S/32/PV.48 Security Council

The question whicll is at present being examined is not new to the international community. It has already been examined several times in the General Assembly and the Security Council. It has taken on a new meaning, however, because of the attitude of the present Israeli Government regarding settlements in the occupied terri- tories. This attitude comes at a time when delicate efforts are being made to renew the peacemaking process. 2. The countries members of the European Community take the opportunity offered by this present debate requested by Egypt to state their views on this subject. 3. On many occasions, the nine members of the Com- munity have clearly reiterated their basic conviction that the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 19491 applies to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. 4. The countries members of the European Community have also stated that they consider to be illegal all unilateral measures violating the physical and demographic status of the occupied territories. It fonows that, in their opinion, 1 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75 (No. 973), p. 287. NEW YORK the estabIishment of settlements is contrary to the norms of international law. They recall that they voted in favour of sever,td resolutions of the General Assembly to this effect. 5. The countries members of the. European Community are all the more concerned about these measures since, in their opinion, one of the essential elements in a negotiated settlement between the parties to the conflict is the necessity for Israel to put an end to its territorial occupation, which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967. The policy of establishing settlements in the occu- pied territories is such ~hat it would clearly complicate the negotiating process. Whatever justificati!>t may be put forward, such practices rightly cause apprehension. among the parties concerned. 6. It is for these reasons that the countries members ofthe European Community informed the Israeli authorities of thdr concern over the recent illegal measures of the Government of Israel. They regret that, in spite ofall these considerations and the repeated appeals of numerous countries which have been cortunitted to the existence and security of Israel since its creation, Israel pursues itspolicy ofestablishing settlements in o~C'!lpiedterritory. 7. The countries members (~the European Community wish to conf"mn here that the)' remain fmnly committed to the security of Israel. They consider that to be one of the essential elements in an over-all agreement. But this security can only properly be guaranteed within the framework ofa settlement which takes into consideration the rights of all parties concerned. By prejudging the outcome of future comprehensive negotiations, any unilateral initiative could, in the end, harm Israel's security. 8. For all these reasons, the countries members of the European Community will vote in favour of the draft resolution which has been submitted to us in document A/32/L.3 and Add.1 and 2, which was introduced this morning [47th meeting] by Mr. Abdel Meguid of Egypt. They wish to make it clear that, in their View, the expression "Palestinian... territories" in operative para- graph 1 has in this context a purely geograpmcal conno- tation. 9. They are appreciative of the fact that the date set for .. the submission of the Secretary-General's report to the General Assembly and to the Security Council has been changed to 31 December 1977. 10. We are living through a period of crucial importance for the Middle East. For the fust time in many years, there is a real chance ofending a long period ofhostility between Israel and all its Arab ne~ghbGurs-ahostility which, fO£ 30 years, has continuously threatened international peace. We

Item 126 of the agenda, which we have been discussing today, and the relattea draft resolution [A/32/L.3 and Add.1 and 2j spoasored by all the Arab States as well as by a consider- ahle number ofIslamic, African and other States, have been cuefitlyconsidered by the Portuguese delegation. The coBclusions we have reached are clear, and I shall try to be 'I.-:_r taJV,l. 12. The Portuguese delegation regrets, and views with gJleat ooucem, the establishment of Jewish settlements in the occupied AratJ territories, as well as all the other me.wres which Israel has taken which seem to aim at ~g the status of those territories, for, ifnot stopped, such initiatives. will end up by altering the geographical nature and tire demographic structure of those territories. 13. Thus, the Portuguese delegation agrees with the spirit .a the tenns of the draft resolution referred to in the hegi.rtuingof this statement, believing it to deserve the umeen:ed support of all the States Members ofthe United Nations. 