A/41/PV.87 General Assembly

I now call on the Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974. Mr. TERZI (Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)): While the international community really needed to address the worsening situation in the Middle East, the international conscience must have been pricked this morning when we conveyed the message of the President of the Highest Islamic Committee in Jerusalem, Sheikh Saad El-Din Al-Alamy. That message and its content must have made some hearts bleed. We understand that the members of the Security Council, iln their consultations this morning, expressed shock and horror, but the situation in Jerusalem epitomizes the situation in the Middle East. The occupying POwer'r Israel, whether openly and directly or covertly and through some of its elements, provokes violence and bloodshed. Those same elements, which are publicly denounced by the occupying Power but in fact protected and even armed by it, persist in their racist practices and acts of terrorism, terrorism sponsored by a Member State seated in this Assembly. The Secretary-General in his report expresses concern and tells US that "the situation in the region continues to be highly volatile". He tries, with good reason, to remind us that ."The plight of the Palestinian people, most of whom now live under occupation or in exile, renains a matter of acute international concern". (A/41/768, , para. 34) To us, the Palestinian people, the issue is an issue of survival, and our legitimate struggle is aimed at securing a comprehensive and just peace, where Peace and a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict in the Middle Hast are no longer elusive but prove to be tangible and concrete. We fully agree with the Secretary-General's observation that (Mr. Terzi, PLO) "if the present deadlock in the peace process is allowed to persist, major hostilities will break out again in the area". (para. 34) I Stress the word "again" because, for 40 years, we have had too many major hostilities. The Secretary-General states that his contacts and endeavours have revealed that the difficulties regarding the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East have remained essentially the same. The Palestine Liberation Organization made its position clear in this very Assembly in 1974, when the Chairman of the Executive Committee, Yasser Arafat, proclaimed that he came bearing an olive branch, the symbol of peace, and appealed to the Assembly to help him and the Palestinian people, on whose behalf he was addressing this Assembly, not to let the olive branch fall from his hand. The FL0 fully Supported the call of this Assembly in its resolutions 3375 (XXX) and 3414 (XXX), of December 1975, to reconvene the Peace Conference on the Middle East and to invite the PLO to participate on an equal footing. In 1977 the PLO was the only party to the conflict - the Palestinian people is the principal party, as we know - that welcomed the Gromyko-Vance declaration of l.October 1977. Unfortunately, the Government of the United states immediately reneged on its commitment, and the Geneva Peace Conferen,ce was laid to rest in peace. Since 1978 the situation has become more volatile and more alarming, and Israel has persisted in its policy of expansionism and annexation. The Israeli occupation troops are still controlling a substantial part of Lebanon, in addition t0 a major part of Syria and the entire area of Palestine. Israel refuses to carry out the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, be it 425 (1978), 497 (1981), 508 (1982), 509 (1982) or any others. A lot is being repeated about the need for a peaceful process based on the principles of the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, be it (Mr. Tetzi, PLO) the General Assembly or the Security Council. The Palestine Liberation Organfzation has repeatedly affirmed its respect for those principles and its adherence to the relevant resolutions. But we shall in no way be selective and choosy about those resolutions. In what way does 242 (1967) differ and why has it .i gained so much popularity? It 18 to be adhered to as strongly as the other resolutions - 465 (1980), 471 (1980), 478 (1980), 497 (1981) and so on - all the How can those persons still insist on adherence to resolutions in their totality. only one resolution, 242 (1967 )? Is it a magic number? The Government of the United States itself c?nnounced from this rostrum that resolution 242 (1967) did not address the political dimension of the Palestinian problem. But It still maintains , that the ctuestion of Palestine is the core of the Arab-Israel conflict. one is entitled to expect a bit of consistency and reason from those that simply stick to 242 (1967). Moreover, does resolution 242 (1967) or any other resolution of the security Councfl supersede the principles of the Charter, first and foremost among which is the right of peoples to self-determination? Where does this principle of the self-determination of peoples, in this case of the Palestinian people, appear in resolution 242 (1967)? Resolution 242 (1967), as we all know, was adopted by the Security Council to address a specific situation, a contingency: the 1967 war. It was never claimed to be the sole and exclusive basis for a comprehensive, peaceful process. i The need