories or its responsibility
towards those who reside in Lebanon. No such sacrifices as Lebanon has made, and
no such tragedies as the Lebanese people have endured for the sake of the
Palestinian cause and our brothers the Palestinian people have been suffered by any
other coamtry. That is recognized by the Palestinian leaders thelllBelves.
Lebanon's oolll1litment to the Palestinian cause is firm, but Lebanon will not allow
any part of its territory to remain beyond national Lebanese sovereignty. It will
oppose any discussion by any regional or int€rnational bodies or organizations of
any question its considers to be an internal matter.
The General Assemly usually adopts a resolution to provide economic
assistance for Lebanon, and we call upon it to adopt a similar resolution at this
session. We appeal to friendly and sister countries to contribute to that effort.
There is no need to determine which has priority, detente or security, before
States contr ibute; what is most important is that as soon as possible the State
should receive the means to build up Lebanon's socio~conomic infrastructure. The
estimated cost of reconstruction and development runs into tens of billions of
dollars, a cost which could not be borne by any single country.
We have great confidence in Lebanon's future. OUr faith in a unified Lebanese
people is firm, and efforts are continuing to achieve national reconciliation.
What is necessary now is that the international community and this Organization and
its Members should have a real understanding of our problem and provide material
support for our rights, moral support for our efforts, and mater ial support for our
potential, so that Lebanon can again become what the Asserrbly knows it to be and we
know it to be; the messenger of good, of love and of giving, for its own society,
its region and the whole world.
(Kr. Fakhoury, Lebanon)
Mr. ABULHASAN (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic): As we all know, the
area of the Middle East was the cradle of the revealed religions, which advoc&te
love, kindness, compassion and brotherhood. However, instead of this
characteristic turning the heart of this area, namely Palestine or the Holy Land,
into an area of peace, security and tranquillity in congruence with its name, it
has subjected it through the ag9s to foreign invasions, perpetrated in the name of
religion, the latest of which was the Zionist invasion which, in most of its
aspects, reminds us·of the Crusades in the Middle Ages.
Like the Crusades, which turned this peaceful area into an inferno for
centuries and which ended with the defeat of the foreign usurpers, the zionist
invasion has once again turned this area into a field of war and turmoil in a way
that threatens not only the peace and security of the area but also the peace and
security of the entire world in successive and continuing periods.
This Zionist invasion, thanks to the varied and massive western support and
assistance it receives, has crystallized into an entity enjoying a gigantic
military capahility out of all proportion to its size and seeking to impose the
will of ~hese extraneous elements not only on the area itself hut also on the
international community which, unfortunately, had played, through this world
Organization, an important role in the creation of that entity, which has brought
to the area nothing but war, tragedy, disaster and suffering.
The Arab countries warned those Powers which were supporting the plans of
World Zionism that their positions, which contravened the essence of justice,
equity and the right of peoples to self-determination, were bound to have
grave consequences in that sensitive area of the world. Those Powers, however,
continued to support those plans until World Zionism was able to achieve its
imperialist goals at the expense of the peace and security of the Middle East as
well as of the peace of mind and serenity of its peoples.
Today, as we remind those Powers which helped to create the zionist entity of
what they have done, it is not our intentl,on to point the finger of accuNtion or:
blame once more at these countriesJbut rather to remind them that, by continuing to
extend help and support to the aggressiv~ party in the Middle East, they are taking
the same path that had led earlier to the Middle East area being pushed to the edge
of the abyss.
The Middle East has been the scene of turmoil sin~e the early days of the
Mandate imposed over Palestine by the British for a quarter of a centur~a period
characterized by a series of upheavals and uprlsings by the Palestinian people
against the Mandatory Power and the opening of Palestine to illegal Jewish
immigration.
Then came the end of the Mandate in the manner familiar to all of us, coupled
with a bloody war which ended in the creation of a Zionist entity by brute force on
part of Arab Pelestine. That entity, unfortunately, gained the blessing of the
world Organization as a result of well-known international pressures, despite the
fact that such an act was in flagrant violation of the principles of the Charter
which provide for the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force.
Then came the 1967 war, which ended with the occupation by the Zionist entity
of the remaining part of Arab Palestine, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights and
the Egyptian Sinai.
The period of consolidation of the aggression which followed was characterized
by three basic aspects.