14. The question ofthe Middle East has dragged on for 30 years. Of aB the political problems the international commumty has had to face since the last World War, this is OM of the most difficult, the one that, so far, has caused the mJlt attXieties and, certainly, the most frustrations. Others no :ress complex may· persist in the international or<ie~ for which it has also been impossible to fmd ultimate or ideal solutions. But in many such cases, the parties mvolved have ended up by accommodatir.g themselves to tke· situations created. They seem to have given up for the time being the search fo,. other solutions; and often, with ttttt~, the gravity of those problems has diminished and lost much of its explosive force. Unhappily, this is exactly the contr~i of "'Nhat has occurred in the last 30 years in the situation in the Middle East. 15. Yet,. for all those who during this period have observed the eYoluJon of this problem, it appears evident today that mf.:cl u, wel as the Arab world can only benefit from a lasting solution of the conflict which divides them, for it is obvious that only peace-not a mere armed truce, but peace with respect for each oth "s ~xistence, territorial integrity and full rights-can allow the States or political forces involved in the conflict to resolve the grave political or economic internal problems which in one way or another an ofthem face. 16'. The entire world desires such a peace. But I ask, how many of ut: today believe in the possibllity of its being shortly achieved? 17. For that reason the community ofnations has become increasingly impatient at the continuation of a conflict which for a generation has constituted a constmt threat to wodd peacel.the more so because this ~ont1ict has for many years now been systematically nurtured by an artificial climate of hatred and fanaticism, by narrow nationalism 18. Thus the community of nations fmds it each day more difficult to understand or condo!le all the gestures which, instead of constituting a positive contribution towards the clarification of the issue and the removal of the many obstacles on the long and arduous road to peace, might seem to have been dictated by the opposite intention-to increase those obstacles, to make dialogue still more difficult and the defInitive solution of the problem even more remote. 19. We heard the Israeli delegation, after having defended the iniUatives and actions of its Government in the occupied Arab territories, declare that "The settlements are by no means an obstacle to peace because, if they were, we should have had peace years ago" [27th meeting, para.202j. 20. No one has ever stated that the settlements are an obstacle impeding a negotiated solution. Theoretically at least, nothing is an obstacle if we take into account the Israeli declarations that everything can be the subject of negotiations. But what has been said-and what seems to be irrefutable-is that Israeli initiatives in the occupied terri- tories, rather than contributing to the removal of obstacles on the hard road to peace, seem to be a new factor of tension in defiance· of Arab and world positions and· one more gesture· that obstructs not only the process of dialogue but, at this moment, its very inception. 21. From t!lat point of view, I do not thitlk it worthwhile to analyse here ~he legal aspects of the problem and the attempt of Israel to prove the legitimacy of the settlements with the argument that the legal statute of the territories is indefmite CL contestable and that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. 22. The truth is that even if this were the case-and my delegation does not believe it to be so-and even if, legally, Israel were authorized to proceed as it does, its initiatives and actions would continue to meet with the disapproval of the community of nations, fQr they are politically and morally condemnable acts apparently denying the sincerity of its stand and making even more difficult any negotiation aimed at resolving the ·conflict. 23. It seems quite obvious that from the Israeli standpoint the settlements might serve one of two purposes: either the gradual creation of conditions whereby in the future Jewish populations would already be living in the territories which, within the framework of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), will be returned to the Arabs; or the creation of condmons whereby Israel will be allowed to claim territories which it has occupied by force of arms and which do not belong to it. Israel s..hould therefore realize that its undertakings and initiatives cannot fail to raise very strQng resentment among the Arabs as well as serious objections from those who seek to avoid by all means a 24. Let us not forget that Israel owes its velY existence as a sovereign State to the community of nations. After creating the legal conditions for its establishment as a national entity, and after having for many years supported its just struggle for sovereignty and survival, the community of nations today has not only the right but the duty to demand of Israel that it cease all initiatives and actions which, in contravention of the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and to its obligations as party to the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, increasingly threaten the fragile prospects for the lasting peace which we all seek.