for a COmprehenBiVe peace became very clear and compelling, I particularly, after the second invasion of Lebanon by Israel in 1982. The declared: aim Wa? the destruction of the infrastructure of the PM) and the elimination - mind1 the word elimination - of the Palestinian armed elements. The term elimination Was; clearly and unashamedly used by the representative of the united States in the (Mr. Terzi, PLO) Security Council, as if the elimination of human beings had been transplanted from the Nazi mentality to some mentalities in the United States Administration. It is clear now that the elimination, not only of the armed elements but of all the Palestinians, seems to be the aim. This very morning - that is, 25 November - the refugee camps of the Palestine refugees in Beirut and in the south of Lebanon, around Sidon and Tyre, were still under attack by the mortars, by the artillery, by the armoured vehicles and tanks of some elements on Lebanese territory, with the aim of continuing what Israel started and failed to achieve. Our people have no intention of being sitting ducks or targets free for all to kill. And despite all these criminal attempts to eliminate our people, the PLO still holds out the olive branch. (Mr. Terzi, E&o) At the Arab summit CcnferenCe held at Fez, Morocco, in 1982 the PI0 contributed greatly to the Arab peace plan. We believe - nay, we know - that the survival of our people, the development of our people and the pursuit of the happiness by our people and all other peoples in the area depend largely on the dominance of peace and stability. But in no way can peace be attained at the pKiCt! of eliminating our people; we shall not permit that. The United NatiOnS organized an Interna tictnal Conference on the Question Of Palestine in the summer of 1983. Chairman Arafat, in an endeavour to find a mechanism for a peaceful process , called for an international peace conference. The Geneva Declaration on Palestine was endorsed by the General Assembly, with 124 Metiers voting in favour. This Assembly endorsed its guidelines and requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Security Council, tc undertake the measures necessary to convene the peace Ccnference. l&qre ttably , the efforts Of the Secretary-General were stonewalled by the negative atti’tu& of a permanent metier of tzne Secretary-General, namely the Government of the united states Of America . Thus I the effOr ts of the Secretary-General and the hopes and endeavours of the members of the General Assembly were blocked by the Government of the United Statec;, which cbstructed the initiation of preparatory work for the Conference. That posi tion of the United Sti tes reflects its policy of opposing the peace process in the Middle East - maybe of opposing peace altogether. After all, we all still recall the statement of ais Excellency the President of the uli ted States, who from this very rostrum enumerated the hotbeds of tension: the Middle East was somehow. mysteriously excluded. For him it is so peaceful, or perhaps he -ought it was, or SO he was informed - or misinformed, as has been the case recently. He seems to be misinformed very often. elf. Terzi, ao) After all, was his Administration not funnelling arms worth billions Of dollars to Israel to maintain its aggressive military adventurism through creeping expansion and its annexation of Palestinian and other Arab territories? IS it not the support Israel gets from the United States that promotes a new search for lebensraum and a new phase of ansehluss by the Judeo-nazis in Tel Aviv? Was not the agreement on strategic co-operation between the United states and Israel, signed on 30 November 1981 by the Sabra and Sha tila butcher, the war-criminal Sharon, and Secretary Weinberger , aimed at maintaining the flames of war and tne stream of blood shed by innocent people? was that co-operation agreement not even intended to cover the supply of funds to the Contras in Nicaragua by the illegal sale of lethal weapons? Did it not cover the sale of Israeli aircraft to Central American States, and assist production of the Kfir aircraft, with the blessing of the United States Uepartment of the Treasury, which was to rescind i te oppositia to financing the deal with united States aid money? The Kfir aircraft, as we knew, i8 ,fitted with United States-made engines, so there is no thing purely Israeli about it; itS b&y seems to be manufactured in Israel in order somehaJ to help the Israeli economy. The Secretary-General is encouraged because “the idea of an international peace conference appears to be gaining wider support and a number of prooedural proposals have been made in bilateral contacts involving parties in the region and others who are interested in a settlement of this long-standing conflict”, (A/4l/768, para. 37) We fully share that optimism. Let us recall that at the extraordinary summit neeting of Arab Heads of State, held at Casablanca in the sunaner of 1985, the ‘alestine Liberation Organization and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan presented a loint plan of action to facilitate the realization of the Fez Arab peace plan, (Mr. Terzi, PLO) That was followed up by many contacts , and finally the concrete obstacle to peace was revealed; it was revealed in the Congress of the United States of &aer it-a. On 5 