A/42/PV.87 General Assembly

I should like to remind representatives that in accordance with the decision taken this morning the list )f speakers in the debate on this item will he closed this afternoon at 4 o'clock. therefore reouest those representatives who wish to participate in the debate to inscribe their names as soon as possible. Mr. AL-SHAKAR (Bahrain) (interpretation from Arabic): It is clear tha the continued conflict and tension in many regions directly and negatively affec s the role of the United Nations in the maintenance and enhancement of internation 1 peace and security. The protracted conflict in the Middle East is a case in point. It is one of the conflicts concerning which the United Nations has a special responsibility in the finding of a just and permanent settlement. The United Nations has witnessed the many stages of the conflict and the tragedy of he Palestinian cruestion, which constitutes the core of the conflict in the Middle East. It also has witnessed the tragedy of the Palestinian people and the histc y of zionist plans since the establishment of Israel in 1947. As in previous years, the Asernhly's agenda includes the item "The situatior in the Middle East". This year, as every year, it is considering the situation wit ' a view to adopting necessary and adecruate resolutions and decisions for the speed~ achievement of a just, comprehensive and peaceful settlement that will guaranteE the peace, security and stability of which the region has so long been deprived, The situation in the Middle East remains a cause for serious concern. The problem at the core of the conflict, the Palestinian cruestion, remains unsolved, and the General Assembly's deliberations on the subject assume special signif iCi \Ce this year since they coincide with the twentieth anniversary of the Israeli (Mr. Al-Shakar, Bahrain) occupation of other parts of Arab Palestine as well as territory in adjacent Arab states as a result of the war of aggression Israel launched against them in June 1967. In 1982, 15 years after its occupation of the rest of the territories in Palestine, Israel invaded Lebanon, part of which it still occupies, wreaking havoc and killing innocent Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. In the past 20 years, since the very beginning of Israel's occupation of Arab territories, its raids upon Arab States have caused the region great suffering. Its actions were typified in the senseless invasion of Lebanon and its assault upon the Iraai nuclear reactor established for peaceful purposes, as also its act of aggression against Tunisia, a peaceful country, and flagrant subseauent attacks of the kind with which Israel's record is replete. Israel has proven its character beyond any doubt1 it is based on settlement and an aggressively expansionist nature at the expense of the resources of the ~ Palestinian people and the Arab States adjacent to Palestine. One can see this Israeli character and pattern of behaviour very clearly through an objective a~ fair reading of the history of the region. Between 1947 and 1987 the Middle East region has witnessed five ferocious ~ between Israel and the adjacent Arab States, the last war of which took place or the territory of brotherly Lebanon. It became clear that the basic character of Israeli policy and conduct has to tension and conflict between Israel and the Arab States. Israel, which bec~ the real embodiment of the expansionist zionist ideology and creed, has persistently and systematically sought to impose hegemony and to expand at the expense of the adjacent Arab States. Through political and diplomatic deceit, Israel has tried to convince the world that it is a peace-loving State. It has also tried to give the impression that it is besieged by the Arab States, Which not offer the hand of peace but, on the contrary, seek to attack it and even to wipe it off the map of the world. Today, 20 years after Israel's occupation of Palestinian and Arab territor it is no secret to anyone that it is politically devious and not really committ to peace. Israel wants peace only if it dictates its own conditions1 it seeks peace only in the context of Israeli hegemony and control over the Middle East its resources. Israel can no longer deceive the world on this score1 it canno even hide its ugly face as an aggressor and occupying state that seeks expansio the expense of others. A clear example can be seen in the reported statements of Israel's leaders regards their ambitions, in which they offer slogans of a Greater Israel and 0 people. The whole process of establishing settlements in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories and implanting Zionist settlers there has become a clear aspeet of Israeli policy during the past 20 years. Israel has annexed Arab Jerusalem and made its eternal capital. It has also imposed its laws and jurisdiction on the Arab Syrian Golan Heights, in violation of the united Nations Charter and the many relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. There is a long list of procedures, legislation and illegal measures adopted by the Israeli occupation authorities in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab areas, with a view to displacing the Palestinian people and depopulating the land. These laws are enacted by the Israeli Knesset and the occupation authorities in order to serve Israeli ambitions to usurp Arah territories and to expand the territory of Israel at the expense of its Arab neighbours by the confiscation of territories and the denial of the national rights of the Palestinian people. ~his daily puts into jeopardy the situation of the populations in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, owing to the policy of settlement and anneKation pursued by Israel. During the past 20 years the occupied territories have witnessed an increasing number of zionist settlers and more settlements and colonies. This has resulted in physical, geographic and demographic changes, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War and in contravention of the principles of humanitarian international law. Lebanon also was not spared the Israeli aggression and occupation plans. After having occupied vast areas of Lebanese territory, Israel is today ;, :s . systematically and relentlessly striving to divide this country in pursuance of Zionist plans to control the region and its future, hence harming this brotherly country in particular and the Arab nation in general. An analysis of Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories clearly shows that the Israeli occupying authorities, as is their custom, are violating international law and ignoring the humanitarian principles of international norms. Israel pays no heed to all these instruments and conventions. It systematically implements policies that run counter to the provisions of the relevant international instruments defining the responsibiliti s and duties of occupying Powers, as mentioned in the 1949 Geneva Convention Relat ve to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War. Nobody auestions the applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention to the Palestinian and Arab territories, except the Israeli occupation authorities themselves. united Nations resolutions, especially those of its two main bodiee - the Security Council and General Assembly - have reaffirmed this fact, and therE is no need to go into the details of these resolutions, for they are self-evident. However, it might be useful to recall here that these resolutions reflect the wl 1 of the international community, which rejects usurpation of territories or the acouisition of territories by force and which considers the establishment of settlements and the annexation or usurpation of territories as illegal actions constituting the main obstacle to achieving peace in the region. The international community has already confirmed non-recognition of the changes hrou9ht about by the Israeli occupation authorities in the demographic composition and legal status of the occupied territories. It has condemned the arbitrary policies and practices of Israel, in denial of human rights, and the usurpation and exploitation of the human and natural resources of the occupied territories. It has decided that the occupation is a grave violation of the human rights of the civilian population in the occupied territories and a barrier to the restoration to the Palestinian people of its inalienable right to return to its homeland, to independence and to self-determination. Last year the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/43 D, of 2 December 1986, on the convening of an international conference on peace in the Middle East. In that resolution the General Assembly once a9ain reiterated the call for the convening of the conference in accordance with the provisions of resolution 38/58 C. From a careful, thorough reading of the report of the Secretary-General (A/42/277), which is before the General Assembly in accordance with the mandate entrusted to him under resolution 41/43 D, the following points can be noted. First, the Secretary-General has carried out the task entrusted to him through that resolution. He has had contacts and consultations with the parties concerned and with the members of the Security Council to seek their views on the convening of the international peace conference on the Middle East, including consultations on the preparations for such a conference and the proposal for the estahlishment of a preparatory committee, within the framework of the Security Council, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of resolution 41/43 D. Secondly, in principle none of the members of the security Council opposed the idea of the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East as called for in the General Assembly resolution, although there were some outstanding ques tions on the form that conference should take. Thirdly, the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, have welex>med the convening of a oonference. The positions of all the par ties was pasi tive and they supported the proposal as defined by the Genera Assembly - with the exception, of course, of Israel, which continues to oppose th convening of the conference and impede the effor ts of the in terna tional community which is unanimous on the need to convene the conference. Fourthly, the secretary-General is conv inced of the need to strengthen the determination of the parties that seek the permanent settlement of the Middle Eas question by initiating a negotiating process within the cootext of the Ulited Nations on a permanent, just peace in the region, despite the fact that the first round of consultations undertaken by him did not result in an appropriate agreemE t that would make possible the convening of the international conference as called for in r esolution 41/ 4 3 D. It is satisfying that the parties ooncerned and the majoriq of the members If the in terna tional communi ty support the conven ing of an in terna tional peace ronference. It is regrettable, however, that Israel rejects the idea of the conference because it would not prOlTide it with military domination of the regior It is not really surprising to note that whenever the Arabs evince real and genu ine determination in calling for a just and equi table peace Israel rejects tI l t call with increased militancy and arrogance. Israel does not really wish to establ ish permanent and secure reladons wi th its neighbours. It feels that a j ;t and permanent peace would threaten its existence as an aggressive, racist, settl r Sta te. The call for the convening of an international peace conference 00 the Middle East is not new or the result of recent events. This idea emerged in the aftermath of the war of OCtober 1973, associated wi th the two Security Council reso1u dons 242 (1961) and 338 (1973). The call is renewed more urgently today as a result of the stalenate dur ing the past few years and the fa il ure to arr ive at an acceptable formula for the solution of this problem in a manner compatible with the principles of fairness and justice, when all other initiatives have failed to bring about a permanent, just solution. It was from the growing international desire for a permanent, just solution that the ....nole idea of the convening of an international conference ga ined increas ing strength in the international arena. CUt of their COOcern for the establishment of a permanent, just peace based on international legitimacy in a region which after more than 40 years is still living in a state of war, conflict and tension, the Arab leaders, at their summit meeting in llmman from 8 to 11 Q::tober this year, reaffirmed their commitment to the es tabl ishment of peace, in accordance wi th in terna tiooal legi timacy and {hi ted Nations resolutions, on the basis of the restoration of all the Arab and Palestinian territories, foremost amoog them the Holy City of Jerusalem - A1 Quds - and of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians. Thus, the Arab leaders supported the convening of an international peace conference under the auspices of the united Nations and with the participation of all the parties ooncerned, inclUding the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole, legi tima te representative of the Palestinian people, on an equal footing, and of the permanent members of the security Council. They considered this to be the only way of achieVing a comprehensive, just settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The majority of States have expressed their satisfaction at the results of the Arab summit meeting in J\mman. Its resolutions, which oould be character ized as positive and realistic, have confirmed its success. Therefore it is more than eve necessary that the international community take advantage of this chance and concentrate its efforts on the convening of an international peace conference with the aim at reaching a comprehensive, just settlement. Efforts should be concentrated and abilities mustered to prepare the way for the convening of an international peace conference. The security Council, especially the permanent members, must begin for thwi th the proper preparation of that conference. While we appreciate the sincere and persistent efforts of the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, to ensure the attainment of that objective, and collltlend him, we feel that it is necessary that the efforts of all the parties concerned, including the PLO, the sole, legitinate representative of the Palestinian people, be collbined in order to break the stalemate and correct th state of paralysis concerning the convening of the international conference. Bahrain believes that if Israel fails to work for the convening of an international peace conference in keeping with relevant General Assembly resolutions, the united Nations, especially the Security Council, will have no choice but to impose mandatory deterrent sanctions against Israel to make it respect the international community and to ensure that United Nations resolutions are implemented. The will of no party takes precedence over the will of the international community as represented by the united Nations. History and justice have taught us that war must not be used to impose final solutions of conflicts, and that is particularly true of the Middle East conflict. Clearly, since its occupation of Arab and Palestinian territories in 1967, Israel has failed to realize that occupation does not provide security and that security cannot be achieved by military means but only through a keen desire for peace based on justice. And such justice cannot be obtained except by freeing land and holy places from occupation and restoring the legitimate rights of their real owners. That is the lesson of history, and that is what justice dictates. Will Israel heed this call to find the desired solution? Mr. TSVETKOV (Bulgaria) (interpretation from French): It is with deep disquiet that we are compelled to observe that again this year the situation in the Middle East remains extremely complex, tense and explosive. In spite of the tireless efforts and the clearly expressed will of the international community, and despite the numerous resolutions and decisions of the world Organization along the same lines, the vicious cycle of tragic events in that part of the world remains unbroken. The tragedy of the Palestinian people, the continued occupation of Arab territories, the blood-letting on Lebanese soil, the armed provocations against Libya, the open threats against certain sovereign Arab States and numerous other similar events reveal the acuteness of the current crisis. As a state in the immediate vicinity of the Middle East, the People's Republic of Bulgaria is seriously concerned at the instability prevailing in that part of the world, and it unreservedly joins in the international community's appeals for the urgent adoption of effective measures in keeping with the resolutions and decisions of the world Organization with a view to a lasting, comprehensive and just settlement of the Middle East conflict and its central element, the auestion of Palestine. This year the international community marks a number of anniversaries and events that have occurred in the Middle East, all bearing witness to the tragedy and ordeal of the peoples of the region. Forty years ago, on 29 November 1947, thE united Nations adopted resolution 181 (II) on the partition of Palestine, a resolution which explicitly provided for the establishment of two States on that territory: a Jewish state and an Arab State. To date no one has abrogated that resolution, but 40 years after its adoption the Arab people of Palestine still remains stripped of its inalienable legitimate right to independence, self-determination and the establishment of its own State, and is subjected to unspeakable, continuous SUffering and deprivation. Notwithstanding the international community's urgent appeals, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian and other invaded Arab territories has continued for 20 years. Moreover, those territories have become the target of an annexation unprecedented in our day and age and massive COlonization. Five years after Israeli aggression against Lebanon and the adoption of Security Council resolution 508 (1982) and 509 (1982) demanding the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon, a major part of the territory of that independent and sovereign country remains occupied, and as a result the bloodshed continues even now, which cannot fail to arouse profound alarm. The People's Republic of BUlgaria once again stresses the urgent need to restore Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and integrity without further delay. The principal cause of the unrelenting tension in the Middle East is well known to all states Members of the United Nations: Israel's aggressive policy towards its Arah neighbours, its continued occupation of Arab territories appropriated by force in 1967 and later, and its refusal to recognize the inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine. Those acts are in flagrant contradiction of the principles spelled out in the United Nations Charter, the norms of international law, and the decisions taken by the world Organization. They have been categorically condemned over and over again by the international community, as is confirmed by the numerous resolutions adopted in this regard, which Israel continues to refuse to implement. In addition, the war between Iran and Iraa and the tension in the Gulf exacerbate an already very precarious situation in that part of the world. We hope that the Secretary-General',s mediation in implementation of Security Council resolution 59B (1987) will prove successful, thus becoming a positive element in the international community's efforts to bring stability, security and peace to that region. The turn of events in the Middle East clearly shows that there is an urgent· need to settle the problems in that region peacefully and comprehensively'. For the sake of the vital interests of the peoples of the region, and in the interests of peace and security, the states Members of the United Nations must make major efforts to deal once and for all with this extremely dangerous source of international tension, which has been in the forefront of the attention of the international community ever since the inception of the united Nations. Real possibilities are now emerging, thanks, above