The Government of Yugo- slavia considers that the most recent measures ofthe Israeli Government aimed at extending Israeli legislation to the territory of the West Bank of the Jordan, to the region of Gaza, to the Sinai Peninsula and to the Golan Heights, and the establishment of new Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territories, constitute a challenge to the international community and a threat to peace. Those measures are part of Israel's persistent actions and aggressive policy directed towards annexing occupied territories. They represent, m the opinion of my Government, a conscious and deliberate violation of the relevant decisions and resolutions of the United Nations and are primarily aimed at denying the national rights of the Palestinian people and at consolidat- ing the occupation of the Arab territories, and are designed to obstruct the efforts for a just and peaceful solution of the Middle East crsis. Yugoslavia condemns those aggres- sive and annexationist measures of the Israeli Government and proclaims its full solidarity with the just struggle of Arab countries and the Palestine liberation Organization for the realization of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people. 26. Such a policy of force, violence and lawlessnes.s has been condemned countless times within the United Nations as well as through actions of non-aligned countries. In the Declaration adopted at the extraordinary meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries devoted to the situation in the Middle East, which was held on 30 September this year in New York, it was confirmed that "Israel's continued illegal occupation of Arab terri- tories by force constitutes a serious threJ.t to international peace and security" [A/32/255-S/12410, annex, para. 21 and that the measures taken by Israel in the occupied territories were "null and void" [ibid., para. 41. Further- more, arrogant statements by the Israeli Government to the effect that the occupied Arab territories were supposed to be "liberated Israeli lands" were also rejected [ibid., para. 51. 27. Israel's actions in the occupic i territories are nothing but a brutal infringement of the rules of international law. They are in contradiction with the principles and provisions of the basic statute of our Organization, the Charter of the United Nations, to respect for which Israel committed itself on assuming membership. They are in contradiction with the provisions of The Hague Convention of 1907, respect- 28. At its meeting on 11 November 1976, the Security Council, through the statement of its President, qualified Israel's conduct as being contrary to international1lw and called upon Israel to discontinue its existing practice of establishing settlements in occupied territories. In para- graph (3) of the aforementioned statement, it was reaf- imned that "... the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967. Therefore, the occupying Power is c311ed upon once again to comply strictly with the provisions of that Convention and to refrain from any measure that violates them. In this regard, the measures taken by Israel in the occupied Arab territories that alter their demographic composition or geographical nature, and particularly the establishment of settlements, are strongly deplored. Such measures, which have no legal validity and cannot prejudge the outcome of the efforts to achieve peace, constitute an obstacle to peace."3 29. The international community rejects the policy of "fait accompli", the use of force in international relations, the usurping of the legitimate rights of other peoples and the infringement of existing norms ofinternational law-all of which can only result in war, devastation and insecurity for every country in the world. Israel cannot fmd allies for the annexation of occupied territories. If Israel really wishes for peace, it should prove that in practice. The imperative of peace is the withdrawal of Israel from all Arab territories occupied since 1967 and the removal of settlements established illegally in those territories. The retention of existing settlements or establishment of new ones can only cause greater distrust among its Arab neighbours, which could make the chances for peace even more remote, ifit does not destroy them altogether. 30. Israel should also realize that there is no power that could deprive the Palestinian people of its legitimate national rights, including the right to its own State. Also, the right of its people to peaceful, secure and ~dependent existence cannot be ensured through occupation, annexa- tion and depriving the Palestinian people of its legitimate rights. A just and lasting peace can be achieved only ifthe Palestinian people is enabled to realize its national rights in the territories of Palestine oCi,;upied since the 1967 war. Only thus can there be achieved a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The General Assembly has been discussing the problem of Palestine and the question of the Middle East for the last five years. The item 32. The settlements and the transfer thereto of Israeli population infringes the rights of the.entire population of the occupied territories, of those who are still in .the occupied territories and of those who have been displaced and have beeh prevented from returning to them since 1967. This provocative policy is not only fraught with danger, but is contrary to article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits tampering with territories under military occupation. Not only is there a policy of annexation, there is and has been an implementation of this policy. 33. To start with, Jerusalem has been officially and defiantly annexed. There is annexation in Jerusalem; there is also annexation in th\" ring of territory surrounding Jerusalem. We have had annexation in part of northern Sinai, and there has been functional annexation in the Golan, when Israeli law has been extended to the Golan Heights; Israeli courts have been qreated there and Israeli income tax legislation has been extended to apply to the Syrian Golan Heights. Thus we have fully fledged annexa- tion in three regions of the occupied territories; we have had functional annexation in one region and what Israelis have called creeping annexation in. the rest of the occupied territories. Mr. Eban, the former Foreign Minister ofIsrael, said on 29 June 1967 at the fIfth emergency special session of the General Assembly-and I heard him with my own ears-"What we have done [in Jerusalem] is not annexa- tion. What we have done is reunification." To make this policy clear, Mr. Begin, the present Prime Minister of Israel, wrote on 14 May 1976 in the Jewish Press: "•.. our reply [to those who criticize Israel's policy of annexation] should be that there was no annexation. Why?" The answer, he says, is that "One annexes foreign territory, but Jerusalem was liberated and will remain a city that was joined together once again." 