June 1986, Lee Hamilton, Chairman of the Su&Nommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, inserted in the Congressional Record his correspondence with the state Department concerning the United States position on proposals by the Palestine Liberation Organization for a legal formula to convene the International Peace Conference cn the Middle East. m0ng the replies he received from the State Department, one reads as followst “The section entitled ‘Steps’ outlines the actions whereby the PLO would make a conditional acceptance of [Security Council resolution] 242 [ (1967) ] in return for a United States affirmation of Palestinian self-determination. The term ‘self-determination’ has, in the Middle East context, come to connote the establishment of a Palestinian State. The Uni ted States does not support the establishment oE an independent Palestinian State. Therefore, such a reference is not consistent with United States policy.” Clearly the reference to Palestinian self+letermination is against United States policy, and the United States consequently not only denies but would negate the r.ight of the Palestinian people to self-determination. We ask how peace can not be elusive hen a permanent metier of the Security Council would negate that inalienable right? The negation of that I: ight is in itself a negation of Peace, and the Government of the United States will of necessity be held responsible for the continuing highly volatile situation in the Middle East. We wish to express here our great appreciation to the Archbishop of New York, His Eminence Cardinal O’Connor. After a visit to the area he affirmed that the i situation would remain volatile so long as the Palestinians yearned to return to their homeland, because the basics are still “home, sweet home*. so long as you deny people the right to return to their homes, there can be no peace. (Mr. Terzi, Pm) The Secretary-General surprises us by his statement that it has not been possible to resolve “how the interests and rights of the Palestinian people should be represented” (A/4l/768, para. 37). I wish to remind the Secretary-General that General Assembly resolution 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974 invited the Palestine Lihera tion Grganiza ticn, the representative of the Palestinian people, a principal Party to the conflict, to be present in this Hall. That is why we are here today. Moreover, the Arab summit meeting held at Rabat in 1974 affirmed that the PLCI fe the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. But, with all due respect, what is more important and more significant is the position taken by the Pales tin ians themselves. In a referendum carried out recently in the I sraeli-xxcupied Palestinian territories, more than 90 per cent of our people affirmed that the PLO was their sole legitimate representative. I am sure that neither the Secretary-General nor anyme else should have any reason for doubts concerning the representation of the Palestinian people. In the process of peace, while the Palestine Liberation Organization, through our National Council, our organization's supreme authority, has authorized us to extend a friendly hand to Israeli citizens who aspire to peace, the Israeli RW3&3St enacts a racist law condemning peace-loving Israeli citizens and castigates them with three years' imprisonment. Thus, the peaceful process is torpedoed by Israel, Peace is not elusive. Peace is being prevented, and the Palestinian people, through their sole and legitimate representative, will continue in its endeavours to achieve a comprehensive and just peace. How can any reasonable Palestinian perceive of peace, faced with the continuing presence of the forces of the occupying Power inside his own territory? Thus, a prereuuisite for peace is the total and unconditional withdrawal of the occupation forces, and that is a condition sine aua non. Finally, the General Assembly has endorsed the call for the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East. Let us all respond positively to that call, A preparatory committee within the Security Council would be a constructive step towards a convening of that Conference. We appeal to the international community, and particularly to the permanent members of the Security Council, to give peace a chance. Give peace a chance. Forty years in the tragic life of the Palestinian people and the peoples of the area is really too long. This must compel us to think Of is Process for peace and to achieve that comprehensive and just peace. Hence, give peace a chance.

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic has requested to speak in exercise of the right of reply. May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 43/401, statements in exercise of the (The President) right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first. intervention and to five minutes for the second and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. AL-AFASSI (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from ArabSc): The representative of Zionism spoke this afternoon and referred to my country. Owing to the lateness of the hour, and out of respect for this holy night, the eve of Thanksgiving Day, I shall not reply to that representative now, but reserve my right to reply on Friday. The meeting rose at 8.15 p.m.