all, to the efforts of the international community to curb the dangerous course of events in the Middle East, something which has given rise to a certain optimism and hope. This is why the People's Republic of Bulgaria favours greater joint efforts at the international level to arrive at the turning-point so much yearned for in developments in that part of the world. The experience of recent years clearly shows that any attempt to find a solution to this complex international problem, whose aspects are closely linked and interdependent, by way of separate and selective agreements is not only fruitless but indeed dangerous. There can be no doubt that there is but one way tc arrive at a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement of the problems of the Middle East: joint and sincere efforts by all the parties concerned within the framework of an international conference. It would be superfluous to point out that a very broad and almost unanimous international consensus has emerged on this issue which is reflected in many United Nations resolutions and decisions. This approach already enjoys the backing of the vast majority of states Members of the united Nations; that support was once again demonstrated in the general debate and the discussion on this agenda item at the current session, as well as in the declarations issued by such prestigious organizations and forums as the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and the League of Arab States at its extraordinary summit meeting held recently at Amman, by the Consultative political Committee of the countries members of the Warsaw Pact and others. The People's Republic of Bulgaria has always been of the opinion that to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East Israel will have to withdraw its troops from all Arab territories it occupied in 1967 and subseauently ana the Arab people of Palestine must be guaranteed the right to exercise their legitimate rights to self-determination and the establishment of their own State. No lasting and just settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict can be founa without guaranteeing each people in the region its inalienable right to independent existence ana free development. To translate these great and noble goals into reality, my country is firmly convinced that it is indispensable to convene without any further delay an international conference under the aegis of the United Nations with the participation, on an eaua1 footing, of all the parties concerned, incluaing the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole, legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine, along with the five permanent members of the Security Council. That conference will have to be well prepared in ord~r to ensure a positive outcome. The establishment of a preparatory committee could play a positive role in this connection. At the same time, we wish to point out that any attempt to distort the meaning of that conference, that is, to turn it into a smokescreen for separate agreements, to sideline the Palestine Liberation Organization, shutting it out, are unrealistic and hence doomed to failure. In conclusion, Bulgaria, as a country that has always been sincerely interested in a just and lasting peace for the Middle East, in keeping with the decisions of the united Nations, will in future continue to work jointly with the other States Members of the united Nations to attain this great and noble goal. Mr. FERM (Sweden): This year, 1987, marks the twentieth anniversary of the six-day war. As a result of that war, Israel occupied vast areas of Arab land with large populations - an occupation lasting to this day. It is a sad anniversary. It is sad for the Palestinians under the rule of occupation, living like second-class citizens on their own soil. It is sad for the Israeli occupiers, having themselves become the oppressors of another people aoo thereby in the long run creating a situation that might constitute a threat to Israel itself. It is sad for the international community, watching with growing apprehension how violations of international law continue for decades while little progress is being made in the search for peace. With the exception of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, which ended the Israeli occupation of the Sinai peninsula, those 20 years have not brought peace but produced even more hatred, tension and frustration. The situation in the occupied territories is not the only problem in the Middle East conflict, but it has become an increasingly serious obstacle in the search for peace in the region. On many occasions Sweden has criticized Israel's policies in the occupied territories. Many of these policies constitute serious violations of international law. Israelis refusal to acknowledge the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories is a source of great concern to my Government. There cannot be two sets of international law in the world: one for Israel and one for the rest of us. A population under occupation has distinct rights under the Geneva Convention. Many of these rights are denied today in the occupied territorieS by the Israeli authorities. The Swedish Government categorically condemns the illegal settlement policy. The settlements constitute a crime directed against the Palestinian people, their property and their land. There is no justification for this policy. The recent increases both in the number of settlements and in the number of Israeli settlers serve further to aggravate the already existing tension. The acts of harassment and arrogance by these settlers towards the Palestinian population evoke haunting memories of the behaviour of colonial masters of centuries past. My Government is also deeply concerned over the many reports that indicate other serious violations of the Geneva Convention and a general lack of respect for human rights in the occupied territories. We have criticized many of the arbitrary acts carried out by the Israeli authorities, such as deportations, detention without trial, demolition of houses, house arrests and other restrictions. A particularly reprehensible aspect is the harsh methods used by the Israeli security forces in attempts to subdue demonstrations and other forms of legitimate protest against the occupation. Opening fire on defenceless students resulting in death and injury is one such practice. One recent incident, according to newspaper reports, occurred on 10 November, when a 17-year-01d Palestinian schoolgirl was shot to death in Gaza. There are also reports of detention of children, sometimes not more than 10 or 11 years old, and of their being subjected to physical and psychological maltreatment during interrogation and imprisonment. Israel's purported annexation of East Jerusalem and of the syrian Galan is in flagrant violation of international law. These and other unlawful Israeli policies and practices affecting the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories inevitably give rise to serious concern as to Israel's ultimate intentions. These practices and the long duration of the occupation suggest a deliberate policy of creating faits accomplis. It must be stated without ambiguity that the international community cannot tolerate such a policy. Acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. It is becoming increasingly clear that the problem of the occupied territories must be solved soon. A just and lasting solution to the conflict in the Middle East in general cannot be based on violence or military superiority. It cannot be dictated by an occupying Power. It must be a solution negotiated between Israel, the neighbouring Arab countries and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), representing the Palestinian people. Sweden recognizes the right to self-determination and to statehood of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Israelis have had their State since 1948, and we fully support Israel's right to recognition, security and peace. The (Mr. Ferm, Sweden) self-determination. For decades they have been forced to live under foreign occupation, in refugee camps or as sometimes unwelcome guests in other countries. Sweden believes that, in the territory which was once known as the Mandate of Palestine, there is room for two peoples, two nations and two States. This basic concept, laid down in General Assembly resolution 181 (11) of 1947, continues to be one of the corner-stones of a fair and peaceful solution. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) provide essential elements for a comprehensive settlement and an adeauate basis for negotiation. The understanding of my Government of the essential thrust of those two resolutions is that, as a result of negotiations, Israel would withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967. Israel's neighbours, on their side, would give full recognition to Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognized bqrders. A political solution along these lines is long overdue. If there is to be such a solution, there must be negotiations. The mechanism for negotiations, however, has not been agreed upon. It is a source of hope to my Government that the basic concept of an international conference under United Nations auspices is gaining ground among those concerned, albeit with differences in the understanding of the modalities. The Swedish Government supports the idea of such a conference, which could serve as a framework for constructive direct negotiations. We wish to appeal to those Governments which have not yet given their support to the idea of a conference to do so. Israel refuses to negotiate with representatives of the PLO. If there is a genuine will to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict, parties to that conflict should not simply refuse to sit down and negotiate with one another. If it had always been the policy of parties to conflicts to exclude their enemies from peace negotiations, no peace treaties would ever have been signed. The consequences of the unsolved question of Palestine have spilled over into Lebanon and further aggravated tensions in that country. The war and violence in Lebanon has shed the blood of Lebanese and non-Lebanese alike. Large portions of the population, and not least the Palestinian refugees, continue to find themselves in a precarious situation. This was illustrated with horrifying clarity earlier this year during the so-called war of the camps. It is more important than ever that the various groups be given a chance to solve their differences peacefully and that foreign interference cease so that Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity may be restored. Israel's continued military presence in southern Lebanon is unacceptable. It is a clear violation of international law. It inhibits the fulfilment of the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and remains the main reason for the tension in the area and the problems encountered by the united Nations Force. We appeal to the parties concerned to co-operate with UNIFIL. We also appeal to the members of the Security Council and, indeed, to all Members of this Organization to give their full support - political and financial - to the peace-keeping force, Which plays such an important stabilizing role in southern Lebanon. In recent years, an old phenomenon has reached new proportions in Lebanon. I am referring, of course, to the taking of hostages. This is one aspect of the ugly face of terrorism which continues to plague the region and other parts of the world as well. It is absolutely necessary to combat terrorism in all its forms. It is eaually important for the parties concerned to make real efforts towards peaceful solutions to the conflicts of the region. Next year there will be another sad anniversary. On 17 September 1988, it will be 40 years since the murder of Count Folke Bernadotte. He was the Swede who, hel~~ Jews in Europe to escape from the holocaust. Wallenberg disappeared in the Sov~et Union and is still missing. Bernadotte went on to become the united Nations Mediator in Palestine. Ironically, he was shot by Jewish gunmen in Jerusalem in 1948, becoming one of the many victims of terror ism. Let me end by drawing the attention of representatives to the distinguished Palestinian writer and intellectual, Edward Said. In his book entitled The Question of Palestine, he says: •••• we must not forget that Palestine is saturated with blood and violence, and we must look forward realistically to much turbulence, much ugly human waste in the short time. Unhappily, the question of Palestine will renew itself in all too well-known forms. But so too will the people of Palestine - Arabs and Jews - whose past and future ties them inexorably together. Their But it will occur, I know, • encounter has yet to occur on any important scale. and it will be to their mutual benefit." When that encounter occurs there might be peace, genuine peace for both Israel and its neighbours, and security, genuine security for both Israelis and Arabs. in the Middle East over the past year gives us little reason for optimism. There has been no progress regarding the key issue, the Palestinian auestion, and, despite considerable efforts on the diplomatic front, we do not seem to be any closer to a comprehensive settlement. The occupation by Israel of Palestinian and other Arab territories has continued. Opposition to it has intensified. So has repression of the Arab population: shooting and killing of demonstrators, arrests and deportations. The Israeli policy of establishing new Jewish settlements or expanding existing ones has also continued, increasing the tension in the area. In this regard, we should like to state again that measures aimed at deliberately changing the geographical character, demographic nature and legal status of the occupied territories are in violation of the established norms of international law as well as specific united Nations resolutions and therefore are unacceptable. The tension and violence resulting from the continuing Israeli occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories represent a serious threat to international peace and security. Therefore we have to redouble our efforts to find a way acceptable to all concerned to restore just and lasting peace in the Middle East. After the failed attempts aimed at partial solutions there is now growing support for a comprehensive settlement. The merits of an international peace conference on the Middle East, as called for by the General Assembly, are more and more widely recognized. There also is a wide measure of agreement regarding the basis of a comprehensive settlement: the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, inclUding the rig~t to self-determination should be recognized; all the parties to the conflict, including the PLO, should participate on an eaual footing in the negotiating process; Israeli forces should he withdrawn from all the Arab territories occupied since 1967J and the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all the states in the region, including Israel, should be respected. We very much appreciate the efforts of the secretary-General in accordance with resolution 41/43 D, his consultations with the Security Council and his contacts with the parties concerned. We are encouraged to learn from his report that "in contrast with the experience of recent years, none of the Council members opposed in principle the idea of an international conference under united Nations auspices". It could also be considered to be a 'positive development that "there had been indications of greater flexibility in attitudes towards the However, despite these positive developments, very deep differences remained between the parties which prevented a real breakthrough. under these circumstances, we wish to see the contacts and consultations continue and, if possible, intensify. We should very much welcome an agreement on the establishment of a preparatory committee, in which the existing differences concerning the international conference could be addressed. We know full well that, to overcome the existing differences, bold political decisions are needed. We hope that the improving international situation will make it possible to take those bold political decisions and thereby allow the international conference to be convened. Mr. PEJIC (Yugoslavia): The crisis in the general area of the Middle East justifiably causes deep concern in the international community. Disputes and armed conflicts in the region, the global, geostrategic, political and economic importance of which is well known, have over the years represented one of the most serious sources of tension and instability in international relations. It is also well known that the reasons for such a situation lie primarily 1n the policy of force, violation of territorial integrity and sovereignty, occupation and the denial of the legitimate rights of peoples to self-determination and a free choice of their own future. The most immediate cause of this situation, that is, the crisis in the Middle East, is the Israeli policy of expansion and annexation and the lack of readiness on the part of Israel to withdraw its troops from the Arab territories occupied since 1967 and to enable the Palestinian people to realize its legitimate rights. The continually unstable situation is further complicated by the rivalry between outside Powers and their continuous attempts to influence the events in the region and direct their development in accordance with their own global interests and goals. The current situation in the Arab-Israeli conflict and the temporary status QUo do not guarantee lasting peace and stability. The general atmosphere of mistrust and instability in the region, regardless of the semblance of force and military superiority of some involved in the crisis, is an unmistakable warning sign of the permanent danger of the outbreak of new conflicts with potentially unforeseeable conseauences for international peace and security. The tense situation in the region also confirms that solutions can be achieved not by force and by denying the rights of others but only by political means within the United Nations and on the basis of full respect for; and the realization of, the authentic interests and aspirations of the countries and peoples of the region. This is the position that Yugoslavia, along with other non-aligned countries, has always maintained. The debate in the United Nations in the past few years has shown that this is at the same time an expression of the thinking of the broadest sector of the international community. Therefore it is natural that the initiative for the convening of the international conference on the Middle East under united Nations auspices and with the participation of all directly on an equal footing, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), as well as all those that can make a constructive contribution to the solution of the crisis, is gaining ever wider affirmation and support. There is also no doubt that this is the only realistic way at this juncture to achieve a comprehensive and just solution of the Middle East crisis and the question of Palestine, which is at its core. Very important in this regard is the statement in the report of the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, concerning the existence of "widespread agreement on the part of the international community that the convening of such a conference, under United Nations auspices, offers the best chance of successfully negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict." (A/42/1l4, para. 32) We consider that this is the right - and perhaps the last - moment for taking a specific step forward towards an early convening of the international conference. Of course, we have no illusions that the problem that has preoccupied the United Nations for more than four decades will be resolved easily and soon. The important obstacles and difficulties standing in the way of the convening of the international conference, primarily because of the resistance of Israel, as well as of some outside factors that enable it to pursue such a policy, demonstrate clearly the direction in which the efforts and the pressure of the international community are to be directed. Those Israeli circles that are used to solving problems by force and diktat should show whether they are ready to engage in genuine and serious dialogue in order