34. Such statements make a mockery of the United Nations Charter. They violate all the principles and pur- poses on which it is founded and tear to shreds the meaning ofinternational law. The explanation given for the denial of a policy of annexation is indeed worse than the policy of annexation itself. The Israelis say, "These territories are ours, and they are liberated territories, not occupied ones". In fact, Israel refers to them as administered or liberated -territories, but never as occupied territories. 35. The New York Times, a paper not noted for its support of the Arab position, disclosed on 15 October 1977 that the Begin Government wanted Israeli news editors to stop calling the West Bank "occupied" territory and to refer to all Jewish settlements as legal and never to utter the word "annexation". According to The New York Times, this move will only compound suspicion of the Begin Government's motives. 37. This morning [47th meeting], in his long lament, the representative of Israel said that a total ef approximately 6,000 Jews are living in the occupied Arab territories. He said 6,000 Jews. Now, shall we believe him? Or shall we believe Mr. Peres, who is no doubt more knowledgeable about Jewish settlements in the occupied Arab territories than is Mr. Herzog. The London Economist of 15 May 1976, quoted Mr. Peres, the former Defence Minister of Israel,. as saying-lam not inventing this; it was written in the London Economist-that in the West Bank alone there are 8,000 settlers, not to speak of Sinai, Gaza or the Golan Heights. 38. Now what do we believe, Mr. Herzog's lament or the words of Mr. Peres, who is more knowledgeable and has more credentials in this field than the Israeli representa- tive? Besides, there are thousands of settlers in the incorporated Jerusalem area occupied in 1967. According to the Western press, in 1973 there were an estimated 15,000 Jewish settlers in the Jerusalem area and the other occupied territories. 39. There have been drastic changes in the demographic composition of the population of the occupied areas. The indigenous people are either displaced, pressured to leave or prevented from returning to their homes. Before the occupation, the Syrian Golan Heights had a population of more than 110,000 Syrians. That was more than 110,000 Syrians before 1967. Today, the Golan Heights has a population of 8,000 Syrians and more than 2,000 Israeli citizens. The settlements in Jerusalem were all on privately owned property. More than 4,500 acres have been con- flScated in Jerusalem, and the Arab indigenous population has been evacuated so that new apartment buildings may be built on the ruins of their razed homes and thousands of Israeli citizens may be moved into them. 40. There is nothing more ridiculous and insulting to the General Assembly than the assertion that the Jews have a right to settle in the occupied Arab territories. These territories are Arab temtories; they belong to the people of Palestine. Jews who settle in these territories take the place of the local owners of the land. Their settlement ~ a manifestation of expansionism, of covetousness and of absorption of Arab territories. This policy is no doubt carried out in implementation of what Mr. Weizmann, the founder of modem zionism, called "synthetic zionism"-a concept pursued by surreptitiously building·Jewish settle- ments intended to remain permanently. The General Assembly and the world are called upon to tell Israel that the conquest of Arab land is unacceptable under any guise. 42. On this issue one should be well documented and not speak from memory. 43. We are told in the Christian Science Monitor of 30 May 1973 that, in the Golan Heights on or near the sites of about 100 former Syrian villages totally erased by Israeli bulldozers and blasting and their nearly 100,000 inhab- itants now living mainly in refugee camps in Syria, there is one of the biggest concentrations of Israeli capital and effort. The settlements built by Israel in the Golan Heights are built on land on which the Syrians lived~ which the Syrians tilled and from which the Syrians made their living. In fact, the Jerusalem Post, which is an Israeli publication, told us on 18 May 1976 that the Golan Heights, which has more than 21 civilian and 4 paramilitary Nuhal settlements, has no more arable land or water resources left. Is that not an infringement ofthe rights of the 100,000 Syrians, whose right to return the General Assembly has been reaffmning every year? 44. The pattern of this vicious policy of annexation was best described by a man- named Phil Caputo, an editor of the Chicago Tribune, which is an American publication, when he wrote on 21 January 1973 as follows: "Extensive interviews and an examination of records and Israeli press reports reveal the following pattern of settlement: frrst the army moves in for security purposes; then after Arab landowners are moved, paramilitary- agricultural communities are set up and fmally these communities are turned over to civilians." 45. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Begin and Foreign Minister Dayan, have made the preposterous claim in recent weeks that Israeli settlements have not displaced any residents of the occupied territories. Apart from the obvious fact that the illegality of the settlements is not contingent upon whether or not they in fact displaced indigenous populations-a fact which makes the Israeli claims irrelevant-I must emphasize the other fact that these Israeli claims are patently untrue. 