First, Israel decided unilaterally to annex Arab Jerusalem, despite the fact
that it is an integral part of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied
since June 1967. It also declared the whole of Jerusalem as its capital in
violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and is still applying those policies and
refusing to comply with the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security
(Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait)
Council, which demand that all legislative and administrative measures and actions
taken by Israel, the occupying Power i which have altered or purport to alter the
character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and, in particular, the basic
law on Jerusalem are null and voiJ and must be rescinded forthwith.
Secondly, the declaration by Israel of its decision to impose its laws,
jurisdiction and administ~ation on the occupied Syrian Galan Heights and the
continuation of this situation until today, in spite of "he fact that Security
Council resolution 497 (1981) considers this act null and void and having no effect
in international law demand that Israel should rescind forthwith its decision and
determine that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, continue to apply
to Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967.
Thirdly, the continued application of. repressive and expansionist policies
and practices in the occupied lands of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, notably
the illegal expropriation of Arab land and the continued establishment of Jewish
settlements in the occupied territories, is in violation of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, as are also other practices annually condemned by the world
Organization on the basis of the reports of the Special Committee to Investigate
Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied
Territories.
Together with these efforts to consolidate the Zionist aggression, the
ultimate aim of which is to impose successive faits accomplis, there is yet another
sinister attempt to impose Zionist military dominance over the whole area through a
series of aggressive acts against neighbouring and other Arab countries.
(Mr. Abu1hasan, Kuwait)
The ugliest manifestation of this policy was the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
The Whole world witnessed the barbarity, brutality and inhumanity of that
invasion. Today, three and one half years after the invasion - dealt with in
security Council resolution 509 (1982), which demands that Israel withdraw all its
military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized
boundaries of Lebanon - we find the Israeli forces still occupying a southern strip
of Lebanon, with the support of some mercenaries who Israel hopes will help it
impose its will on the struggling people of Lebanon. We also find Israel still
violating all the United Nations Charter principles and security Council
resolutions concerning the non-violation of Lebanon's sovereignty, independence and
territorial integrity, by continuing to perpetrate one act of aggression after the
other against villages and other locations inside Lebanese territory. In doing
that, it seems to believe that it has the right to strike anywhere inside Lebanese
territory under the pretext of security - a pretext which, as everybody knows, is
so flimsy that it cannot fool anyone and which it has become repugnant and
revolting to hear mentioned.
However, the effects of the policy of Zionist military domination are no
longer confined to the neighbouring Arab lands, parts of which are still occupied -
like the Syrian Golan Heights and southern Lebanon. In fact, those effects have
now spread to Arab lands that are hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away.
On 7 June 1981, Israeli war planes collUUitted an armed attack on the Iraqi
peaceful nuclear installations. The security Council strongly condenned that
Israeli armed attack on Iraqi territory as an act threatening world peace an~
security and reminded the aggressors that all Member States should refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any State. Nevertheless, we find that such
(Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait)
resolutions adopted liy the international commwlity do not move the aggressors. In
fact, they perpetrated another, similar er ime when they sent their war planes
thousands of miles away to strike at Tunisian territory on 1 OCtober 1985. once
again, in its resolution 573 (1985), the security Council strongly condemned this
armed attack, which violates the United Nations Charter aa well as international
law and conduct. That resolution viewed this act as threatening the peace and
security of the Mediterranean as well as the chances for a just, lasting and
comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
However, these repeated condemnations by the seour ity Council of the non-stop
series of Israeli acts of aggression fall on the deaf ears of the Zionists, who
have only total contempt for the Charter's principles and international law and
conduct.
The United Nations, which undoubtedly ColIIPJunded the problem by its
interference in the 1940s, now has an increased realization of the real dimensions
of the Middle East er isis, particularly since scores of newly independent states
have become Members of the Unitr~d Ilations, thus helping the international
Organization to become mor l! representative of the desires and will of the
international community. This new realization of the dimensions of the problem has
taken the form of a continuous ser ies of resolutions which reflect the facts of the
situation in the Middle East and set forth the right way to reach a just,
comprehensive and lasting settlement of the problems of the area.
Putting aside all the many ~ther United Nations resolutions on the Middle
East, we find that one resolution - namely, General Assemly resolution 39/146 A of
14 December 1984 - in itself identifies the five basic elements necessary for any
conscious, serious move to solve the problem of the Middle East. They are the
following.
First, the problem of Palestine is the core of the conflict in the Middle East
and no comprehensive, jus~ and lasting peace in the region will be achieved without
the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights and
the unoonditional, complete and general withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied
Palestinian and Arab territories.