to achieve lasting and just peace. As a member of the Committee of Nine Non-Aligned Countries on Palestine, Yugoslavia has striven, and will continue to strive, to make an active contribution, within the limits of its possibilities, to the efforts for early convening of the international conference. At the same time, it has supported all constructive efforts to find, within the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, the broadest acceptable basis and formula for beginning a political process in the direction of a lasting, just and comprehensive solution of the Middle East problem and the question of Palestine, which is at its core. In this context we render full support to the efforts of the Secretary-General aimed at convening the international conference, and we earnestly hope that his contacts and consultations in the months ahead will bring about concrete progress. However, we wish to point out again that a lasting and just solution of the Middle East crisis implies Israel's complete and immediate withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since 1967; the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), its sole legitimate representative, to self-determination, including the establishment of a State of its own; and the assurance of, and respect for, the right of all the countries and peoples of the region, including Israel, to peace and security within internationally recognized borders. unfortunately, we must state again this year that the tragedy of the Lebanese people continues, as a consequence of Israeli intervention and the continued violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and interference in its internal affairs. I remind the Assembly that Yugoslavia fully supports early restoration of Lebanon's national unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty, with consistent implementation of the relevant united Nations resolutions. The necessary from Lebanese territory, cessation of Israeli interference in the internal affairs of the country and making it possible for the Lebanese people to decide freely and independently on their own development. The Iraa-Iran war, which has entered its eighth year, affects the overall situation in the Middle East in a most direct and dangerous way. with other non-aligned countries and the international community in general, Yugoslavia has followed with the utmost concern the continued escalation of the conflict between the two - to us - friendly, non-aligned countries, the negative destabilizing consequences of which are being strongly felt in the whole area of the Middle East and South-West Asia, thus diverting attention from the solution of the crucial problem of the exercise of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. It is therefore understandable that Yugoslavia, as well as all the international public, has followed with keen interest the course of action in the Security Council aimed at finding ways and means to terminate this bloody and senseless war. It was with great expectations that we received the unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 598 (1987), which in our opinion constitutes an adeauate and balanced basis for an honourable, just and lasting solution of the conflict. Unfortunately, the conflict is being continued, and, I would say, has assumed even more dangerous proportions. The presence of foreign fleets and almost daily incidents in the Gulf have borne out the former warnings of the dangers from the escalation of the conflict and the interference of outside powers. The seven years of bloodshed and destruction have shown that it is illusory to expect that outstanding problems between the two countries, regardless of their complexity, can be solved on the battlefield. We therefore earnestly hope that the warring parties will use the opportunity to end the conflict by implementing Security Council resolution 598 (1987). At the same time, we consiaer that the Secretary-General's tireless efforts and his contacts with the warring parties, aimea at bringing about early and consistent implementation of the Security Council resolution, deserve the broadest possible support and recognition. The Success of those efforts would greatly enhance the prestige of the world Organization, since it would restore and strengthen confidence in the ability of the United Nations to act effectively and resolutely to overcome situations that threaten international peace and security and, ipso facto, to realize the noble purposes and principles entrusted to it by the Charter. The crisis in the Middle East has for a number of years now seriously burdened international relations. Opening up the prospect of its just and lasting solution - here of course, we have in mind the problem of Palestine - would be a major contribution to the overall efforts being made to improve the international situation. Proceeding on that basis, Yugoslavia will continue to do its utmost to contribute, with others, to the elimination of this long-lasting and difficult international crisis. Mr. OTT (German Democratic Republic): It is 40 years since the united Nations began dealing with the Middle East problem. Twenty years ago Israel started its aggression against, and occupation of, Arab territories, which has lasted to this day, and five years ago it occupied large parts of Lebanon. These anniversaries are painful reminders that the Middle East conflict, with its core, the auestion of Palestine, is still unresolved. The responsibility for this state of affairs rests on Israel, which persists in grossly disregarding the relevant resolutions and decisions of this Assembly. That policy has been feasible because of continued backing by its principal strategic ally. The German Democratic Republic shares the deep international concern over the ~ontinuing Middle East conflict, and is aligned with the overwhelming majority of ;tatesl in calling for concrete progress towards its settlement. Such progress has ~en lacking for far too long, and the united Nations should facilitate it in the Lnterest of the peoples of the Middle East and of world peace - aware that the ~harter demands that we "unite our strength to maintain international peace and iecurity". The peoples of the Middle East region must no longer be denied a life in peace lnd freedom. Never have peace and freedom been more essential to all states and >eoples than now, as pressing global problems confront them. Only in a truly >eaceful world can every people develop as it wishes and carry out the immense ~onomic and social tasks ahead, in the interest of mankind. A solution to the Middle East conflict in that spirit would lastingly enhance lot only the security of the region, but also the peace of the world. It would ~nsure that a region that is one of the most ancient and important in humanity's listory would become a bridge between the great traditions of the past and the ~hallenges of the future - indeed, a significant factor in building a peaceful :uture for all mankind. It is well known who is to be held responsible for the still smouldering fiddle East conflict, for violence and injustice in the region still prevail over >eace, understanding and co-operation. The accountable parties are those who lisregard the right of peoples to independence and self-determination, violate lccepted norms of international coexistence and are bent on domination and military luperiority. To behave in that way in present-day conditions is, however, to play with a fire in which all humanity risks being destroyed. The reasonable alternative is realism, a policy in the service of human survival, and an absolute will to settle conflicts and disputes between states by peaceful means. The unambiguous position of the German Democratic Republic has been put on record on various occasions. The Head of State of the German Democratic Republic, Erich Honecker, has noted: "Our policy of dialogue rests on the conviction that notwithstanding all the complexities there is no problem in today's world that could not be settled by negotiation and by paying regard to the interests of the parties involved". proceeding from that general perception, we have consistently advocated exclusively peaceful ways of settling conflicts and removing sources of tension, with heed taken of the legitimate interests of the States and peoples concerned. That applies also to the German Democratic Republic's attitude towards the Middle East conflict. The principles which are fundamental to the settlement of that conflict are laid down in many United Nations resolutions. They call for the realization of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, including its right to establish an independent State of its own; the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from all territories occupied since 1967; and '. 1 guarantees of the right of all States of the region to independence and secure 11' frontiers. But also inclUded is the eaual participation of the Palestine I l ( i Liberation organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, in a peace settlement. In the German Democratic Republic's view, a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the conflict can be achieved only bya common effort, in the framework of an international peace conference on the Middle East. The long history of the Middle East conflict has Seen a variety of attempts and propositions to resolve it. Obviously there has been, and will be, no chance of success for any plans seeking to find separate solutions to individual aspects of the issue. Such an approach never has and never could cover, let alone do justice to, the complexity of the conflict, with its many interrelationships. Therefore, it is only too understandable that the idea of convening an international peace conference on the Middle East should be gaining support from an increasing number of States. That is undoubtedly a new aspect, which enriches the current debate. The German Democratic Republic has therefore noted with satisfaction Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar's report of 7 May this year, in which he states: "All members of the Security Council were concerned about the Middle East problem, and all expressed support for a continuation of the Secretary-Generalis efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Moreover, in contrast with the experience of recent years, none of the Council members opposed in principle the idea of an international conference under united Nations auspices". (A/42/217, para. 3) That reflects a heightened awareness by States that what is needed is a collective solution, a new approach in regard to the problems in the Middle East as well. As far as my country is concerned, we disregard neither the persistent impediments nor the divergent views on matters such as the modalities and competences of the international conference or participation in it. But these problems should not stand in the way of the ongoing efforts. We believe that they can and must be overcome by redoubled efforts of the community of States. The establishment of a preparatory committee with the participation of the permanent members of the Security Council and all interested parties could be a practical move towards that end. The German Democratic Republic is pleased to note that this position accords with those of a great, and indeed increasing, number of States and with the pertinent resolutions, including those of the General ~ssembly. The developments I have outlined - and indeed they are positive ones when compared with those of the past as far as the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East is concerned - convey yet another valuable message. It is evident that the efforts of decades, inside and outside the United Nations, have not been in vain as they finally have had positive reprecussions on the position of quite a few States. The endeavours made by the United Nations to find a peaceful, comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the Middle East conflict are effective. The United Nations has thus underlined its importance as a universal and irreplaceable forum of States for international dialogue and co-operation in regard also to the peacefUl settlement of international conflicts. That should prompt us to proceed on this road, which is freauently arduous and certainly long. The SUbsisting difficulties and problems obstructing the road to a final settlement of the Middle East conflict need to be removed through a concerted effort so that a breakthrough can be achieved and the conflict can be settled. The German Democratic RepUblic will do its best to assist in this process. Mr. TREIRI (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (interpretation from Arabic): We are meeting today to discuss a fundamental problem: that of the Middle East. Only a few days ago we were discussing the problem of the Palestinian people. It is really not possible to draw any distinction between those two subjects or to divorce them from the occupation of the Arab territories, which is in fact the result of the occupation of Palestine by the zionist entity. Dozens of years have passed, and many more will pass, while we go on repeating the same fine-sounding statements in which we condemn, we denounce, we point the finger of accusation, we express our hopes, we express our sympathy. But what comes out of all this? The occupation continues, thereby demonstrating the occupier's contempt for international resolutions. Genocide and aggression continue against the Palestinian people - the main victim - and against the inhabitants of the occupied Arab territories. The racist ziooist entity obstinately refuses to respood favourably to our resolutions. Despite all this, and that entity's soornful attitude, we are impotent in the face of this si tua tion. We are unable to aoopt an effective resolution that could force the aggressor to mend its ways, just as we have been powerless in other situations, just as we have been unable to aoopt resolutions against the other colonialist entity in SOuth Africa. Those two regimes are the two sides of the same coin. They both der ive from the same and colon ialist, racist premise of enti ties which are completely alien to the lands which they occupy. The racist entity in southern Africa and the zionist entity in Palestine derive their strength from the total support received from the imper ialist and colonialist Powers. We talk about peace, we all desire peace, but what kind of peace do we really want? Do we want a peace in the style of the aggressor, the occupier, a peace that would mean that it would keep the land, from which the inhabitants would be driven for the benefit of immigration from elsewhere~ a peace which would give the immigrants the occupied lands on a silver plate? The aggressor, not content with its occupation, has turned its back on all relevant international resolutions and annexed the occupied territories, despite all the resolutions of our international Organization. The annexation of the Syrian Galan Heights is resounding proof of the fact that this fabricated entity has the greatest disdain for all international resolutions. We have been incapable of tak ing the steps which migh t dissuade the aggressor. We have been incapable of implemen ting Chapter VII of the Charter. In the face of our impotence, the aggressor, of course, has persisted in his occupation. Because of our weakness, the occupier has continued his acts of aggression, massacre and extermination of a population. When we express our desire for the peace to which we all aspire this does not mean that we agree to sur render. We reject that. The Arab nation has many resources and knows how to fight. It also takes pride in an ancient civilization. we have sufferea the Crusades and occupation, but we have also been able to crush the occupier. The occupier has remained in Palestine for many years, but he has nOlll left. The present occupation of Palestine and the Arab territories by the Ziooist entity, in spite of its odious character, will have the same fate as the Crusader s of the past. The small, heroic Lebanese population has shown great courage in fighting. Despi te the prodigious power of the enemy, helped by the forces of good, and despite oppression, the people of that small country has not given way. The agreement of 15 May has not legi timized the occupa tion. The heroic acts of the small population of Lebanon has expelled the aggressor from the ter ri wry, and this is irrefutable proof that peoples, however small and despite the violence of the occupier, will triumph in the end. Certain Arab oountries have been forced to surrender and sign agreements, but this is only a temporary matter, because peace under occupation, peace dictated by conditions, can never be lasting. ~ agreement reached with the enemy, whatever its nature, can ever bear the stamp of legitimacy, because the Arab nation will reject it. All those who betray their nation and their homeland will meet their inevi table doom. What is the position of the Organization? Is it, as in the past, to adopt draft resolutions and become a wailing wall? Or is it at last to take some effective, realistic and radical steps? The aggressor cannot be driven out and forced to withdraw his forces by resolutions, no matter how forceful. South Africa has never heeded our resolutions. The ziooist entity has never heeded our resolutions either. History teaches us that what is taken by force can only be recOI/ered by force. The people of zimbabwe demonstrated this, because today there is a people of Zimbabwe and not a Rhodes ian people. '!boor row there will be a people of Palestine instead of the Ziooist entity. The day after tomorrow we shall see the people of Azania and not the South Afr iean regime. Uprisings in occupied territories, in Palestine, in the Syrian Galan, in the West Bank - which is in fact a part of Palestine - and in Gaza show that the occupier will never know peace. ~atever its strength, whatever its p:>tential, the people will tr iumph in the end. The United Nations has oonfirmed the legi timacy of the struggle. It has recognized that Zialism is a form of racism. We must regard this as encouragement to our people in the occupied territories to fight, to make greater sacrifices, because, once again, history teaches us that the forces of evil have an end ~ they are not eternal. The people who fought against Nazism knCM better than anyone else that the end of racism and Naz ism is inevi table. What the racist Zionist entity represents in occupied Palestine and the occupied Arab territories is but a form of Fascism and Nazism. There is no other name for it. The Nazis collll\itted massacres, but the Zionists do even worse) they commit acts of genocide, they decimate the Palestinian p:>pulation, massacre Palestinians and drive them into territories where they are exiles. We as an Arab nation and in the context of international legality have had reoourse to the United Nations. We have been patient with our suffer ings for nore than 40 years. Every year we come back, we weep, we supplicate in this very Hall so that justice will be done. But even patience has limits. The potential of the forces of peace in the region are Hmi ted. They should not be lost. Peace cannot be ushered in under a state of occupation. Peace necessarily involves the exercise by the Palestinian people of their legitimte rights, particularly their right to return to their homeland. Peace cannot be wrought by force, even temporarily. Peace necessarily means the evacuation of the occupied territories and an end to the occupa tion. Despi te the despa ir which we have fel t for so many year s, we ask the family of na tions to wake up and to show proof of an awakening of conscience. We should not 1et this histor ic oppor tunity, which is now before us, pass us by. Neither the heroic Syrian people nor the valiant Lebanese people can remain silent in the face of the occupation. We are a single nation~ our destiny is one and we share the same past. Whatever be the occupying forces, however powerful are the imperialists who support that oocupation, it is not possible for more than 200 million Arabs to surrender and to aCXJuiesce. History has taught us that weakness in the face of an aggressor is never in one IS interest. It is not possible, in any event, to accept the continuance of th is occupa tion • The terror which is represented by the Zionist gangs in their practices against our peoples is sOIMthing which must be resisted. The legitimacy of this resistance has been reiterated and enshrined by the United Nations and by all legal ays terns. Europe did not accept naz ism and res is ted it to the very end. And Ellrope, which fully comprehends, must be aware of our position and must help us. prevent this occupation) that is their real role. It is to render justice to the people and not to help the aggressor. It is our firm hope that the forces of good in the world will have an awaken ing of conscience and that they will come to the aid of the Palestinian people and the Arab peoples. Victory, in the final analysis, belongs to the struggling people and not to the aggressor.