A/43/PV.94 General Assembly

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on the item on the agenda. The Assembly will now oonsider draft resolutif)n A/43/L.55. Before calling on those representatives wishing to make statements in explanation of vote before the voting on the draft resolution, I first call on the representative of Iceland, who wishes to introduce an amendment. Mr. GIB IASON CIceland): The Q)vernment of Iceland supports the view that the Israeli authorities should restrain their armed forces in the occupied territories so as to avoid violence and the killing of unarmed civilians - which in the view of the Icelandic Government is fit only to obstruct the peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli confl ict. It is essential t:lat both parties demonstrate in a concrete way their will to compromise and mutually recognize each other's fundamental rights, including the right of the State of Israel to exist within secure, guaranteed borders and the right of the Palestinians to self~etermination. An appeal is made to both parties to work for the convening of an international conference with the direct participation of all parties involved. I therefore propose the following change to draft resolution A/43/L.55, a new paragraph 5 - the old paragraph 5 to be renumbered accordingly - as follows: "SG Appeals to the parties concerned to refrain from all acts of violence that could place in jeopardy every attempt to reach a lasting, peaceful solution by political means". CAj43/L.S6) Consequently, I ask that this amendment be put to a vote4

The Assembly has heard the amendment to draft resolution A/43/t.S5 proposed by the representative of Iceland. It has been distributed in document A/43/t.56. I now call on the representative of Saudi Arabia, on 3 point of order. Mr. S~I~BI (Saudi Arabia): The sponsors of draft resolution A/43/L.55 were prepared to consult and receive amendment during the greater l;>art of yesterday. The original draft of that nraft resolution went through several amendments. Ne put in a lot of wOlk to accomnndate all the wishes of our friends and members of this body, so that the draft resolution would be balanced and cotrect, in conformity with the stand the United Nations has taken throughout. Unfortunately, the Icelandic delegation did not approach us until today, at around 3 o'clock, a very late hour to consider anything. That is one point. The other point is that, although this amendment looks quite innocent on the surface, we know that it embodies a very erroneous interpretation in its equating the Israeli t~rror with Palestinian behaviour under occupation - which is the minimum way in which an occupied people can express itself. Tt is very u~fair, it is very ill~gical to equate the two situations. We know tnat the violence in the ~ccupied territories is one-sided~ the expression of discontent comes from the other side. Therefore, since this amendment would truly upset the balance that has been aChieved in the draft resolution through painstaking efforts, I move that the Assembly vote, in accordance with rule 74 of its rules of procedure, not to take action on the amendment.

I call on the representative of Senegal on a point of order. Mrs. DIALLO (Senegal) (inte~pretation from French); Many delegations have spoken during this debate and have once again expressed the international community's indignation at the Israeli policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories. These policies and practices have recently been marked by an escalation of acts of intolerable brutality, resulting in the killing and wounding of many persons. The urgent need to ensure international protection for the Palestinian civilians living in the occupied Palestinian territories and to convene the International Peace Conference has also been emphasiz~d. After broad consultations, the substance of this debate has been set forth in draft l'esolution A/43/L.5S, now before the Assembly. By adopting that draft resolution without any amendment that could upset its balance, the Assembly would be shouldering its responsibilities and beginning to respond to the expectations of the Palestinian people, which, by resisting occupation and repression, is merely defending its inalienable rights. The Assembly would thereby be giving concrete expression to the principles and purposes that have prompted us to meet each time right is trampled upon or freedom is confiscated. (Mr. Shihabi, Saudi Arabia) For those reasons, I support the motion jURt submitted by the representative of Saudi Arabia. The PRES !DENT: The Assel'lbly has heard the statement made on a point of order by the representa tive of Saudi Arabia. He has moved, under the terms of rule 7( of the General Assembly's rules of procedure, that no action be taken on the amendment proposed by the representa tive of Iceland. Rule 74 reads as follows: "During the discussion of any matter, a reprbdentative may move the adjournment of the deba te on the i tern under discuss ion. In add! tion to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote ••• tI. Since the representative of Senegal has already spoken in fa10ur of the motion made by the representative of Saudi Arabia, I can call on only one more speaker in favour of the motion, but of course I can call on two representatives to speak against it. Mr. AL-ASHTAL (Democratic Yemen): Mv delegation is also in favour of the motion submitted by the representative of Saudi Arabia. The PlUS !DENT: Since no other representatives wish to speak, I shall nOlll put t( the vote the motion submitted by the representative of Saudi Arabia that no action be taken on the amendment in document A/43/t.56. A recorded vote has been requested. (~trs. Diallo, Senegal) Against: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Swed~n, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstainilli: Bahamas, Barbados, Ecuador, Fiji, Jamaica, Liberia, Malta, Philippines, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay The motion was adopted by 95 votes to 23, with 10 abstentions. The PRe; IDENT: The General Assembly will 0014 consider the draft resolution contained in document A/43/L.55. I shall call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the voting 0;. the draft resobtion. Representatives will also have an opportunity to explain th~ir vote after the votin~o I would remind the Assembly that under rule 88 of its rules of procedure -The President shall not permit the proposer of a proposal or of an amendment to explain his vote on his own propos~l or amendment". May ! also remind represent.! tives that statements in explana tion of vote are limited to l~ minutes and should he m~1e by delegations from their seats. over the 13 April violence in Nahhalin and related incidents in other West Bank and Gaza towns. We deplore the continuing violence in the occupied territories, particularly the increase in deaths and casualties in recent days, and are actively engaged in efforts to alleviate the si tua tion there. Such tragic incidents serve as a strong reminder that the sta tus QUO in the territl')r ies is untenable and that it is impera tive to break the current cycle of confronta tion, crea te an atmosphere for Israeli-Palestinian ~ialoque and bring about a comprehensive peace. The United States is saddened by the loss of life and injuries suffered on a daily basis in the occupied territories. The Nahhalin incident is a particularly serious tragedy. We note that the Government of Israel is conducting an investigation of the incidentJ we trust that: a thorough report will be forthcoming shortly and tha t necessary corrective actions will be implemented promptly. In the me~ntime, we urge that Israel make every effort to avo/ 1 the unwarranted use of lethal force in the West Bank and Gaza. Incidents slJch as that at Nahhalin set back efforts to create a positive atmosphere for dialogue and undermine the confidence needed to build towards peace. The United States believes it is essential to restore and safeguard the right of all religious faiths in the area to have free and open access to the Holy Places in Jerusalem. Those seeking to worShip at the Holy Places also have a responsibility not to use such freedom to abuse the rights of others or to contribute to the cycle of action and reaction Which is the enemy of the peace process. The United States is convinced that real progress can be achieved only through a process of dialogue and negotia Hons involving Israelis and Palestin ians. rtJch needs to be done to lay the groundwork for a workable process in which Israelis and two-way street. We have encoul:aged both sides to take practical steps to help reduce tensions and create a more favourable atmospherp.. underlying causes. This can only be done thtough a negotiating process that would address transitional ~rrangements for the occupied territories and resolve the final status of those territories in a manner acceptable to all concerned. The United States seeks a c~~prehensivp. negotiated settlement in accordance with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) that would provide for an exchange of territory for peace, the security of all States and the legitimate p>litical rights of the Palestinian people. The challenge before all of us is to help bring Israelis, Palestinians and other Arabs together to negotiate a settlement, not to try to prejudge its outcome or to dictate its terms. Tb accomplish this we need practical, realistic measures designed to reduce tensions, lower the ~evel of violence and incrementally build trust between the parties. Divisive, one-sided confrontational rhetoric such as that in the draft resolution before the Assembly today does not improve the situation on the ground or advance the prospects for peace in the region. It is not productive and only succeeds in driving the parties further apart at a time when ~fforts should be focused on bringing them together. The d~aft resolution contained in document A/43/L.SS in a number of important respects is fundamentally at variance with the views of my Government. For that geason the United States will vote against this draft. Mr. NISSIM-ISSACHAROFF (Israel): It goes without saling that the delegation of Israel will vote against the draft resolution in document A/43/L.5S. The draft does absolutely nothing to address the real issues in an objective and serious way, and worse still will not bring us any closer to a solution of the problem. process to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict in all its aspects. We stated in no uncertain terms that Israel wants the violence to end and the political process to begin. We tlave heard much lately of the new "moderation" and "will ingness for peace" in the Arab world. The trouble iS r we hear a lot of talk, endless talk, but nothing has really changed. Have these draft resolutions, trying to alienate and insult Israel, changed over the last years, or indeed over the last few months? They have not. Is the Arab Group willing to accept mutual restraint in order to facilitate a solution? It h~s just said no. The measure of distortion in the draft It'esoluti:>n before us and the immense hypocrisy we have heard in this debate show that members of the Arab Group have yet to rise above their empty rhetoric, which they have used for thp. last 40 years. The sponsors of the dra ft resolu tion have in the draft i tsel f and durinq the debate had the audacity to seek to condemn Israel in relation to the freedom of religious worship. I would like to remind this body that 700,000 cl tizens of Israel are of the Muslim faith and that Israel guarantees by law freedom