Secondly, a just and comprehensive settlement of the situation in the Middle
East cannot be achieved without the equal participation of all concerned parties,
including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the
Palestinian PeOple.*
Thirdly, peace in the Middle East is indivisible and must be based on a just,
caaprehensive and lasting solution of the Middle East problem, under the auspices
of the United Nations and on the basis of the relevant United Nation resolutions.
Fourthly, the Arab peace plan adopted unanimously at the Twelfth Summit
Conference, in Fez, is an important contr ibution towards the achievement of a just,
coaprehensil1e and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Fifthly, an International Peace Conference on the Middle East should be
convened - as specified in paragraph 5 of the Geneva Declaration on Palestine,
which emanated from the International Conference on the Question of Palestine.
It is very painf'll eOaG sad to note that this conscious realization on the part
of the internationa.l Organization of the dimensions of the Middle East problem and
the methods to solve it has not been natched, on the one hand, by a similar
realization on the part of some States which participated in the creation of this
problem and, 0':"1 the other, by the availability of the international political will
to translate this realization into action.
*Mr. Fareed (Pakistan), Vice-President, took the Chair.
(Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait)
ilhat llakes this even more painful is that various obstacles are still beinl] placed
in the' way of a solution based on this conscious and just perception of thel Middle
East crisis. At the forefront of those obstacles are: first, giving priority of
attention to the ·securi.ty· of the aggressive party, instead of to the elimination
of the injustices suffered by the victims of aggression; secondly, providing
military and financial assistance to the aggressive party in a manner that
encourages it to continue its aggression, its contempt for international law and
its disregard for the will of the international community; thirdly, supporting the
aggressive party by blocking any attempt on the part of the security Council to
impose sanctions on the aggressive party or condemn it for its continuous
aggression; and, fourthly, limiting the demand for the observance of human rights
to certain people exclusively and not making the demand of others, thereby totally
ignoring the human rights of the population of the Palestinian and Arab territories
occupied by Israel - which is tantamount to discrimination, favoritism and the use
of double standards.
(Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait)
These obvious transgressions will undoubtedly have the expected effect of
increasing the aggressive appetite of the Zionist entity, since they provide it
with the necessary immunity to continue its aggressive expansionist policies, to
some of which we have referred previously.
On the other hand, these transgressions have, as everybody knows, had the
effect on numerous occasions of preventing the Security Council from fulfilling its
commitments with respect to the peace and security of the Middle East because of
the use of the veto in a way that does not serve the cause of peace.
The world's hope for peace in the Middle East is now crystallized in one aim:
the convening of an international peace conference, under the auspices of the
United Nations, in which all the parties concerned would participate, including the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole, legitimate representative of the
Palestinian people, as well as the permanent members of the Security Council, by
virtue of their responsibility for international peace and security. At that
conference all the problems relating to the Middle East crisis would be submitted
for discussion, problems on which the United Nations has adopted numerous
resolutions, and the first of which is the question of Palestine, declared in those
resolutions to be the core of the Middle East problem.
My delegation agrees with the following statement by the Secretary-General in
his report of 22 October 1985:
"I strongly feel that, despite the existing difficulties, a new and determined
effort should be made to explore and to use the various possibilities of the
united Nations machinery appropriately to promote progress in the peace
process in the Middle East." (A/40/779 and Corr.l, para. 41)
In this connection, we appeal to the Secretary-General to redouble his present
efforts, in consultation with the Security Council, to ensure the convening of this
(Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait)
conference, on which the fulfilment of the international community's hope for the
restoration of peace and stability in the Middle East depends.
Mr. AL-SBAALI (United Arab Emirates) (interpretation from Arabic): -I
should like to begin my statement by expressing my delegation's appreciation to the
secretary-General for his report to the General Assembly on all aspects of
development in the Middle East.' The Secretary-General has summed up his evaluation
of these events as follows:
"The search for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem remains
elusive and the situation in the Middle East continues to be unstable."