* Mr. ~ID~ (Pak istan): Four decades have gone by since the united Na tions first considered the si tuation in the Middle East. After 40 years of debates and deliberations resulting in the adoption of numerous resolutions, after five ma jor wars callS Ing incalculable damage to the ma terial and human resources of the region, after 40 years of deprivation and misery suffered by the Palestinian people, both in exile and lU\der occupa tien, a solution to the Middle East problem remains as elusive today as ever before. The Middle East is still convulsed by Israel's intransigence and its inability to come to grips wi th its own arrogance. Israel pers ists in the mistaken belief that its military prep:mderance can assure, to its advantage, a perpetual freeze of the "no war no peace" situation and thus allow it to retain and gradually absorb the Palestinian and Arab territories, which it continues to occupy illegally. The Middle East is a strategic region. It is, indeed, a short-sighted policy to believe that the perpetuation of tensions can guarantee Israel its security. The region's history is a painfUl reminder that deliberately induced tensions cannot be controlled or contained. Any fresh outbreak of hostilities would be morE dangerous than the previous conflicts, wi th the poss ibility of a super-Power * Mrs. Astorga-Gadea (Nicaragua), Vice-President, took the Chair. coofrontation whose consequences for international peace and security are too horrendous even to contemplate. The crux of the problem engulfing the Middle Fast is Israel's aggressive and expansionist policies and its contemptuous dismissal of the legitimate and inalienable right of the Palestinian people to have a homeland of their own. In the process, Israel has launcned wars of aggression against all its neighbours, forcibly occupied their territor ies and has malevolently pur sued its obsession, in the occupied territories and abroad, to liquidate the Palestinian identity. In complete defiance of the will of the international conunun ity, it has refused to wi thdraw from the occupied terri tor ies, annexed the Holy Ci ty of Jer usalem and the Golan Heights, and speeded the establishment of illegal settlements in the west Bank, wi th the ul tina te objective of changing its dellOgraphic character and Judaizing all Palestinian territories. The indescr ibable suffer ing of the Palestin ian people, under alien occupation, is one of the most tragic chapters in this century's history. A dynamic people, inher iting a proud civil ization, they have been dispossessed of their land where their forefathers lived for millennia. For 70 years, since the Balfour Declaration sowed the ill-fated seeds of this tragedy, they have suffered the "oppressor's wrong", who has pursued a vicious policy of harrassment and terror aimed at forcing them to abandon their land. Even in exile and adver sity they have not found respi te from the relentless vengeance and ru thlessness of the oppressors. Israel must abandon its annexatiooist policies if it entertains a genuine desire for peace in the Middle East. Israel's military capabilities place at its disposal enough instruments to inflict death and destruction. But these will not - and time has proved it aga in and aga in - enfeeble the will and determination of the Arabs to live as sovereign independent people~ nor will Israel's mili tary machine coerce them into accepting a less than just and honourable peace. Israel should know that a people determined to be free cannot be subjugated. N::> people can for ever exist in a state of war. Israel has a choice. It can opt for lasting peace by recognising the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, by abjuring its expansiooist designs and by resiling from its annexationist policies. otherwise, Israel will p.1rsue an ephemeral security at the cost of permanent hostility and the perpetual destabilization of this strategic region. Israel's isolation, which it has built on the foundations of hatred and aggression, can come to an end if it arr ives at a just settlement with the Palestinian people and its Arab neighbours. The General Assenbly, at its thirty-eighth session, in 1983, aoopted resolution 38/58 C recomnending the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East, as well as outlining certain fundamental elements for the successful conclus ion of a oomprehensive settlement. Last year the Heads of state or Government of non-aligned coun tries rei tera ted the ir call for the speedy implementation of this resolution and stressed anew the necessity for the early convening of the International Peace Conference. "emphasising the major responsibility shouldered by the Security Council in facili ta ting the convening of the Conference and prOlliding the appropr ia te institutional arrangements to guarantee the implementation of the expected agreements of the Conference". (A/41/697, p. 87, para. 182) We have been heartened by the growing awareness and consensus in recent months that such an international peace conference is necessary to resolve this oomplex problem. The secretary-General's remark (A/42/714) that his special effort to prolOOte the convening of the international peace conference was endorsed by leaders of all parties to the conflict is a cause of encouragement. BJt it is regrettable that a histor ic oppor tunity is not being gr asped because, as the secretary~neral states, "The major obstacle at present, however, is one of a different kind, namely, the inability of the GoI1ernment of I srael as a whole to agree on the pr inciple of an international oonference under united Nations auspices. Until the Israeli Government accepts that such a conference is the best way to neqotia te a peace settlement, the way forward will remain difficult." (A/42/7l4, para. 33) We agree with the secretary-General that the present opportunity actively to pronote the search for a comprehensive settlement must be seized. we fully support his efforts to continue to explore with the parties ways of advancing this process. My delegation shares the secretary-Generalis expectation that in this endeavour he would have the support of the Se cur i ty Council, particular ly its permanent members. The imperatives of peace and security in the region demand reason, wisdom and far-sightedness. Peace by the sword will not endure~ nor will a stalemate benefit any party. Procedural obstacles created for temporary gain should not becloud the merits of a lasting peace. At riSk is not only international peace and security but the relevance of the United Nations as an instrument for international peace and securi ty • Mr. WIR1DID (Inoones ia) ':. It is a tr uism that when confl iets have their source in the persistent violation of the fundamental rights of nations and peoples as envisioned in the Charter their potential for wider war and incalculable human tragedy becomes all the more acu te. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle Fast, where for the past 40 years Palestinian and Arab people have been forcibly deprived of their most elementary r i9hts and subjected to the upheaval, death and destruction of unceasing strife, including five major wars. Time and again the conflict has been brought to the br ink of wor Id conflaqration by Israel's insolent defiance of all accepted pr inciples and precepts of in terna tional law and of all relevant resolutions adopted by the Assembly and by the Secur ity Council. Thus, the Arab-Israel i conflict, with the unresolved issue of the Palestinian right to self-determination at its oore, has moved inexorab1y from one violent crisis to the next, creating in its wake ever more formidable obstacles to the restoration of peace and security in that volatile region. Enoouraged by the allT'Ost unquestioning support extended to it by its friends and protectors, I srael has r elen t1 essly pursued its ag9ress ive and expansionist policies. By steadily entrenching its illegal occupation of Palestinian and Arab territories, through "creeping annexation" and the systematic destruction of the cultural, religious, demographic and socio-economic features of those territories, and by ma in ta in ing a bru ta 1 rei gn of terror and oppress ion aga inst the Arab people, I sr ael has oon tinuously exacer bated the tensions and hostili ties in the region, render ing any hope for the ini t ia tion of mean ingful negotiations exceedingly remote. l'hr has Israel ceased its desperate attempts to demolish the national identity and political cohesion of the Palestinian people and physically to annihilate their sole and legitimate representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PID). Yet, throughout the years the PLO has withstood this merciless onslaught and remains to this day the soul and conscience of the Palestinian people, and this fundamental fact cannot be changed by force of arms. Israel also continues its illegal occupation of the sovereign territory of Lebanon, five years after its massive military invasion of that country and in brazen disregard of demands by the secur i ty Council for an immediate and complete withdrawal to internationally recognized boundaries. In this cootext the letter from the permanent representative of Lebanon addressed to the 5ecretary-Gener a1 (A/42/702) graphically records the exten t of the devastation being perpetrated by the Israeli occupation forces, including what can only be descr ibed as a soorched-earth policy aga inst the towns and v illages in the south and in the western Bekaa, for Israel has now enbarked 00 the wholesale destruction of the agricultural and other eoonomic infrastructures as a means of driving out the Lebanese citizens and Palestinian refugees living there and thereby depopulating the area contiguous to the so-<:alled security zone in southern Lebanoo established by Israel since 1982. These developments confirm Israel's sinister designs of imposing a permanent military presence in southern Lebanon. Clearly Israel cannot hide behind the pretext of self-defence to justify its illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian and Arab territor ies, nor can it ra tional ize its inhuman acts and practices of repress ion and persecu tion. Indeed, Israel must be compelled to assume responsibility to the international oo1llllunity for its gross violations of the Charter of the U'li ted Na Hons, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other universal norms of civilized behaviour. In 1983 a new chapter was opened in the four-decades-long search for a just and peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict. The International Conference 00 the Question of Palestine, held in Geneva in Septenber of that year, unanimously adopted a framework for a comprehensive settlement through the convening of an international peace conference under the auspices of the thited Nations. Indonesia whole-heartedly supported that historic initiative, which was subsequently encbrsed by General Assembly resolution 38/58 C, for we have always been convinced that the 001y sensible path towards peace must be in the full utilization of the means and mechanisms of peace-building and peace-keeping possessed by the uni ted Na tions, the only multilateral forum specifically designed for that purpose. unique opportunity for all of the parties to the confl iet to par ticipa te on an equal footing, including the PLO, as well as the major Powers and other concerned States. Moreover, it would also fulfil our long-standing view that for any negotiating process to be viable it should equitably address in a comprehensive manner all the essential elements for a just and durable solution. 'lb Indonesia and the overwhelming majority of mank ind these are the following~ the attainment by the Palestinian people of its inalienable human and national rights, including the right to return, the right to self-determination and independence and the right to establish its own sover eign state in Palestine) the need to secure Israel's wi thdrawal from the terri tories occupied since 1967, incl uding Jerusalem) the rejection of de facto situations created by Israel, such as its settlements policy in the occupied territories and its policies to alter the character and status of Jerusalem) and the right of all states in the region to exist within secure and internationally reoognized boundaries. Throughout this period no effort has been spared to achieve progress towards the convening of the peace conference. Dur ing the past year alooe the Secretary-General has held virtually continuous discussions, including at the highest level, wi th the parties to the conflict as well as wi th the representatives of the permanent members of the security Council. Although a large majority of those consulted fully endorsed the convening of the peace conference, the Secretary-General was cx:>mpelled to report that the major obstacle remains "the inability of the Government of I srael as a whole to agree on the principle of an international [peace] cx:>nference". (A/42/714, para. 33) On this point we note that within the Israeli ruling circles themselves fissures appear to be emerging and that throughout Israel the peace conference proFOsal has drawn contentious but lively debate. Nooe the less, the basic challenge before Israel which remains unmet is recognition of the reality of the Palestinian existence, under the unquestionable leadership of the PLO, and acceptance of a Palestinian State in Palestine. Instead it continues to cling to the totally unacceptable objective of seek ing international legitimization of its faits accomplis, knowing full well that the"~:j international oommunity will never accept the aCCluisition of territory byfotee' as - that would be in total con travention of the Charter and security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Thus by word and deed Israel has repeatedlyconfirmed that it has no intention of engaging in any serious search for peace. In these circumstances, political and diplomatic pressure will have to be increased in order to convince Israel that the only path to peace is through a oollt)rehensive solution which will take into account the legitimate interests of all States in the region. It is therefore imperative that specifically Israelis fr iends and allies finally co-oper ate with the United Nations in mak ing the holding: of the International Peace Conference possible. When the global oolllt\un ity pronounced itself on the conven ing of the international peace conference 00 the Middle East none of us was tmder any illusion that it could be easily realized. Admittedly the road to the conference will be long and arduous. 'lbday, however, there is hardly any Sta te or group of Sta tes that is not convinced that it offers the best chance, indeed the only chance, of successfully negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In this regard the Arab States, at their Extraordinary SUmmit held at J\rnman in NOI1ember, again affirmed their support for the conference. Likewise the Palestine National Council meeting, held at Algiers in April, also expressed its backing for the conference. We are further heartened by the substantially enhanced support extended by the 12 member States of the European Community. Indooesia fully coocurs wi th our secretary-General that "Thel;le positive trends demand of us that we consolidate and build on the foundatioo that has so far been established 11. (A/42/7l4, para. 34) We believe as he does that a continuation of the stalemate is contrary to the interests of all the parties concerned and that it is only through the inte,rnational peace conference that all the objectives of our susta ined effor ts can be comprehensively achieved: historical justice to the Palestinians, an end to the Arab-Israeli confl ict and peace in the Middle East. Mr. FISCHER (Austria): When we are considering the item on the situation in the Middle Fast the year 1987 lends itself to the recollection of several anniversaries: the seventieth anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which envisaged the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the fortieth anniversary of General Assembly resolution 181 (II), providing for the partition of Palestine and the twentieth anniversary of the six Days War, as a result of which the whole area formerly constituting the Mandated Territory of Palestine came under Israeli control. As so often in its history, the Middle East, a cradle of civili2ation and the geographical origin of three great religions, is once again a hotbed of tension. which continues to endanger international peace and security. When the General Assembly, on 29 November 1947, adopted resolution 181 (11), entitled "Future government of Palestine", it called for the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The united Nations thus assumed a unique responsibility exceeding by far the one it had under the trusteeship regime. tJnfortunately, resolution 181 (11) was not implemented in the way the General Assembly intended. This historic failure was to trigger four wars during the next decades. One of the preambu1ar paragraphs of resolution 181 (11) reads as follows:. "Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations." In view of what the Middle East has experienced during the past 40 years that can be considered only as an understatement. In fact, the situation in the Middle'East and its core issue, the auestion of Palestine, have been a focal point of United Nations activities. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was set up in 1949 to alleviate the plight of the Palestinian refugees. United Nations peace-keeping operations were first designed to bring l r some stability to the very volatile situation in the Middle East; names like the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO), the United , Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), the united Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) are for ever linked to that region. united Nations organs, such as the General Assembly and the Security Council, have devised formulas for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, to tbis day they are the basis for constructive diplomatic initiatives. Despite all the efforts undertaken by this Organization and others, a comprehensive solution to the Middle East problem has so far eluded the international community. All the plans, proposals and ideas advanced during the past two decades have a common core: the return of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 in exchange for peace and security for all states of the region - very often termed the "land for peace" formula. It would seem simple to translate such a formula into concrete policy. However, the obstacles on the way to peace have proved to be numerous. The greatest obstacle of all seems to be the reluctance of the parties involved to recognize each other. That approach is, in our view, a self-defeating one. It prevents the parties from assessing their own future in a sober and realistic manner. What is recruired more than eVer is an awareness by all sides that there is an alternative to the present situation. Such an alternative reauires both sides to make a reasonable, though painful, choice. For Israel the choice is either to continue its policy of strength, military superiority, persistence in the occupation of foreign territories, negation of the lawful aspirations of the Palestinian people, and pursuance of the dream of Greater Israel of Biblical dimensions; or to accept a future in harmony with its neighbours. Israel would have to part with the notion that it could choose complacent interlocutors among Palestinians. A country can choose its friends and allies but never its geographic neighbours. It would therefore involve acceptance of the role of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinian people in future negotiations. Peace will become possible when Israel realizes that occupation of foreign territories and peace with its neighbours cannot be reconciled. Israel ought to remember its original concept of statehood and accept certain demographic realities. The Palestinian people simply must be taken into consideration~ it will no longer be possible to act as if there were no Palestinians. For the Palestinian people and its representative, the PLO, the choice is between recognition of Israel and the chance of a process leading to real peace, or preservation of the dismal status QUO. For both parties, the choice comes down to parting with long-cherished notions and gving up occupied territories or political concepts. Once that has happened we might very well See the Jewish and Arab States originally called for in resolution 181 (11) coexisting peacefully. What we witnessed in the past decades was a policy of "wai t and see", which until now has not led us anywhere. It is highly doubtful that such an approach will achieve concrete results. Rather, both parties should not rely on the concept that time is working in their favour but undertake a courageous effort to remove the remaining obstacles preventing the start of negotiations. The international community should try to channel the efforts of the parties to the conflict to start from common ground into the one and only direction - the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That can best be achie~ed by an international conference. We note with interest that the idea of convening an international peace conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the united Nations is gaining ever more international support. Austria has supported that conference proposal from the beginning. The participation of all the permanent members of the Security Council and all parties to the conflict, including the Palestinians, is necessary for the conference to achieve a meaningful result. In our view, peace cannot be based on an iron-fist policy but on respect for international law. These are the elements which Austria regarcs as vital for a comprehensive, just and lasting solution: observance of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which to this day provide the most widely accepted basis for a solution; withdrawal from occupied territories; respect for the right of all States, including Israel, to exist within secure and internationally recognized boundaries~ and recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people and participation by its chosen representative, the PLO, in the negotiating process. What is necessary at the present stage is a concerted effort by all parties concerned and the permanent members of the Security Council to set the stage for the international conference. Responsibility therefore is not restricted only to the parties to the confli'.;i: hilt "\i1:'lt he !'lhouldered by the permanent members of the Security Council as well. The problems of the Middle F.ast are multifaceted; they involve political, military, legal and humanitarian aspects. The violation of human rights in territories occupied by Israel is an important aspect of the problem. Just and lasting peace cannot be achieved without respect for human rights. The continued Israeli settlement policy is a matter of serious concern. EKpropriation of land for the establishment of new settlements and an increase in the nunber of settlers cause widespread frustration and despair among the Arab population. Such a policy necessarily aggravates the oppressive OI1erall atmosphere in the occupied territories. Daily incidents trigger a cycle of violence and repression, which, after 20 years of life under occupation, should come as a surprise to nobody. Should Israel be interested in laying the groundwork for a negotiated solution, it should change its policies in the occupied territories and thus create a climate a:mducive to the future peaceful ooexistence of Jews and Arabs. Speak ing of the si tua tion in the Middle East and, in par ticular, the occupied territories, we should not forget war-torn and internally divided lebanon. More than a decade of civil war and external interference has seriously endangered the very existence of lebanon. Austria has responded to the plight of the lebanese, as well as that of the Palestinian population in that country, and will continue to provide humanitarian relief. Before concluding I should like to pay a special tribute to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which has its provisional headquarters in Vienna. Its humanitarian and educational work, carried out by its dedicated staff under often very dangerous circumstances, has helped to ease the fate of millions of Palestinians since 1949. UNRWA merits the full support of the in terna tional communi t::j. In 1947, be fore the Gener al Assemly aoopted resolu tion 181 (I I), it was stated that "a just settlement can only be found if account is taken in sufficient degree of the lawful interests of both PeOples". We should keep in mind that in the course of the last decades the lawful interests of the Palestinian people were not, to say the least, receiving due attention. It should be the noblest goal of the international oommunity to give the Palestinian people what is due to them. Mr. ZAIDIDa<Y (Czechoslovakia): The Middle Fast continues to be one of the most dangerous hotbeds of tension and a constant source of threat to international peace and security. It is beyond any doubt th'at the question of Palestine remains the core of the Middle East crisis. This conclusion reached by the international oomnunity retains its full validity notwithstanding the fact that the situation in the Middle East is being influenced by a nurrber of factors, including conflicts in areas adjacent to Palestine. We are convinced that the efforts aimed at a lasting, comprehensive and just peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, without which no solution of the crisis in the Middle East is possible, must be still further intensified. The situation cannot be resolved by military means, as it is impossible, in fact, to achieve militarily a lasting solution of any of the major international problems. The escalation of the arms build-up and especially the unabated reinforcement by Israel of its military potential lead only to the further growth of tension and the danger that at any time the situation can turn into a military conflict. The continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank of the Jordan, the Gaza. Str ip, East Jerusalem, the <:blan Heights and south Lebanon, the aggressive steps against the Ar ab coun tries and the forcible suppression of the legi tima te rights of Palestinians deepen the crisis and obscure the chances for a solution. In this context we wish to reaffirm our solidarity with the Palestinian PeOple and our full support for their inalienable rights, including the right to establish their own State. We also confirm our support for the sOI7ereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and Iebanon, a part of whose territories is occupied by Israel. At the same time, we wish, intar a1 ia, to expr ess our appr eciation of the role played in the preservation of peace by tllited Nations peace-keeping forces, especially the united Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), whose activities have our political and· financial support. We are aware, however I that the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces I from the territories occupied since 1967, the exercise by the Palestinian people of " their right to self-determination and to establish their own State, and the r I subsequent provision of assurances of the safe existence in peace and stability of all States in the region, including an Arab State of Palestine and the State of Israel, are essential prerequisites for the solution of the Middle East crisis r Ir ! situation. The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic is o:mvinced that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the Middle East situation can be reached through an international peace conference I according to the relevant united Nations resolutions, with the participation of all the parties involved in the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation organization (PLO) as the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, as well as the five permanent merrbers of the 8ecur ity Council. ;,We have studied with interest the reports submitted by the 5ecretary-Genera1 to the .Genera1 Assembly and to the Securi ty Council in connection wi th his o:>nsu1tations in fulfilment of the mandate entrusted to him by General Assembly resolutions 41/43 and 41/162. It is commendable that in cornpar ison with the preceding per iod the Secretary-General could note that "none of the [Secur ity] Council member s opposed in pr incip1e the idea of an . international conference under united Nations auspices. " (A/42/277, para. 3). However, it is apparent that major disagreements still exist as to the scale and mandate of the conference and as to the participation of the PLO. We are convinced that the conference should base the solution of the Middle East question strictly on the principles of international law. We consider that it is necessary not to nar row the basis of such a solution to Se cur ity Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 383 (1973), but to expand it with a whole series of United Nations resolutions incorporating the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to return, to self -determina tion and to es tablish the ir own Sta te. We see the comprehensive nature of such a conference as an essential prerequisite for its success. We are convinced that misuse of the idea of a conference as a formal facade for separate negotiations would put in jeopardy the whole international conference. We reaffirm in this context our fully identification with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of United Nations Member States on the need for par ti cipa tion by the PLO on an equal footing. Attempts to make separate deals at the expense of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people cannot be regarded as a constructive approach to the solution of the situation, because they do not solve the main problem, that is, the necessity of sel f-determination of the Palestinian people in the form of the es tablishment of the ir own state. The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic is oonvinced of the need for the commencement wi thout delay of arrangements for the conference. It is precisely the acHv ities of the pr epar atory commi ttee which could help surmount existing divergencies. That is why we express ourselves once aga in to be in favour of initiating its work with the participation of the permanent memers of the Security Council. The evolution of positions on the issues of the Middle East situation has indicated in recent years an increasing conviction about the inevitability of an all-embracing political solution. We regard as positive the fact that an ever greater number of States, movements and organizations is participating in the process of developing a common understanding of the need for an equitable settlement of the Middle East si tua tion. In this context the standpoints of those who oppose a peaceful settlement are becoming ever more visible. We deem it appropriate to recall the conclusion of the 8ecretary-General's report that "The major obstacle at present is ••• the inability of the Q:>vernment of Israel as a whole to agree on the principle of an international conference under united Nations auspices". (A/42/714, para. 33) We firmly state that the Israeli policy of aggression, occupation and annexation, of violent suppression of the rights of the Palestinian people and of nega tion of the sovereignty of the Ar ab co un tr ies I has absolu tely no chance of Unless the policy of the Israeli leadership and its political, financial and military backers is fundamentally changed, the explosive situation in the region will continue teetering on the verge of conflagration. Therefore, we express again our full support for the efforts of the international community to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Middle East situation through an international conference which would make Peace, stability and security possible, to the benefit of all the nations of that severely tested region. Mr. AL-BHAALI (united Arab Emirates) (interpretation from Arabic) ~ At the beginning of his recent report on the work of the Organization, the Secretary-General speaks of what he calls "the growing commonality factor in international affairs". He is referring to the general recognition that the interests of the international corranunity necessitate sincerely and successfully facing up to the present challenges. In tha t report, the secretary-General af firms that "Delay [in solVing the Middle East problem] can only prolong the violence and danger tha t have become da ily compan ions to li fe in the Middle East". (A/ 42/1, Delay is caused, as the secretary-General states, by the inability to obtain the agreement of all the parties to the principle of an international conference in which all parties would participate under the auspices of the United Nations. What the secretary-General says reflects the basic ethos of the international Organ ization; it also reflects one of the most ser ious obstacles imPeding the achievement of the main objective of the Organiza tion, namely, the maintainance of international peace and security. As for the basic ethos, it bespeaks the faith in the ability of man and, consequently, the ability of nations, to avoid the calami ties of war and instability. This fa ith stems from the bel ief that the countries of the world are independent entities and not mere puppets of a capricious fate. This faith in man's preference for peace over war, and right over wrong, was the fountainhead whence the united Nations came into existence to encourage international co-operation, sanely organize relations among states and become a forum for parliamentary diplomacy or dialogue and the exchange of views under the umbrella of a world body. Having taken its point of departure from these beliefs, the international community, as embodied in this Organization and regional organizations and as individual independent States, has paid partiCUlar attention to the problem of the Middle East. Such attention has not been limited to the numerous resolutions adopted by the Security Council, the General Assembly, and their committees and subsidiary bodies, but has been reflected in the very nature of the international community's perception of the principles and means which may lead to an acceptable solution. So far as the means are concerned, the corner-stone of that perception has been the international near-unanimity on the need to hold an international conference in which all parties would participate under the auspices of the United Nations. This near-unanimity was reflected in General Assembly resolution 38(58 C. As for the principles on which this unanimity is based, they derive from the Charter of the united Nations: the inadmissibility of the acauisition of the territory of others by force or through aggression, and recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. However, the conference still faces obstacles which are being contrived by Israel and its allies. It is not too difficult for those of us who have become accustomed to the policies and methods of Israeli aggression to understand the motives and objectives which prompt Israel and its allies to work so diligently to abort those international efforts. But this Israeli posture is making it increasingly clear that peace is not what Israel wants. An entity founded on aggression and nurtured by occupation cannot accept peace as a viable alternative mode of existence. Therefore we keep hearing contradictory statements from the leaders of Israel from one day to the other. They say they are for bilateral negotiations rather than an international conference. They declare this in the belief that bilateral negotiations would give Israel the upper hand in negotiations and enable it to extract all the concessions it wants from the other party, particularly if those negotiations were conducted under the auspices of Israeli s allies. Then we hear that the negotiations must cover all aspects of the Middle East auestion, that everything is negotiable. But then they revert to aualification and exception and preclude any negotiation on the withdrawal from the occupied territories, as well as the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. SUbseauently, we are told that the negotiations must be without pre-conditions. But then they turn around and set their own pre-conditions, reauiring certain permanent members of the Security Council to establish or restore diplomatic relations with Israel and open the doors of emigration to the Jews of the Soviet union. The negotiations must, then, be prepared and conducted under conditions and within limits dictated by Israel~ It becomes auite clear that in setting those conditions and raising those obstacles Israel is in fact making peace the option of others, and peace is not its own option: given its strategic alliances, the This reminds one of the conditions imposed by racist South Africa when it links the independence of Namibia to the withdrawal of the Cuban forces from Angola, a condition that has been rejected by the international community as a whole. As I have said, we do not find Israel's position surprising, but we do wonder about the position of the super-Power which stands behind Israel. Is support for Israelis policies that reject peace the ideal way for managing international policy in the Middle East? Israel's continued proliferation of settlements in the occupied Arab lands, its annexation of the Arab Syrian Golan Heights, its terroristic practices against the Palestinians and its persistent occupation of parts of south Lebanon are all evidence of the settler-colonialist-expansionist policy it pursues. The latest information which has become available to us and to the Secretariat indicates that Israel is fencing off and annexing parts of the so-called security zone it controls in south Lebanon and that it is emplacing new military installations in some of the fenced-off land. Israelis bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor devoted to peaceful purposes was a further indication of Israelis role in our Arab region, which is to prevent any possibility of any social or economic development in that part of the world, so as to keep it in a state of backwardness, disruption and dependency. The truth is settler-colonialist expansionism and State terrorism form the sides of the pyramid of Israeli policy while zionist ideology forms the base of that pyramid. When we speak of Zionism we should keep in mind its dogma, its establishment and its practice. The dogma divides the human race into two distinct categories: Jewish and non-Jewish. The establishment is the State of Israel which is based on the army called the Israel Defence Force. The practice of Zionism is the invasion of the territories of others for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish part of humanity following the annexation of those invaded territories to the lands already occupied by Israel. Taking all this as its point of departure, the Israeli establishment has developed its own distinctive method of systematic terrorism arid armed violence. General Gor, the former Israeli Defence Chief of Staff, elucidated this in his statement to the Israeli newspaper AI-Hamish Mar on 10 May 1978: -When I authorized Yanoukh, the Commander of the northern sector, to use the air force, the guns and the tanks, I knew exactly what I was doing. In our war of independence and until now we have been fighting the Arab civilian population living in villages and towns." Thus Israel, like South Africa, stands out by its dependence on force, its defiance of the international community and its perpetually imposed policy of fait accompli. Its Prime Minister, Mr. Shamir, has intimated more than once, in reported private conversations that the world will forget the occupation of the Arab territories soon enough if only Israel held on to those territories long enough and that Israel should depend on itself, and on itself alone, to achieve this. ~his was reported in the international edition of the Jerusalem Post of 25 July 1987. It is to be regretted indeed that the united States, the country of liberalism, respect for property and individual rights, should be the backer that provides unlimited moral, military and material support to a government that denies those rights to others and, through such support, enables that Government to expand at will at the expense of others and trample on the rights of others. This deliberate political approach threatens the very foundations of .the United Nations and the principles that regulate our international order which takes its point of departure from the belief that international policies are a collective activity by nature and that no country has the right to infringe upon the rights of others or pursue a policy of force in its relations with other countries, sinc~'i that would undermine international peace and security. In addition, the Israeli approach would maintain the state of war in are9!