of access and worship to all Holy Places for all religions. Israel has maintained a meticulous record in this regard. Tb hear accusations of religious intolerance from regimes such as that of Saudi Arabia, a regime that tolerates only one religion and slaughtered over 400 Muslims in one day during the hadj in Mecca - such accusations are frankly beneath our dignity to answer. But if this hypocrisy does not suffice, it is auite instructive, but none the less appa1lingv to hear Syria and Iraq lp.cture the General Assembly on the evils of occupation and respect for human rights. Fbrty thousand Syrian troops occupy brethren in Iraq so callously killed 5,000 Kurds in a matter of days in Halabja. If these are the moral credentials of the Arab Group, I feel almost privileged to represent a country that is criticized by such regimes - The PRe; IDENTa I call on the representa tive of the Syrian Arab Republic on a point of order. ~r. hL-MPSRI (Sy dan Arab Republic) (interpreta tion from Arabic): It seem~ the Israeli representative does not propose to explain his vote. Perhaps be has a statement to make, one that has nothing to do with an explanation of vote or the draft resolution now being considered by the General Assembly. I would request you, Mr. President, to ask him to end his statement. If he does continue making a statement, I reserve the right to make one of my own to explain the facts and to refute the lies and claims he is ~etting forth under the guise o~ explaining his vot~. The PRES IDmT: I call on the representative of Israel to continue his statement but request him to restrict his ~emarks to explaining his vote. Mr. Ntc;SlM-ISSACHAROFF (Israel): I can understand that my words are difficult for the Sy~ian Ambassador to hear. Regarding the draft resolution, Israel will not be intimidated by such a draft. It changes nothing in the real w~rld and will not prevent Israel from continuing its ongo ing efforts to prolOOte the peace process. This Organization can remain hostage to senseless rhetoric and blatant hypocrisy. Israel cannot afford to be. Peace is far too important to us for it to be just another word or slogan in a resollJ tion of the General Assembly. It has to be built through trust and mutual understanding. This draft resolution addresses nei there before the vote. I have heen as~ed to announce that the &lllowing countries have joined the group of sponsors of draft resolution A/43/L.55: Afghanistan, Vanuatu and Viet Nam. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/43/t.55. A re~,orded vo te has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, BelgilDll, Ghutan, Bol ivia, Botswana, Br az it g Brunei Duussalam, Bulqar ia., Bur kina Faso, BurlM, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet S:>cialist Republic, Canada, Cap! Verde, Chad, China, Colollbia, Comros, cote d'Ivoire. Cuba, cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, OP.nmark, D'jibouti, F.l:Jypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gahon, Gantd", German Denocra tic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indh, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Irelano, Jt~ly, Jamai~, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's DeITDcratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mal ta, Maud tan ia, r"auritiu.c;, Mexico, Mongol ia, Morocco, Mozamhique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua Ntw Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, R-Ianda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, sao lbme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, SDain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sudname, ~eden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and 1bbago, Tunisia, TUrkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet S:>cialist Republic, Union of Soviet S:>cialist Republics, Uni~d Arab Emirates, Unitl'!d Kingdom of Great Brit.ain and Northern Ireland, United Repuhlic ':If Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe ~ainst~ Israel, thited states of America Abstaining: Liberia nraft resolution A/43/L.55 was adopted by 129 vo~s to 2, with 1 abstention (resolution 43/233).* * Subsequently the delegations of FbiJador ant:l Vanuattl advised the Secretariat that it had in tp.nded to vo te in favolJr. elCplanation of vote after the vot\l'¥). Mr" ,JACDBOVIT~ DE SZECED (Netherlands): Earlier in the debate the po~ition of. the 12 States m~~ers of the European Community with regard to agenda item 37 was set out by the representative of ~ain speaking on behalf of the TWelve, and naturally we fully aubscribe to what he said. We therefore voted in favour of the resoluti~n just adop~ed. I h~ve, nevertheless, asked to speak in order to place on record some reservations on the text of the resolution. In the first place, the Netherlands holds the opinion that this resolution does not deal in a balanced manner with all the relevant aspects of the question. We therefore fail to see how this resolution can contribute to the overall peace process. Furthermore, the Netherlands has always been of the opinion that the solution of the Middle East problem should be hased on the principle of non-recourse to the use of force. Therefore, the Netherlands wants to make it clear that its vote in favour of the text just adopted can in no way be interpreted as encouragement or support for the use of violence. The Netherlands questions the role of the security Council as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the resolution: The Fburth Geneva Convention dbes not point to the , security Council, but to a protectinq Power or the International Conunittee of the! Red Cross, to prov ide prote ct ion to ci v il ians.