(A/40/779 and Corr.l, para. 33)
This state of affairs is caused by Israel's persistence in a policy of
expansion and aggression in our Arab region and its defiance of international law
as embodied in the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the
many relevant United Nations resolutions, which provide for the exercise by the
Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, reaffirm the inadmissibility of the
acquisition of territory by force and call for the withdrawal of Israeli forces . from occupied Palestinian and Arab lands and the cessation by Israel of its acts of
aggression against the Palestinian people and Arab countries,
Briefly, the problem of the Middle East is a reflection of the natural
development of an abnormal situation. It is the result of the inability of the
international community to resolve the question of Palestine, because of the
position taken by Israel, which rejects any solution and rejects peace, as we
stated during the debate on the question of Palestine. The problem is also caused
by the aggression, the military occupation, the expulsion of populations, the
bombing of Arab towns -all attempts to eliminate the Palestinian people and
sabotage the economic and social potential of the Arab countries.
(Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait)
All this is clearly shown by Israel's aggression against Syria and in the
legislative measures and provisions imposed in the annexed Golan Heights, in
flagrant defiance of General AsseJlbly and security Council resolutions, and of the
Geneva Conventions. It is shOlrln equally clearly by the Israeli aggression in
Lebanon, from which that country is still suffering and through which a part of its
territory is still occupied. Had it not been for the great sacrifices made by the
Lebanese people in order to expel the occupation forces, Lebanon would today have
been completely occupie1d, notwithstanding all the relevant Secur ity Council
resolutions.- Nor must we forget the Israeli raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor,
designed for peaceful purposes, which clearly showed Israel's intention to destroy
the economic and technical development potential of any Arab country.
The CUlmination of Israeli aggression was its recent raid on Tunis, and there
is news every day of Israeli threats to Jordan and Yemen. All this confirms the
nature and the aggressive intentions of Israel. That military base was created to
st~ike at the potential for economic development and social progress in the Arab
homeland.
As we have frequently stated, we are convinced that Israel, in the present
international circumstances, and backed by the political, moral and military
support that it rece'ives from those in certain international circles, has no
intention of participating in the peace process. Therefore, once again we call on
the international coDlDunity to take account of this. We also call on all the
countries of the world to take a firm stand internationally based on the
determination that henceforth their relations with Israel will depend on its
attitude to the peace process and on its ceasing its acts of violence and
aggression against the Palestinian people and the Arab countries. If this is not
done, we shall be in the same position next year, and meanwhile the situation in
the Middle East will have worsened.
(Hr. Al-Shaali, United Arab
Emirat;es)
Mr. AL-SABAGB (Bahrain) (interpretation from Arabic): The Assembly is
again discussing the crisis in the Middle East and reviewing developments in our
~rtant and sensitive region of the world, whose deteriorating conditions have
reached the point of instability and explosion. There is no doubt that
continuation of this situation will affect the security of the region as well as
the vital interests of many States. It will also lead to more conflicts,
international polarization and strategic rivalry between the great Powers.
The basic cause is the escalation of Israeli aggression against the
Palestinian and Arab peoples. Israel's aggressive arm extends hundreds of miles
from the central point of the conflict, thereby revealing its plans to create a
-Greater Israel".
I should like for the record to refer to the history of Israel's aggression
and expansion since its creation in 1948. It has expelled unarmed Palestinians and
annexed many parts of Palestinian territory. In 1956 it declared war on Egypt in
the context of the vicious tripartite aggression. In 1967 it occupied the
remaining parts of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, which are SUffering from the
worst form of zionist-racist colonialism, paralleled only by the atrocities of Nazi
and Fascist colonialism. It occupied Egyptian and Syrian territory. In 1982 it
launched a brutal war against Lebanon to protect what it called its security
interests, whereas its real intention was to strike at the Palestinian and Lebanese
people~ however, the national liberation forces of Lebanon were able to defeat
Israel. It continues to occupy parts of southern Lebanon, and that occupation,
which is opposed by the valiant national resi8t~ance, is contrary to Security
Council resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982).
We would like to draw the attention of the international community to the need
to restore stability in the Middle East, because that would help to strengthen
international peace and security.
The extension of the area of violence is due to international failure to find
a solution to the question of Palestine, which is the crux of the Middle Eastern
problem. The solution of that complex problem requires, first of all, recognition
of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, the
establishment of an independent State on their national soil, the return of
refugees to their lands and the restoration of their property. Moreover, the
international community should ensure that Palestinian refugees living in campS
enjoy decent liVing 'conditions, of which they have been deprived for the past four
years. It should also help to alleviate their daily sufferings due to Israeli
intransigence and oppression.