(;)n that is extremely volatile due to the fact that no people can accept the occupation of their land and no people can willingly submit to occupation and the denial of their right to self-determination. The auintessence of the Middle East crisis is the Palestinian cause. It is our belief that there is no way in which stability and peace can prevail in that area without the settlement of this auestion in all its aspects on a basis of international legitimacy. It is that conviction and the belief in legitimacy that make my country support the convening of an international conference in which all parties would participate, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, within the framework of the United Nations, in consonance with international unanimity and the Arab unanimity reflected in the resolutions adopted by the recent Arab summit meeting. History has taught us that the will of peoples cannot be vanauished. An example of this is the record of the peoples of Asia and Africa, people who have struggled and overthrown the yoke of colonialism after the Second World War. The struggle of the Palestinian people started 70 years ago with the Balfour Declaration. The very lenqth of that unremitting struggle bespeaks the sanctity of the principle of sovereignty and self-determination to the Palestinian people, sanctity which was affirmed by the United Nations Charter. The history of nations (Mr. AI-Shaali, Un!ted Arab Emirates) has equally confirmed that those who depend on a balance of power that tips in their favour to perpetuate a policy of repression and terrorism inevitably lose in the end because the balance of power changes and the will of the international community is stronger and cannot be defied indefinitely by those who would make themselves outlaws in the international arena. Mr. JOZAME (Colombia) (interpretation from Spanish): The first reconqized expansion of civilization originated in the river valleys of the Middle East. This evolutionary process has nurtured great cultures in vast regions of the globe over the past 3,000 years; it was the setting for the Bible, from which life-bringing religion has reached out to human hearts and minds. Therefore, it is paradoxical that it should be precisely in that region that today we see one of the most intractable geopolitical conflicts of our time, seriously threatening not only the peace of the countries of that part of the world, but the security of the whole world, and calling into auestion the very basis of our organization's existence. On few other matters have the provisions of the Charter been so thoroughly auestioned and the decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly so blatantly ignored. For the past 40 years the collective wisdom and political will of the vast majority of the Member States of our community, all of them desiring peace and the peaceful settlement of conflicts, have been flouted. since the end of the Second World War no place on earth has been so devastated, drenched with blood and terrorized as the sUffering Middle East. with an unending conflict - the question of Palestine - as a background, many regional wars have broken out, breeding hatred, jealousy and resentment. One country, Lebanon, has been virtually razed to the ground for having taken stateless refugees under its protective wing. Two mesolithic cultures, Iraq and Iran, are locked in a conflict and heading for their virtual annihilation. The Secretary-General is right when, commenting on so desolate a picture, he warns that "Delay [in the search for peace] can only prolong the violence and danger that have become daily companions to life in the Middle East." (A/42/1, p. 4) Moreover, it is clear that the situation will only grow worse until we find a comprehensive, lasting, all-embracing solution that will make it possible to bring about once and for all, through frank dialogue among all the parties concerned, participating on an equal footing, a peace that will cover all the peoples in conflict. Colombia, a La tin American, developing, non-aligned coun try wi th strong anoestral, cultural and religious link.s with the peoples of the Middle Fast, believes that only the implementation of security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), in which the rights of the Palestinians are fully recognized, can be the basis of a comprehensive negotiated settlement. Similarly, we believe that lebanon's dignity, sovereignty, independence, political unity and territorial integrity must be restored, while all foreign troops must be withdrawn from all occupied territories throughout the Middle Fast. Colombia particularly regrets the ser ious si tua tien in Lebanon and the state of prostration to which that country has been brought. It is in every respect an exemplary country that is suffering the hardships of a war that has tragically depleted its human, natural and financial reserves. It is an unjust war, imposed upon Lebanon against its will solely because it sought to contribute to bringing peace to the region. The United Nations cannot stand aside and ignore lebanon's fate. The international community must make every effort not only to end Lebanon's ordeal, but to rebuild it spiritually and materially so that it may once more be a focal point of development and a touchstone of civil iza tion. We should all shoulder responsibility for Lebanon's future. Similarly, the belligeren ts in the Iran-Ir aq conflict must abide by the relevant 8ecur ity Council resolutions call ing for a cease-fire and a return to the pre-conflict borders, thus preventing the growing conflagration from involving still more countries. For all these reasons, we unreservedly support the efforts of the Secretary-General and our Assembly to create a propi tious atmosphere for the convening of the loog-desired and very necessary international peace conference on the Middle East, which should guarantee the right of all peoples and States of the region to live in peace, security and good-neighbourliness within secure, in terna tionally recognized borders. Colombia believes that the United Nations must spare no effort in the dedicated search for a solution to the crisis, which year after year appears on our agenda as a reproof to us for our inability to save generations of Palestinians and Arabs from the scourge of war, as the founders in San Francisco intended. We regard as a good omen the angu ished des ire that appear s to be tak 10g hold of hearts and mi.nds world-,dde for an end once and for all to th is bloody chapter in our contemporary history. M.r. AL-F1\NNAH (oman) (interpretation from Arabic): I am hapP'f to say, on behalf of my delega tion, how l1Uch we appreciate the compe tence and diplomatic skill with which the President, Mr. Florin, is guiding the work at this session. This will undoubtedly contribute to its success. We are discussing today one of the most sensitive regions of the world, the Middle East, where a very painful si tua tion demands s incer e and courageous action. The international community has a special responsibility concerning the Middle East, for its problems have pers is ted since the Organ iza tion IS crea tion, endangering international peace and security. The instability and the persistence of tension in that important regioo cause grave concern; yet, despite the efforts to overcome the obstacles to the convening of the international peace conference on the Middle East, which is intended to guarantee the well-being and stability of the peoples of the region, there is no reason to think that it will be held in the near future. Israel's odious, constant challenge of the international community is a product of its arbitrary practices in the Arab territories it has occupied since 1967. This requires that the international community take effective measures to ensure that Israel abides by international legality and respects the Charter and resolutions of the Uli ted Nations. That must happen if the interna tional Organization is to be stroog and powerful and if it is to play its full role and lay the bases for international peace and security. My country appeals to the international coltlllunity to step up the preparations for the holding of an international peace conference on the Middle East. We hope that the two super-Powers will adopt all the necessary measures to overcome the obstacles to the holding of the conference, and that they will do so before it is too late. We hope, also, that Israel will take a courageous step by approving the convening of this conference, which undoubtedly will achieve peace, stability and secur ity in the Middle East. Oman pays a tribute to the united Nations and its Secretary-General for the cootinued efforts to find a comprehensive and lasting solution to the problems of the region. Also, we welcome the efforts made by His Majesty the King of Jordan and his Palestinian brothers to achieve a just and comprehensive solution to the =luestion of Palestine, which is the core of the question of the Middle East. Such a settlement is based 00 the return of the Arab territories occupied since 1967 and the exercise by the brotherly Palestinian people of its right to self-determination on its ter r i tory and in its coun try. The persistence of Israeli aggression against Lebanon and Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory has demonstrated to the entire world that Israel is working to block the establishment of peace in the region. The international community should again express its rejection of these actions, which are in contradiction with international law and practice. Moreover, all the Israeli forces should be wi thdrawn from Lebanon; Lebanon should be helped to extend its sovereignty OIler all its territory~ and the Iebanese people must be enabled to exercise its right to peace, security and well-being. My country welcomes the development of frater nal relations between the Arab Republic of Egypt and other Arab countries. We regard the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between E1;Iypt and a nuntler of Arab States as a new step on the p:lth of Arab solidarity. It should be a source of pride to all Arabs who will never forget the role of the E1;Iyptian Government and people. Difficul ties and problems must serve to encourage us to strengthen and consolidate the role of the international Organization, in order to enable it to find appropriate and relevant solutions to all outstanding questions. That can be p:lssible only if each of the States Ment>ers of the Organization shoulders its responsibilities under the Charter. As His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin said of Clman stated on 19 Novenber 1982: "It is high time for all States to shoulder their responsibilities, within the framework of the international colllllunity, to reactivate, consolidate and reaffirm the role of the united Nations, so that it may exert a p:lsitive influence to ensure international peace and security". Mr. FAKIDURY (Lebanon) (interpretation from Arabic): The General Assembly is considering agenda item 39, entitled "The situation in the Middle East". This is the subject of the report by the Secretary-General in Cbcument A/42/714 of 13 November 1987. That r epor t points out, par ticular ly in section (b) of chapter II and in paragraph 36, that there are two main issues in the region of auestion we can ask, then, is: who is to be held responsible for such a dangerous situation? The region of the Middle East has been denied security and stability since the :reation of the State of Israel 40 years ago. That State has pursued a policy of expansion through aggression against the neighbouring Arab territories and people. [t has also imposed its repressive rule in the occupied Arab territories and ~hrough its policy of aggression against the States in the area, and it must thus ~ar the primary responsibility for the deterioration of the situation in the lrea. Also, through its practices, it has been responsible for the permanently !xplosive situation, which endangers international peace and security.* Israel hears full responsibility for the annexation of Arab lands in Palestine lnd the expulsion of the Palestinian people from their homeland. It has :onsistently followed a policy of repression of the people under its occupation and ,as pursued them into the neighbouring countries. It has insisted on denying these )eop1e their legitimate rights to return to their lands and to self-determination In an independent State on their own soil. Israel bears the primary responsibility for the frustration of all attempts to lmplement the General Assembly resolution calling for the convening of an lnternational peace conference. It is responsible for creating the atmosphere of !nmity and for sowing the seeds of conflict by refusing to accept the resolutions )f the General Assembly, by annexing the Holy City of Jerusalem and transforming it Lllegally into Israel's capital, and by annexing the Golan Heights. It also bears responsibility for a series of acts of air and sea piracy. It has illegally Mr. Peters (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), Vice-President, took the * ~hair. resorted to buildinq settlements and violating the sanctity of places of worship, schools and universities. Each of these policies and practices constitutes a . violation of the United Nations Charter and international law, as well as flagrant disregard for the decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, which in the final analysis bear the responsibility for failing to deter Israel and put an end to its aggressive policies and practices. The Palestinian people was the first victim of the creation of Israel and the policies it has pursued. However, Israel needed a new victim, and so Lebanon and the Lebanese people became this new victim. This was not a random choice but was the result of a premeditated plan aimed at the destruction of a oountry which was an example of fraternal harmony among its various communities, a country whose prosperity and openness constituted a challenge to an Israel built on religious and racial distinction. Moreover, Israel cOlleted Lebanese territory and water resources. Lebanon soon became Israel's enemy N::l. 1. It was the victim of several armed Israeli invasions during 1970, 1972, 1978 and 1982. Israel has never refrained from flagrant acts of aggression against I.ebanon and from embarking on inhuman practices against Lebanese towns and villages, viola ting Lebanese territory, airspace and territorial waters. lebanon's complaints to the security Council were in vain as the Council was not able to aoopt the necessary measures to stop Israeli acts of aggression. The failure of the Council encouraged Israel to pursue its aggress ive actions aga inst Lebanon and the Lebanese people. The Secur ity Council was also incapable of implementing its resolutions following each invasion, which gave rise to repeated invasions by Israel and, consequently, to the occupation of a part of southern Lebanon, to which it refers as a security zone, which serves as a froot-l ine base for its opera tions and the activities of the forces under its control. We have warned many times here and in the securi ty Council aga inst th is Israeli plan and urged the Council to take a firm and resolute stand at least once. &It all th is was in va in. Israeli practices, which have been the subject of I.ebanese complaints, have taken all forms of violence, such as shellings, naval attacks and air strikes kidnappings. Israel has also resorted to acts of piracy, quarantine of ports, burning of agricultural crops, changing international boundaries, annexation of territory, preventing freedom of mOU'ement by the inhabitants in their own towns and on their own lands, and in ter fer ing with fishermen and their ability to earn their 1 ive1 ihood. The Lebanese in the south live in this atmosphere of terror and violence whi~ I have described. However, they have resisted the aggressors, armed with their belief in their country and right to liberate their land, undaunted by Israeli mill tary prowess and its practices and not discouraged by the in ab ili ty of the Security Council to implement its decisions or by the indifferent attitude of the in terna tiona1 communi ty to the ir cause. The Iebanese people has suffered for a long time under Isr ael i occupa tion and inhuman practices. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanat (UNIF'IL), which has not been able to fulfil its mission, is a witness to this suffering. The report of the secretary-General shows the extent of the ser iousness of the situation and its explosive nature. If Lebanon insists on its demand for the implementation of Security Council resolutions, starting with resolutions 425 (1.978) and 426 (1978) and resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), it is with the aim of transforming the south into a zooe of security, peace and stability. This can ony be attained by a complete and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese teni tory, and the deployment of UN IFIL wi th the Lebanese army up to the in ternationally recogn ized boundar ies, thus enabling the Iebanese Cbver nmen t to rega in its au thori ty on its own terri tory and to put an immediate end to all Isr.aeli actions. All this requires the clear determination of the Security Council to take effective and immedia te action, which can only result from a unanimous Becision to implement its resolutions and support the international force and the efforts of the Secretary-General. We still hope that a unanimous decision, similar to the roe which was reached during the renewal of the mandate of UNIFIL on 18 April 1986, will result in the implementation of the international resolutions. I wish to take this opportlmity to affirm Lebanon's appreciation of the efforts of the secretary-General and his assistants. We also appreciate the work of the tbi ted Nations Force, lmder difficult and often risky circumstances, to fulfil a part of its mandate. Iebanon expresses also special gratitude to the countries participating in the Force for taking part in the peace-keeping operations and the sacr ifices of their units for the sake of international peace and security. We also fully support the appeals made by the secretary-General to meet the deficit, amolmting to $240 million, in the budget of UNIFIL. We make an urgent appeal in our turn to the countries which have not met their pledges to do so, as the persistence of this deficit may result in the frustration of one of the most important peace-keeping operations of our time, which will affect the credibility of the united Nations and the security Council, as well as the peace-keeping operations in the wor Id. In addi Hon to the de terior ating secur ity situation in southern Lebanon, that country is in the midst of an acute economic crisis, which might lead to a real famine if left unresolved and if the countries in a position to help do not respond to the appeal of the secretary-General for financial aid and urgent assistance for needed materials. A draft resolution, which has received the unanimous approval of the second Corrrni t tee, on the recons truction and development of Lebanon will be be fore the General Assembly. We hope that the appeals of the secretary-General will meet with a generous response, thus making solidarity with Lebanon more coocrete and alleviating the crisis facing our country, which has been and still is an exaqlle in its conformity with the United Nations Charter, abiding by the principles of our Organization and striving