· Finally, I wiSh to explain that our vote in favour does not alter the Netherlands' ~ell-I(nown position on an international peace conference on the Middle East, noc can it in any way prejudge the eventual outcome of negotiations among those direc"ly concerned. ~1r. ME (Jap;1n): The delegation of ,Japan voted in favour of draft resolution A/43/L.55 out of grave concern about the current policies and practices applied bl' Israel on the West &ml( and in the Gaza Strip, ",hich, in its view, run counter to the ongoing efforts of the parties concerned to keep al ive the nomentum towards the attainment of peace in the Middle East. My delegation wishes to put on record, hC1llever, Japan's position on an international conference, which is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the resolution. Japan has supported the idea of an international conference on peace in the Middle East in the bel ief thClt an international framework of some sort is necessary for a negotiated settlement of the issue. However, it is Japan's view that for practical reasons the detailed moda1ities for such an international conference can be worked out only through preparatory talks to be held by all the parties concerned. From such a viewpoint, therefore, there should be room left for a practical and flexible approach to such an international conference. Mr. R>RTIE'i (Canada) (interpretation from Frenchh My delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution in document A/43/L.55, but wishes to provide the following clarifications: Any violation of human rights is unacceptableJ that is why Canada supported this resolu tion. My Government would, however, have preferred a text strongly deploring the practices and policies in question without resorting to condemnation. Terms such as the latter do not further the primary goal of establishing a climate of trust that could ease the situation and promote nego tia tions. Canada maintains its position that the outcome of peace negotiations must not be determined in advance. General Assembly resolution 43/176 of 15 December 199a, which relates to an international peace confArence, posed difficulties for. my Government because of elements in it antici!?<1t.ing ..he results of such a conference. Canada supports the principle of an international peace conference as the most appropriate framework for direct negotiations among the partie8, but reiterates its opposition to any attempt to prejudge the results. Sir Crispin TIO<ELL (United Kingdom): The draft resolution just adopt~d by the Assembly makes use of certain language to describe territories occupied by Israel since 1961. The vote of my delegation in favour of the drafl resolution should not be taken as implying any change in my Government's view as to the status of those territories. Mr. MADMS'HT\HI (Islamic Republic of Iran): My delegation cast a positive vote on the resolu tion just adopted by the General Assembly on the question of Palestine. I should like, however, to place on record the position of my delega tion wi th regard to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the resolu tion. We are of the opinion that the territory of Palestine includes the entire land of Palestine occupied by the Zionists. Also, it is our belief that conciliatory measures are not in line with the wishes of the heroic people of Palestine.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation o.f vote after the voting. In accordance with General Assembly resolutions 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1914 and 43/171 of 15 December 1988, I now call upon the Observer of Palestine. Mr. AL-KIDWA (Palestine) (interpretation from Arabic): On behalf of the Observer delega tion of Palestine to the Uni ted Na tions, and on behal f of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories and outside those territories in the diaspora, I wish to thank all the friendly, brotherly countries that sponsored draft resolution A/43/L.55. ! also thank a - the countries that voted in favour of that draft reSOlution. (M~. Fbrtier, canada) The action taken by the General Assembly is 0'1 clear indica tion of the international unanimity in condemning Israeli practices and in supporting the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people. The General Assembly voted nearly unanimously in favour of the draft resolution. Only Israel - naturally - and the Uni ted Sta tes "0 ted aga inst it. In that r.egard, and in spite of the negative vote cast by the United States, we cannot help noting sone positive elements in the statement made in explanation of vote by the representative of the United States. (Mr. A!-Kidwa, Palestine) We seriously hope that the resolution just adopted will lead to the lessening of the suffering of the Palestinian people under the abhorrent Israeli occupation and that it will help to stop further bloodshed and realize the just and comprehensive settlement of the problem in the Middle East. We would also express the hope that the Securi ty Council will make an appropria te and timely response by discussing the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. We should also like to extend our thanks to you, Mr. President, to the United Nati~ns Secretary-General and to all who have facilitated the convening of this series of meetings of the General Assembly.

We have heard the last speaker in our consideration of this item on the agenda. We have thus concluded the present stage of our consideration of the agenda item, "Question of Palestine." May I expresR the conviction that this important debate and the resolution adopted by the overwhelming majority will make be a further contribution to the search for a just solution to the Palestinian problem and the alleviation of the plight of the Palestinian people. SUS PEN; ION OF THE SESS ION The PRES ID ENT: I declare suspended the forty -third session of the General Assembly. The meeting rose at 6.45 p.m. (Mr. Al-Kidwa 6 Palestine)