We yearn for the achievement of a real and just peace in the area, and our
desire explains the call for the convening of an international peace conference on
the Middle East. In this connection I would refer to General Assembly resolutions
38/58 C and 39/49 D, in which the Assembly supported the idea of convening an
international conference on the basis of the recommendations of the International
Conference on the Question of Palestine, held in Geneva in 1983. I would add that
the Assembly invited the Security Council to facilitate the organization of the
c~nference.
Moreover, the United Nations has a legal responsibility towards this area,
which has remained under its authority, in addition to a political responsibility,
because the continuation of the present situation in the Middle Eastern area is a
threat to international peace and security. The convening of that conference, with
the participation of all parties concerned, inclUding the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people,
would be a positive step towards the establishment of a just peace and stability i~
this important area of the world. The continuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict i~
the Middle East poses a serious threat to international peace and security.
(Hr. AI-Sabagh, Bahrain)
Israel did not confine itself to occupying the Syrian Golan Heights, but has
embarked on a process of annexation. It is continuing its efforts to Judaize the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip and is building dozens of settlements, bringing in
Zionists from all parts of the world. In accordance with its strategic plan, it
intends to settle 100,000 Israelis in those settlements.
Israel's acts of aggression and its expansionist policies were possible thanks
to its military might and the assistance it receives in its efforts to achieve
supremacy over the Arab States. In this way it was able to tighten its grip on the
Palestinian and Arab territories and extend its influence on the pretext of
security considerations. It was on that pretext that it attacked the PLO
headquarters in Tunisia. Before that, it had destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor,
which was ~evoted to peaceful purposes, on the pretext of self-defence. Today,
moreover, Israel refuses to accept any peaceful solution because of its superiority
and its desire to present neighbouring Arab countries with a fait accompli.
The question of the Middle East requires the international community to move
quickly to prevent a further deterioration of the situation. We have a unique
opportunity, and we must therefore see to it that the international conference is
convened very soon, in accordance with the basic principles of the United Nations.
The aggression against the headquarters of the PLO in Tunisia was an act of
piracy and part of organized terrorism conducted by a State Member of this
Organization. There is no doubt that this will strengthen the determination and
resistance of the Palestinian people and their will to defend their inalienable
rights, for Israel cannot justify its existence by denying the rights of the
Palestinian people. Israel, through its repeated acts of aggression, aims at
frustrating positive peace initiatives aimed at putting an end to the present
tragedy. A just solution to this problem can be found only through the collective
will of the international community and on the basis of international understanding.
On the other hand, we shClluld compel Israel to ccnply with the relevant thited
Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East and to abide by the basic principles
of the Charter and international laws and norms.
Since its adoption of the historic resolution ·3236 (XXIX), of
22 NO'Iellber 1974, the General Asseui>ly has emphasized the rights of the Palestinian
people, including their right to return, their right to self-determination,
independence and sO'lereignty and their riqht to participate in any peace effort in
the Middle East. In 1982 the Arab States produced the Fez peace plan, an
initiative which reflected the sincere desire of the Arab States to find a
peaceful, just solution to the Middle East crisis. Israel rejected that
initiative, just as it rejected President Reagan's peace initiative. Whenever the
area moves towards a just peace and the chances of a settlement increase, Israel
steps up its intransigence and rejects all peace efforts.
We are all aware that peace is the primary concern of all. Therefore, all
international efforts should be concentrated on translating basic principles into
genuine political action. We can thus pave the way to a peaceful solution,
acceptable to all the countries of the region, which have suffered a great deal
from the wars of the past. Such a settlement would enable us to break the c:ycle of
violence, fear and lack of trust. It is the political, moral and historic
responsibility of the United Nations to find that great humanitar ian solution.
Mr. OTT (German Democratic Republic): Only a few weeks ago we jointly
comnemorated the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. The
bitter lessons learned from the bloodiest of all wars induced nations to establish
this Organization, whose objective is to maintain international peace and secur ity
through collective efforts. This year the overwhelming majority of States
reaffirmed the unchanged validity of the purposes and principles of the Charter.
It is the basic principle of the Socialist German State to make that binding
code of conduct the yardstick worldwide against which to measure any political
action. This would include settling conflicts exclusively by peaceful means, in
line with international law. Whoever, in contrast, resorts to pressure "'nd force
in our nuclear and cosmic age, is literally playing with fire, riSking triggering
off an all-consuming world conflagration. Therefore, it is only logical that
demands are made ever more resolutely to bring about a comprehensive, just and thus
lasting settlement of the Middle East conflict, whose core is the question of
Palestine, a conflict which has been the most dangsrous and longstanding flashpoint
of tension.