for unity alllOngst its MenDers. Mr •. JAYA (Brunei Darussalam) 1 The situation in the Middle East has been on the agendas of major regional and interna tional forums. This AsseJlt>ly is once again oonfronted with the same topic, with which most of us here are so familiar. The problem rerrains despite its familiarity, and we are still far from any acceptable solution. The core of the Middle East problem is the Palestinian question. My delegation's position on the question of Palestine was made clear in our sta temen t dur ing the debate on that subject a few days ago- We should like to reiterate that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination and an independent homeland. Israel's seizure and occupation of Palestinian territories through its wars of aggression is the root cause of tension in the region. Israel's intransigence, its continued aggressive adventurous policy towards its neighbours and its use of force without hesitatioo to violate the territorial integrity of its Arab neighbours not ooly heighten tension in the region but could also upset delicate global stability as a whole. Israel oontinues to justify its actions in the name of self~efence. In reality, however, Israel's intention is very clear. The Special Commi ttee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, on the basis of the information and evidence before it, concluded that the general policy of Israel oontinues to follow the same lines as in the past. The basic principle of the policy is that the territories occupied by Israel constitute a part of Israel. That policy has led to various measures to establish settlements, to expropriate property, to transfer Israel citizens to the occupied territories and to encourage, directly or indirectly, the Palestinian p)pulation to leave their homeland. As a result Israel now controls, directly or indirectly, 50 per cent of the west Bank and Fast Jerusalem. This course of action inevitably leads the Palestinians to fight back in their quest to liberate their homeland. The awesome ferocity of Israelis use of force, which is repeatedly unleashed against the Palestinians, can only further fuel the hatr ed. In ffrJ delega tion 's opin ion, Israel's oourse of action cannot be jus tified in the name of self-defence. The evidence suggests Israel is enilarking upon an e xpansion is t policy. My delegation would like to coJmlend the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Peres de Cuellar, for his untiring efforts and patient diplomacy in promoting the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle Fast. However, we note with deep regret that the major obstacle remains Israel's unwillingness to agree and accept that such a oonference is the best way to negotiate a peace settlement. Israel's refusal to accept this idea, its refusal to listen to the calls of the wor·ld cORmunity, its refusal to adhere to the United Nations resolutions and to abide by international law and norms in the conduct of international relations are indicative of Israel's obsession with the use of force. Our position on the conference was made clear in our statement during the debate on the question of Palestine~ that the participation of all parties concerned inclUding the sole and legitima te represen ta tive of the Pales tin ian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization, must be guaranteed for a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to be achieved. Turning now to the situation in Lebanon, we share the concern that the situation there continues explosive and volatile. OUr support goes to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in its efforts to restore Lebanese sO\1ereignty in southern Lebanon. Here, once again, Israelis intransigence is evident. Its refusal to wi thdraw completely from sou ther n Lebanon has made it difficult for UNIFIL to carry out its mandate. Israel has remained in the so-called security zone, and that is clearly a violation of Lebanonls sovereignty. My delegation also notes with deep regret that, despi te the noble peace-keeping role of UNIFIL in the region, its financial situation continues to deteriorate. We therefore call upon United Nations Menbers to meet their UNIFIL financial obligations~ we feel it is important for united Nations peace-keep"ing operations to continue their indispensable role of containing and easing tension in the area. While waiting and hoping for developnents in the Middle East to take a turn for the better, we have to deal with the Palestine refugees affected by Israelis war of aggression since 1967. 'lbday, the united Nations Relief and WOrks hJency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) extends services to well over 2 million refugees in the Middle Fast. HCMever, under the present financial circumstances, that agency faces a severe shortfall requ ir ing sharp cuts, in par ticular in one of the most important services - education. UNRWA therefore deserves the attention and support it needs to carry out its mandate. I should 1iketo state my Government's long-established position, which is in line with the broad agreement alOOng the international community, that a settlement should be based en the following three considerations: first, the withdrawal of Israel i forces from Arab territor ies occupied since 19671 secondly, acknowledgement of and respect for the sovereignty, terd tor ial integrity and poli tical independence of all states in the region and their right to live in peace with'irl secure and recognized boundaries~ and, finally, a satisfactory solution of the Palestinian problem based on recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of self-determination. Mr. OLZVOY (Mongolia) (interpretation from Russian): This year, 1987, coincides with two unhappily well-known dates in the history of the peoples of the Middle East: the twentieth anniversary of aggression by Israel against the Arabs in 1967 and the fifth anniversary of its armed intervention against Lebanon in 1982. Through all of these years the situation in the Middle East has been characterized by explosive tension owing to the continuing occupation of Arab lands by the aggressor and its expansionist actions against neighbouring states. The aggressor has brutally engaged in appalling misconduct in the territories they have occupied, killing innocent people, inclUding women and children, and depriving the Arabs of their human rights and freedoms. Through all of these years / the sovereignty and territorial integrity of certain Arab states have been brutally trampled underfoot, and the national rights of the Palestinian people have been unconscionably violated. The Mongolian People's Republic believes that further aggravation of the situation in the Middle East creates a serious threat to international peace and comprehensive security. Certain Western Powers have stepped up their support for and encouragement of such policies and practices, which enables Israel to ignore the numerous decisions and appeals of the international community, inclUding the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement, aimed at a just, definitive solution of the Middle East problem. In these conditions, as we see it, a dangerous attempt is being made on various pretexts to divert attention from the genuine hotbeds of tension in the Middle East. The deterioration of the situation in the Persian Gulf is exerting the most negative type of influence on the situation in the Middle East as a whole, However, we believe that it should not be an excuse for weakening the efforts of the international community to settle the problem of the Middle East. The Middle East crisis, the root cause of which is Israeli aggression, reauires an immediate political settlement on the basis of Israel's total withdrawal from all Palestinian and other Arab territories it has occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, effectively ensuring the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination and the eventual establishment of its own state, the establishment of genuine peace between the Arab States and Israel, and ensuring the rights of all States of the region to secure and independent development. In our view, a Middle East settlement must be comprehensive and just for all. sides. It has been convincingly demonstrated that the repeated attempts to impose on the Arabs various types of separate deals with Israel is futile and dangerous. A Middle East settlement cannot be comprehensive without a just and definitive solution of the Palestinian auestion. The Mongolian People's Republic unswervingly supports the Palestinian people in its struggle for the exercise of its national rights and considers the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the sole, legitimate representative of this heroio people. Any difficulty with regard to the Palestinian issue can be resolved only with the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization. We share the view of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of the Non-Aligned Countries, which assessed Amendment No. 940, recently adopted by the united States Senate as "a glaring violation of the norms of international law and the rights of those who are invited by the United Nations, such as the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized ·liberation movements". The Mongolian delegation also expresses its gratitude to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People for its activities throughout the year and supports the recommendations in its report. (Mr. Olzvoy, Mongolia) We consider that the most acceptable way to achieve the goal of a comprehensive, just settlement of the Middle East problem is the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East, under the aegis of the united Nations, with the participation of all parties involved, including the PLO. The Mongolian delegation supports the efforts undertaken by the Secretary-General in this direction and welcomes his readiness to continue to make particular efforts in the search, together with the parties, for ways to speed up the process of a Middle East settlement. We are also encouraged by the fact that, as is emphasized in the Secretary-GeneralIs report " ••• in contrast with the experience of recent years, none of the Council members opposed in principle the idea of an international conference under United Nations auspices". (A/42/277, para. 3) At the same time we firmly favour the speedy creation of a preparatory committee, with the participation of the permanent members of the Security Council, to seek effective ways and means to hold such a conference in implementation of General Assembly resolution 41/43 D. As was correctly noted in the Secretary-GeneralIs report, Israel, which up to now has not agreed in principle with the holding of an international conference under United Nations auspices, creates the major obstacle to a solution of the problem of the Middle East. Our delegation also believes that those permanent members of the Security Council that have not so far supported the creation of such a committee are by so doing promoting the aggressive policy of Israel. Moreover, one State, a permanent member of the Security Council, is continuing to carry out a policy of so-called strategic alliance with Israel, which runs directly counter to the will and desire of the international community. In this connection we associate ourselves with the (Mr. Olzvoy, Mongolia) view expressed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and heads of delegation of the non-aligned countries, at the forty-second session of the united Nations General Assembly, which: n condemned the policy of the united States of America of developing military industries in Israel, including the military aircraft industry, and securing its participation in the so-called 'Star Wars' programme". (A/42/G8l, para. 72) The Mongolian delegation appeals to all the permanent members of the Security Council to carry out a constructive policy based on co-operation and recognition of the facts of the matter so as to achieve a speedy settlement of the Middle East crisis and to serve as the major guarantors for such a settlement. (Mr. Olzvoy, Mongolia) The Mongolian People's Republic shares the view that Israel should be forced to agree to a just Middle East settlement, and to force it to do so the international community must immediately take effective measures against it, inclUding the introduction of sanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Ch.r~:·CO::l::::::t:n::'a::::t:::::::m:::P:~i:::l::r::: ::h:::e::::1:fw:::tt::al. struggling Arab peoples, the Mongolian delegation emphasizes that in the achievement of a speedy and definitive solution of the Middle East problem the unity of action of the Arab countries and the solidar ity of the ranks of the V Palestinian resistance movement are of decisive significance. In this context Mongolia welcomes the results of the recent Arab summit meeting held in the city of Amman. We urgently call on the Government of Israel to heed the demands of the international community and to show goodwill for the sake of t~e destiny of the Palestinian people and other Arab peoples, and for the sake of peace in the Middle East It is precisely such a realistic, fresh and responsible approach which is r"'1u:red by the u'gency of defusing the Middle East crisis. The attack last Mr. KANE (Mauritania) (interpretation from French): Wednesday night on the Israeli military post at Kyriat Shimoneh by a Palestinian commando, an attack which left seven dead and several injured, has demonstrated yet again, were that necessary, that tension still reigns in the Middle East and will continue to do so until there is a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the set of problems in the region, beginning with the Palestinian question. That problem continues to lie at the heart of the conflict which has convulsed that part of the world for generations now and its resolution will affect what happens to all the other issues. It is sad to note that the very length of the conflict has engendered other preocupations which have served to complicate a situation which is in itself difficult enough. Thus Lebanon has now been invaded and a considerable part of its territory is still occupied. The Syrian Golan Heights are also under Israeli occupation and domination. Countries as far removed from the epicentre of the conflict as Iraa and Tunisia see their sovereignty and territorial integrity breached in unprovoked and harbarous attacks, which do not spare the lives of civilians•. As was rightly emphasized in 1983 in the Geneva Declaration on Palestine, endorsed in December of that year by the General Assembly, the continuation and the spreading of this state of conflict and lasting tension, which has ravaged the region for decades, has as its -principal cause ••• the denial by Israel [of] the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people-. (A/CONF.114/42, para.l) The hypocrisy of Israel's leaders is manifest in the ballyhoo with which they proclaim that they are pursuinq peace and stability in the region. The acts of war which they continue to wage against neighbouring countries, particularly Lebanon, are incompatible with such professions of faith unless the peace they are seeking is a kind of pax Israelina. Their persistent refusal to respond positively to the many resolutions of the united Nations, particularly Security Council resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), as well as their decision to extend Israel's laws to the syrian Golan Heights, stems from their determination to impose a peace on their own terms• The bombing of Iraq's peaceful nuclear facility in June 1981 and the murderous air raid on Tunis show, were that necessary, the scant respect they have for international law and the attention they pay to the rights of peoples. In short, to them the interests of Israel are the only ones that count. But are those interests being safeguarded by such behaviour? There has been no shortage of initiatives and practical proposals for the final settlement of the conflict, which has existed since the foundation of the United Nations The many resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly bear witness to the sustained efforts of the international community to resolve the conflict. The initiative to convene an international conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the united Nations and with equal participation by all parties concerned in the region, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, is a product of the same determination to find a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of the Middle East. What has Israel done to join in such efforts? At best it has ignored them; at worst it has scotched them by creating even more complicated situations, making the solution of these issues all the more difficult. Such de facto situations as the Judaization of Jerusalem and the settlements which Israel continually strives to set up, despite international condemnation, are not such as to facilitate a lasting solution to the conflict. Mauritania, like all other States of the world, is considerably concerned by the protracted situation in Palestine and the Middle East in general. It considers that any just, comprehensive and lasting solution to the continuing state of tension must come through the recognition of the inalienable legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, inclUding its right to self-determination and the creation of an independent state, as well as the total and unconditional withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, including the city of Jerusalem, and the dismantling c the settlements. One of the ways to achieve that solution we all wish to see WOl1J be the speedy convening of an international conference on the Middle East. Mr. NIKULm (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) (interpretation fre Russ ian): An inalienable, integral part of the struggle to strengthen in ternational secur ity is the political settlement of regional oonfl icts. The Middle East has for several decades been a region marked by permanent tension. Pggression, crude interference in the internal affairs of peace-lOlling States of the Middle East and diplomatic intrigues have become constant factors of the situation in that region. The tragedy of the Arab people of Palestine, bloodshed on Lebanese soil, arl1lE provocation against Lybia, the war of nerves against Syria, the fratricidal war between Iran and Iraq - all emphasize the tragic nature of the situation and demons tra te the cr i ticaI na tur e of the Middle East cr is is. "'This year, 1987, coincides with t~o unhappily well-known dates: the twentieth anniversary of aggression by Israel against the Arabs in 1967 and the fifth anniversary of armed intervention against Lebanon in 1982. The Middle Fast problem is one of the oldest and most compl icated. The major source of the cootinuation of the conflict is the expansiooist policy of the Israeli ruling circles. Tel Aviv is car rying out a pol icy of ter ror and violence aga inst the palestinian camps and the occupied lands, creating Israeli settlements and carrying out acts of repression against the civilian population. It has annexed the Arab part of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, it is undermining the economic foundations and national culture of the Arab people of Palestine, and is crudely violating all flllldamental human rights in the occupied Arab territories. All that is in glar ing contradiction to universally recognized norms of international law and united Nations decisions. United Nations materials and General Assembly resolutions have repeatedly emphasized the demand that Israel immediately cease any actions that would result in a change of the legal status, geographic nature or demographic composition of the occupied territories, and that Tel Aviv renounce its criminal policy and practices in the Arab lands it has seized. However, given the comprehensive military and economic assistance and support from its overseas partner in the strategic alliance, Israel is cxmtinuing to follow the path of aggression and expans ion ism. The question of ensur ing the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people freely to determine its own des tiny and independent national development has been and remains the core of the Middle East conflict. united Nations decisions, in particular General Assent>ly resolution 