Anyone who objectively follows developnents in the Middle East, including the
IIOSt recent ones, can clearly see who bears the responsibility for the persistence
of the conflict. It is those forces that permanently back Israel's policy of
aggression and oppression, and attempt, through an arms build-up and confrontation,
to achieve military superiority as well as to realize their ambi~ions for
predominance at the expense of other peoples. The dangerous ·star wars· plans, for
instance, are par t of that concept, just as is the fomentation of confl icts and
tensions in southern Africa, Central America and other regions of the world.
In the Middle East imper ialism's policy is aimed at subordinating this
strategically important and raw-material-rich region to its global power
interests. Israel is fully integrated in that course as a so-called strategic
ally. The ruling circles of that State, established by decisions of !:he united
Nations, flagrantly defy the world Organization's resolutions and world-wide
protests in continuing its policy of aggression and occupation.
The acts to destabilize Governments and the violation of the territorial
sOl1ereignty of Sta tes, acts which have been condemned throughout the world, are the
latest expression of this dangerous policy, which flouts international law.
The criminal ierael! air raid on Tunis was another act of State terrorism
against peace and security in the re1jiono
Resistance to the aggressive course of action taken by Israel and its allies
has been growing in the region. Imperialism's policy of intervention has suffered
defeat in Lebanon and the forced partial withdrawal of Israel from Lebanese
territory, 1rihich has illustrated that the margin for imperialist adventures in the
Middle East is not unlimited.
The German Democratic Republic expresses its solidarity with all
anti-imperialist and patriotic forces in the Middle East which stand up against
violence and the imper ialist quest for domination. My country invar iably advocates
the elimination of that dangerous flashpoint of tension through a comprehensive,
just and therefore lasting solution. So-called separate deals merely serve
imperialist big-Power interests and entail new tensions, as history proves.
The same is true of attempts to single out individual elements of the conflict
at the expense of a just, overall solution. Therefore, collective efforts become
ever l\¥)re irrperative, so that a lasting peace shall, at long last, prevail in the
Middle East, and the sufferings now endured by the second and third genl'aration of
the Palestinian people shall end.
The continuing dangerous situation in the Middle East proqlts the German
Del\¥)cratic Republic to reaffirm its resolute support for convening an international
Middle East peace conference, with the participation of all interested parties,
including the Palestine Liberation organ !.zation (PLO), the sole and legi timate
representative of the Palestinian people. Such a conference is the only suitable
means to pave the way to the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle
East. Aloog those lines, the German Democratic Republic supports the USSR's Middle
East proposals of July 1984, which are in harmony wi th the peace plan adopted in
Fez.
In the Sofia Declaration of OCtober this year the States Parties to the Warsaw
'rreaty voiced their fir. conviction that:
-a collprebensive, just and lasting settlement of the Middle East problem can
be achieved only through the collective efforts of all the p~ties concerned
an the baBis of a co~lete withdrawal of the Israeli troops from all Arab
territories occupied s inee 1967, implementation of the legitimate dghts of
the Arab people of Palestine, including its right to self-determination and to
the establishment of an· independent State of its own, and guarantees for the
right of all States in that region to independent existence and developnent•
(Hr .. ott, German Democratic Republic)
"An international conference on the Middle East under United Nations auspices
and with the participation of all the parties concerned, including the
Palestine Liberation Organization, would be a practical course to follow. The
strengthening of the unity of the Arab countries and the Palestinian movement
would be conducive to a settlement of the Middle East problems."
(A/C.l/40/7, pp. 9-10)
Furthermore, i~ is underlined in this Declaration that the settlement of
Lebanon's internal problems, based on national concord among the Lebanese
themselves, on the preservation of the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of
that ~ountry, the speediest possible termination of the war between Iran and Iraq,
and the stabilization of the situation in the area of the Gulf region, would
correspond to the interests of peace in that part of the world.
Mr. ALHODAR (oman) (interpretation from Arabic): The discussion we are
embarking 'upon today concerning the situation in the Middle East, after having
reviewed the question of Palestine yesterday, confirms that the question of
Palestine constitutes the essence of the Arab-Israeli conflict. For this reason,
practical consideration of those two questions must, in our view, concentrate on
finding a just and honourable solution to the question of the people of Palestine,
in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions.
A solution of the question of the Israeli occupation of Arab territories, such
as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, Taba and other territories,
which were occupied after the 1967 war, requires a commitment to international
norms and principles. It also requires greater efforts to bring about a
comprehensive peace and to remove the spectre of war by the endorsement and the
implementation of the resolution~ adopted by this international Organization on
this question, and in particular Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and
338 (1973).
(Mr. Ott, German Democratic Republic)
Everyone now understands that the achievement of this noble objective will not
be possible unless Israel renounces its expansionist dreams, and returns the
occupied Arab territories to their rightful owners and Jerusalem to the sovereignty
of· the Arabs, who maintained it as a Holy city of revealed religion, without
discrimination, since time immemorial.
The speedy convening of the international conference on the Middle East under
the auspices of the United Nations, with the participation of all the partie~
concerned, including the permanent members of the Security Council, will increase
possibilities of achieving peace in the Middle East ana give hope of strengthening
international peace and s~curity throughout the world.
We condemn Israelis repeated acts of aggression aga:lnst the soverei;gnty and
security of fraternal Lebanon. We find that 40 years of destructive wars and deep
political differences have caused too many tragedies.
If we are to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies we must build up a
certain amount of confidence, and those parties which have an immediate interest in
achieving the collective aim of liVing in security, peace and justice will have to
make sacrifices. By that I mean that Israel and its friends, its usual friends,
must seriously consider today, more than ever before, accepting the peace
initiative.
The Arabs have had to cope with conflicting Israeli positions and the delaying
t~ctics of some of Israel's allies. This continued regression of the international
situation will not contribute to a solution of the problem. The peace initiatives
of the Arabs and the international community con~ain much that is acceptable to
all; ~mat remains to be done is to crysta11ize.the positions of the parties
concerned and to hold this international conference in Geneva in order to reach
practical solutions, under international guarantees, that are acceptable to
(Mr. Alhodar, Oman)
the region. AS is known, we in oman have always fully supported realistic and
genuine peace efforts in the Middle East. We also support an objective approaoh to
all initiatives likely to promote national and Arab interests. Our position
concerning the successful eff?rts made by Egypt is based on our deep conviction
about the correctness of the Egyptian-Arab approach which can overcome any doubts.
Today, we stand staunchly beside our brothers who supported the joint machinery of
the Palestinian-Jordanian Agreement reached in Oman on 11 February of this year.
We have great confidence in the wisdom and sincerity of His Majesty King Russein
and Mr. Arafat, and we hope that their efforts will bear fruit.
In conclusion, we the adoption of the dr~ft resolutions befoi:e us Oil
the situation of the Middle East will help to advance the cause of peace and to
satisfy the aspirations of the region and its people. We thank the
Secretary-General for his efforts and for his report, contai~ed in document
A/40/779 of 22 October 1985.
(Mr. Alhodar, Oman)
Mr. KHALIL (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): The spreading of
tension and violence in the Middle East to the entire Mediterranean basin is
doubtless a threat to that vital region of ~he world. It reminds uz of the close
relationship between these two regions and the urgent need not to spare any ef(~rt
to restore peace and stability in the Middle East and to eliminate the threats to
peace and security in this sensitive region.
It is unanimously agreed that the restoration of peace and security in the
Middle East requires. a just and equitable settlement of the Paiestinian question,
which is the crux of the conflict and the true cause of the tension and threats to
which this region is exposed. The Preaident of the Security Council reaffirmed
this a few days ago in his statement celebrating the International Day of
Solidarity with the Palestinian People on 29 November 1985 when he said:
"The annual observance of this Day is not only a measure of the
international community's deep concern for the Palestinian people but also a
reflection of its recognition that a just solution to the Palestinian problem
is of overriding importance in the striving for a lasting settlement to the
Middle East question.
"As we are aware, the situation in the Middle East is a very serious
one. It not only vitally affects the stability of the region but could have
potential consequencec beyond the region."
My country, Egypt, has been the party most affected by the conflict in the
Middle East. Consequently, we firmly believe in the need for a comprehensive, just
and lasting settlement of all aspects of the problem, in order to provide stability
for the people of the area, so as to enable them to concentrate their efforts on
developing their potential for the good of all.
That was the starting point of the peace initiative which had been mooted much
earlier and had continued for over two decades. I refer to Egypt's acceptance of
Security Council resolution 242 (1967). Within the framework of that peace
initiative and of its efforts to strengthen peace, Egypt believed that a
comprehensive peace, to be lasting, must be just so that all the parties can be for
it and seek to preserve it.