41/162 A, emphasize that, without the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights and the withdrawal of Israel from all the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, it is impossible to achieve a oomprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Attempts to side-step this issue and replace it by separate deals which 00 not take into account the interests of the Palestinians only serve to aggravate the problems of the region and undermine the process of a Middle Fast settlement. Ser ious international efforts are necessary effectively to defuse the situation in the Middle East. A real start must be made to practical steps in the area of a comprehens ive settlement of the Middle East conflict. The key to this is the collective search for an hooest and just peace based on principles of equality and equal security, in accordance with the Charter, Ulited Nations decisions and the norms of international law. The fundamental principles for such a settlement have already been reflected in united Nations decisions and, in particular, provide for the wi thdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab, inclUding Palestinian, territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and the implementation by the Arab people of Palestine of its inalienable national rights to self-determination, the establishment of its own independent State, and return to its homes. The principal way to do that is by the oonven ing of a fully empowered international oonference, under the aegis of the United Nations, with the participation on an equal footing of all parties involved, incl uding the Pales tine Liber ation Organization (PLO), the sole legi timate representative of the palestinian people, and the permanent melTbers of the Security Council. Of course the conference must be very carefully prepared to ensure its productive outcome. There fore we support the proposal for the convening, wi thin the framework of the Secur ity Council, of a preparatory co11l1littee. Clearly, any attempts to distort the meaning of an international conference and transform it into a screen for separate deals, and to eliminate the PLO from participation in the conference and the solution of the Palestinian problem must be rejected. No matter what opponents of the convening of an international conference on the Middle East may say and regardless of the argumen ts they may ci te, such a conference - and the absolute major ity of the Sta tes MeJrbers of the Un ited Na tions are convinced of this - is the sole alternative that can lead to a political settlement of the Middle East conflict. At the present time, it is important to achieve international consensus 00 the question of convening the conference. Israel is continuing its aggressive and expansionist policy towards neighbouring - and not only neighbouring - Arab countries. In partiCUlar, the delegation of the Byelorussian SSR vigorously condemns the con tinuing OCCUpa tion by Israel of the southern regions of Lebanon and supports the need for complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops from Iebanese territory, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Lebanon must remin a united, territDrially integrated State, and its internal problems must be settled 1n the interests of the Lebanese people. We cannot fail to express our concern also in cxmnection with the situation in the adjacent regions of the Mediterranean, Which are being used by Israel and the imperialist circles of certain western PCMers for blackmail of the coastal States, destabilization of regimes not to their liking and the implementation of direct armed actions. Such actions not only hanper the ach ievement of a oomprehensive settlement to the problems of the region, but also represent a threat to general secur it:j. The General secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, in his article entitled "'Reality and guarantees for a safe wor Id", has noted that a manda tory condi tion for general security is unconditonal compliance with the united Nations Charter and the rights of peoples in a sovereign manner to choose ways and forms for their development. Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev emphasized: 11 All attempts, overt and covert, to effect the development of 'other peoples I countries and to interfere in it must be excluded. Equally inadmissible are attempts to destabilize from outside existing Cbvernments." It should now be clear to all that reliance on military force and the policy of State terrorism for the settlement of the conflict have been c::omp1etely discredited. Nor can me.thods of blackmail, pressure and separate deals lead to a positive solution of the Middle Fast problem. Correct and reliable means to guarantee a secure future for all States in the region are a political settlement of the Middle East conflict on the basis of the aforementioned international conference on the Middle East, establ ishment of a just and lasting peace in the region, and development of good-neighbourly relations alOOng the states there. The Uni ted Nations must most actively promte the achievement of those noble objectives. Mr. KAROUI (Tunisia) (interpretation from Arabic): It is a matter for regret that, since the international community has not been able to find a just and lasting solution to the problem of the Middle East, the situation is still inscribed on the agenda of the United Nations. It is distressing to note that tension and violence in the area are constantly increasing, thus constituting a threat to international peace and security that could have serious and unforeseeable conseauences. The root cause of the serious crisis engulfing the Middle East region is the fact that the question of Palestine, which came into being as a result of the partition resolution 181 (11), of 1947, remains unresolved. Everybody knows that the denial of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and the attempt to destroy its identity and dignity are the very essence of the tragedy of that people. But, despite oppression and repression, the Palestinian people has remained steadfast in its just struggle to affirm its existence, recover its lands, establish its State and enjoy its freedom and dignity like any other people. No just and lasting solution of the Middle East problem is possible unless it is based on justice and international legality. Tunisia has consistenty called for respect for international legality as a basic prerequisite for th~ settlement of international disputes. It regrets the present state of affairs regarding the Charter and resolutions of the United Nations, which is caused by the fact that one of its Members does not respect them, even though that Member owes its existence to our Organization. Israel refuses to recognize the inalienable, legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. It rejects the idea of an independent Palestinian State in the region, in the face of international unanimity on the subject and even though the international community has emphasized that it is not possible to establish a just peace in the Middle East without enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their full rights, includ Ing the right of return, the right to self-determination and the right to statehood. Israel has continued to usurp land that belongs to Arabs in order to build settlements. It expropriates property and expels its owners from their homes, thus compelling them to emigrate, so as to establish alien settlers in their place. Moreover, Israel has taken measures and enacted laws to change the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories. In its resolutions the united Nations has emphasized that this policy is illegal, violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and is an obstacle to the achievement of lasting peace in the region. The United Nations has called upon Israel to abandon this policy and eradicate its conseQuences. But Israel continues its efforts to impose a fait accompli, invoking various security considerations as justification for its acts. Thus, Israel annexed the Arab Golan Heights and invaded Lebanon in the summer of 1982. It continues to carry out airborne and seaborne raids against Lebanon and the Palestinian refugee camps, to occupy a part of the territory of Lebanon and to interfere in its internal affairs. How can Israel pretend, in view of all these acts, that it wants peace and security? Acceptance of the concepts of security and peace means giving up expansionism and hegemony. These two concepts call for fraternity, friendship and co-operation among all States on tbe basis of human dignity, international justice and eauity. Security and peace are tbe ultimate objectives of the Arab peoples, who desire development in circumstances of the coexistence of nations. The Arab countries well-known Fez initiative, in order to demonstrate their determination to bring about peace on the basis of international legality as represented by united Nations resolutions. Moreover, the Arab countries and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) have expressed their conviction that the United Nations provides the best possible framework in which to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region. They have welcomed all united Nations efforts to bring about the solution of the auestion of Palestine. They support the idea of convening an international peace conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 38/58 C. Only recently, at the summit conference in Amman, they reiterated their support for the convening of this international conference, with participation on a basis of eauality by all the parties concerned, including the PLO, the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and the permanent members of the Security Council. Tunisia has expressed its position of principle regarding the question of the Middle East at every opportunity, and not only in the United Nations. It has emphasized that no just and comprehensive peace is possible in the region unless the Palestinian people is able to exercise fully its legitimate rights, including its right to self-determination and statehood in its liberated territory, in conditions of the complete and unconditional withdrawal by Israel from occupied Palestinian and Arab territories. Tunisia supports the Palestinian people in its tragedy and in its legitimate struggle for its just cause. Tunisia calls upon the international community to shoulder its responsibilities regarding this just cause and wishes to pay a tribute to the Secretary-General for his efforts to encourage the various parties concerned to reach agreement on the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East. Moreover, this idea enjoys increasing support among all peace-loving· countries. We should not let this opportunity pass, since it offers the only way to enable all peoples of the Middle East to live in security, stability and peace in conditions of brotherhood, ideological tolerance and coexistence. Mr. MA.c;RI (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpreta tion from Arabic): The si tua tion in the Middle East is one of the most exp10s ive trouble spots in the \tlQr ~d and poses one of the most ser ious threats to international peace and seour ity because of its regional and international implications as a result of Israel's per sistence in disregarding the rights of the Pales tin ian people, its oontinuing occupation of Arab and Palestinian lands and its defiance of the international oommunity in pursuit of its policy of establishing settlements in Arab territories and its Fascist practices against the inhabi tants of those terri tories. The Middle Fast - the cradle of civilizations, culture and religions that gave rise to human and moral values - has since the end of the last century become the setting for bitter struggle against Zionist invasion and against the abominable racist and imperial ist colonization of the Bri tish, whereas it had always been a land of peace and brother hood. Matters deter iorated further as a result of resolution 181 (H) adopted by the General Asserrt>ly at its second session in 1947 on the partition of this sacred land and the establishment of an enti ty which has become an outstanding example of racist settlements engendered by colonialism. That resolution was in flagrant violation of the provisions of the United Nations Charter as well as of the rules of international law. It also posed a threat to international peace and security owing to the fact that it ran counter to the wishes of the Palestinian Arab people and resulted in the dispersal of that people, the usurpation by terrorist bands of its rights and the perpetrating of the most appalling crimes against the Pal es tin ians. COlonia1ist arrt>itions in our area were the driving force behind conspiracies leading to the creation of an entity of racist settlers in Arab Palestine. The oolonial Powers provided it with lOOney, weal,X>ns and all manner of assistance, thus policies. Those co10nialist ambitions have also enabled Israel to keep on refusing to withdraw from occupied Arab and Palestinian lands and totally to disregard the rights of the Palestinian Arab people and all attempts to establish a just peace iri:' the area. Israel has made clear to the world that it is the enemy of peace and is seeking the usurpation and annexation of land. The United Nations recognized this when, during the ninth emergency special session, on 5 February 1982, it declared that: "Israel's record and actions confirm that it is not a peace-loving Member State and that it has carried out neither its obligations under the Charter nor its commitment under General Assembly resolution 273 (Ill) of 11 May 1949". (ES-9/1, para. 11) Indeed, the world needed no further confirmation of Israel's intentions and aggressive expansionist ambitions. Israel has from the outset been a co10nialist expansionist plan to establish settlements, based on aggression and expansion at the expense of Arab lands and the Arab nation. Set up in Arab Palestine in flagrant violation of the provisions of international law, Israel occupied all Palestinian land as well as areas of the territories of neighbouring States and invaded Lebanon in 1982; it seeks to achieve a number of goals, first and foremost, to annex occupied Arab territories, inclUding south Lebanon, and to convert all of those territories into Israeli settlements. Hence any solution based on occupation and refusal to recognize the national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to return, the right to self-determination, and the right to the creation of its own independent State on its national territory, Palestine, ignores past experience, for a just peace in the area cannot be achieved in the shadow of occupation, annexation and colonial The deteriorating situation in the occupied Arab territories has become even ~re dangerous because of the repression and cruel practices of the Israeli ~cupation forces perpetrated against the Palestinian inhabitants, in flagrant violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian populations in Time of War. This state of affairs is so ser ious that it is ruling out any possibility of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the attainment of a just and lasting peace. The Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel. Any alteration of those territories, any change in their status or de~raphic structure, including the establishment of settlements, represents an illegal action under international law. Israel's annexation of the Holy City of Jerusalem and its decision to extend , its jurisdiction, legislation and administration to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights are null and void, and stand condemned by the international community. The strategic alliance between the united States of America and Israel has served to consolidate and strengthen Israel's aggressive expansionist policies and reinforce its refusal to countenance peace. That alliance has without restriction ~de available to Israel the most sophisticated weaponry in the United States arsenal and has enabled it to take part in the strategic defense initiative, the SO-called Star Wars. Under cover of th is all iance, Wash ington has promised Tel Av iv access to one of the artifical satellites used for swing on Arab oountries. One can easily imagine the possibilities thus opened up to Israel, not to mention increased financing for the military bases being built near Beersheba and Dimona in the Negev Desert. An let us not forget the ass istance provided in various ways to foster Israel's nuclear capability and help it produce nuclear weapons, as well as to strengthen its economic and commercial power through the creation of a free-trade zone between the united States and Israel. Obviously, all that has a favourable impact on I sraells aggr ess ive mili tary forces. This explains why Isarel is so determined to per sist in its aggressive policies of expansion and colonization in its refusal to participate in an international conference on the Middle Fast. Israel simply wishes to employ bilateral, partial agreements along the lines of the Camp David accords - which enabled it to continue its settlements policy in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories, to annex Jerusalem and the Syrian Galan Heights and to invade Lebanon in 1982 - in order to achieve its expansion and the surrender of the Arabs. Israel, with the support of imperialism and colonialsm, is blocking the path to a jus t peace. By occupying soma Arab territor ies and annexing other s, by establishing settlements and by denying the rights of the Palestinian people, The different: Israel is resor ting to the most extremist and reactionary ideology. points of view of leaders in Tel Aviv with respect to peace is but cosmetic~ th erl are those who wish to secure the signatures of Arab leaders in condoning the us ur pa tion 0 f th e ri gh ts of th e Pales tin ians and the occupied Ar ab terri tor iea and those who from the outset have not recognized the existence of the inhabitants of the occupied Palestinian territory. Israelis ultimate goal is not peace, but the imposition by force of its hegemony over the entire region, as well as an attempt J1 to impose its conditions, not merely upon the Arab side but upon the entire international community. I sr ael ' s concept of peace is based on occupa tion, expans ion and the a<Xjuisition of territory by force - which is incompatible with the true concept of genuine peace. As loog as this contradiction continues in Israel's thinking, the prospect of peace in the region will be a mirage and the struggle of the Arabs to free their territories and recover their rights will continue. My country has repea tedly made clear that peace must be based on jus tice and equity. There can be no peace while occupation, repression and usurpation continue. There cannot be peace until the Arabs fully recover their rights and their territories. Pres iden t Assad of the Syr ian Arab Republic, in an address dur ing the dinner given in his honour yesterday evening by President Ceausescu during his official Ilisit to Romania, said~ "The clear rule for the establishment of peace in the region is the implementation of the relevant united Nations resolutions relating to Palestine and the Middle Fast. In order to achieve such implementation, we have endorsed the convening of an international peace conference under th e aus pi ces of the Un i te d Na tion s, with th e par ti ci pa tion of all the par ties concerned, including the five permanent members of the security Counci. The recovery of all the occupied Arab territories and the restoration of the inalienable national rights of the palestinian people cannot in any event be the subject of concessions or bargaining." We seek a just and comprehensive peace. The united Naqtions and the General Assembly have demonstrated their ability to grasp fully the facts of the problem and the nature and scope of the si tua tion in the Middle East, as well as the danger posed to in ter national peace and secur i ty by the ongoing occupa tion of Arab territories and the denial of the rights of the Palestinian people. Hence the United Nations is the appropriate framework for a solution to the problems of the Middle East. Any other proposal would be in vain and would represent an attempt to obstruct the atta inment of a just and comprehensive peace. The meeting rose at 7.40 p.m.