Notwithstanding the recent Israeli aggression against Tunis, Egypt continues
to believe that the situation in the Middle East offers an opportunity for serious
action to bring about a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement. This is an
opportunity that we should all take on the basis of an accurate assessment of the
historical background and profound influences of the positions of the parties
concerned with, or directly involved in, the conflict.
Among these events there is tjJe Jordanian-Palestinian Agreement of
11 Feb~uary 1985 which led to intensification of the peace efforts and to a
strengthening of confidence among the Palestinians. The latter believe that the
future holds out hope and that their resistance to foreign occupation forces will
eventually be successful.
Moreover, repeated statements by a number of the international parties
primarily concerned in the conflict regarding the need to begin an active phase of
negotiations have had the effect of strengthening Egypt's view of the importance of
giving a boost to efforts to bring about a settlement. Egypt therefore encouraged
a dialogue by the Palestinians and the Jordanians with the international parties
concerned in the conflict. President Mubarak took the initiative of writing to the
President of the United States and the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist
Party before their recent meeting in Geneva asking them to consider the situation
in the Middle East and to take the necessary action to overcome the obstacles to an
international conference on peace in the Middle East.
Egypt continued its contacts and recently had high-level ones with the
EurOPean parties. We hope that this will cause them to increase their contribution
to the peace process at the European Community's summit meeting to be held on
6 December.
The comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in which we believe must be
based, in our view on the following: first, Israel's withdrawal from all occupied
A~ab territories, including Jerusalem, the Galan Heights, the west Bank and the
Gaza StripJ secondly, the exercise by the Palestinian people of their legitimate
rights, and in particular, their right to self-determination and the right to a
homeland on their national soilJ thirdly, the right of all countries and peoples in
the Middle East to live in peace and security in a spirit of good-neighbourliness.
These are the elements which should be included in a settlement of the Middle East
problem.
Since the Arab world has over the past few months and years acted by
presenting peace proposals, Israel, the other party to the conflict, should act
with the objectivity and courage required by the situation.
Israel today must sincerely question its position in the Middle East and its
relations with its Arab neighbours. It must refrain from forcefully annexing
territory.
Israel must renounce its policy of settlement and expansion.
Israel must accept the participation of the sole, legitimate representative of
the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in
negotiations to be held during the proposed international conference on peace in
the Middle East, where all the parties concerned will be in attendance.
In the Cairo Declaration of 7 November 1985 the PLO reaffirmed its attachment
to the right of all peoples in the area to live in peace within internationally
recognizecl boundaries and condemned all acts of terrorism. The Cairo Declaration
gave preference to peace efforts within the framework of an international peace
conference. The ideas and concept in that Declaration are clear and should be to
everyone, especially in so far as they relate to the elements of settlement as
contained in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
(Mr. Khalil, Egypt)
The President of the SecurIty Council, in his statement on 29 November auring
the oelebration of ~he International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People,
said:"
"Guided by its responsibilities under the Charter the Security Council
will continue its efforts to seek a just and lasting peace in the Middle East
for the benefit of all parties concerned, including the Palestinian people."
In his statement at the historic commemorative meeting of the Security Council
at the ministerial level held on 26 September 1985, my Fo~eign Minister said:
•••• the Council's resolutions on the Middle East and the Palestinian question
still lack the practical and executive mandatory measures ••• foremost amongst
which is Security Council resolution 242 (1967)". (S/PV.2608, pp. 87~88)
(Mr. Khalil, Egypt)
As representatives know, a numer of Foreign Ministers spoke, including the
Secretary of State of the United States", who said:
·We have seen that creative Council actions can provide a basis for
resolving some of the most difficult issues of our time.
Resolution 242 (1967), for instance, provided the essential political and
legal framework for Middle East peace-making." (S/PV.2608, p. 117)
We note that the countries of the Middle East are prepared to engage in
serious efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement. All who believe in the
ineVitability of peace, whether memers of the Council or other international
parties concerned, should act effectively and seize this opportunity to expand the
basis for peace in the Middle East. Today, everyone must listen to the voice of
reason and take a forward-looking view of the situation in the Middle East. We must
all show courage in our choice of positions and in maintaining them. Everyone
should refrain from acts of provocation or anything that would obstruct the peace
process through an internationCJl conference. My delegation spoke at length on this
point in its statement in the Assembly on the question of Palestine.
The meeting rose at 1.10 p.m.
(Hr. Khalil, Egypt)