46. Thousands ofthe indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of occupied Jerusalem have been evicted and their lands have been expropriated in order to make room for new Israeli settlers. Thousands ofBedouins in the Rafah area have been displaced and forcibly relocated, and their lands have been taken over in order to make room for new settlements in that area. A hundred thousand Syriana, the indigenous population of the Syrian Golan Heights who were displaced 47. The determination to establish Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territories has be~n an integral part of the programme of every Israeli Government since 1967-from the government of Levi Eshkol, through the governments of Mrs. Meir and Mr. Rabin, and down to the present Begin government. Each of these successive Governments gained the confidence of the Knesset on the basis of an official programme which contained a pledge to establish settle- ments in the occupied territories. The difference, however, between the attitude and policy of the present Begin Government and those ofits predecessors is twofold. In the frrst place, previous Israeli Governments rationalized their programmes of settlement establishment by invoking the concept of security; they claimed that settlements were necessary as a part of a programme to safeguard the security of Israel. The Begin Government, however, openly claims that it has a "right" to settle Israelis in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza because they are parts of "Eretz Israel"-the land of Israel-from which Israel would not withdraw. That is why the second and third points of the basic programme of the Begin Govern- ment, proclannedin June 1977, stated: "The Jewish People has an eternal, historic right to the Land of Israel, the inalienable inheritance of its fore- fathers.... "The Government will plan, establish and encourage urban and rural settlement on the soil of the home- land"-meaning the occupied Arab territories. 48. In the second place, the Begin Government has pressed ahead with its programme of establishing settlements more intensively and at a more accelerated pace than its predecessors. From June 1967 until June 1977 Israeli settlements were established at an average rate ofeight per year. During the three-year tenure of Mr. Rabin, from 1974 to 1977, 33 s.ettlements were established-an average of 11 per year. By contrast, in the past three months alone the Begin Government has "legalized" three settlements and authorized the establishment of 12 others. 49. In a nutshell, the true character of this settlement policy is that of a different trilogy. First, it is an illegal policy contrary to international law, and I do not need to elaborate on that, a reference to article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention being sufficient. Secondly, it is an immoral policy infringing on the human rights of the population concerned, paving the way to the denial to hundreds ofthousands of displaced persons of their right to return and denying the population of the ;cupied terri- tories the restoration of their sovereignty aiid independence by the permanent annexation of their territories. Thirdly, it is a warmongering policy; it is an invitation to war. It is a 50. Firially, there is nothing more insulting than Israel's allegation of its desire for peace in the light of what it has been doing in the occupied Arab territories. It may be true that Israel wants peace with the annexation of occupied territories. It wants peace on its terms. It wants peace with the spoils of war. But it does not want peace based on jilstice, based on the withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories. It may get territories, but it will never obtain peace, which will remain elusive so long as Israel stands as the predator of Arab territories. Those who think that peace is possible while Arab territories are devoured are victims of halluc~tion.The}' should read our history.

At a time when after 30 years of conflict in the Middle East, prospects for peace seem brighter, and when most of the parties concerned are stating their desire to reach a negotiated settlement, one of the parties and by no means the least concerned-I refer to the State of Israel- stubbornly carries on its short-sighted policy of force and faits accomplis. 52. Such a policy, demonstrated by_ the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, is inconsistent with the creation·of a climate conaucive to negotiations and will merely obstruct the peace process now under way. It raises the question as to whether Israel really wants to reach a negotiated settlement through mutual concessions, or whether it wishes to impose its will by force. 53. If the Israel attitude is in line with the frrstof these alternatives, then my delegatiOIl has some difficulty .in appreciayng the political wisdom and vision governing the establishment of Israeli settlements in Arab territory. 54. Why does the Israeli Government allow 26 settlements to be established in the Golan Heights, 3 in the Sinai, 17 in the Gaza Strip and 31 on the West Bank of Jordan, when it knows that one of the factors in a JUGt and lasting peace in the Middle East is withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories'? We even know that the Government of Israel - has- devIsed a iong-term programme providing for the 63. Forgetful of the lessons of history, they believe that the tyranny of military power can secure the settlement of all the problems with which they are confronted. They leave their opponents no choice but to submit or to fight. And to show quite clearly that they certainly do not wish to leave the battlefield for the negotiating table they 55. And when the present Foreign Minister of Israel continue with the same arrogance to carry out the flagrant asserts that his country's two objectives in the region are to annexation of the occupied Arab territories. safeguard its ,military security and the right of the settle- ments to exist, does that mean that Israel intends, in the 64.. The Arab countries and the Palestinian people will not event of a peace settlement, to ask its nationals unlawfully accept such a situation for ever The present policy of the . establishment during the next 15 years of settlements iD the above-mentioned Arab territories. 56. If in spite of all this Israel is considered to be taking only interim measures which will not affect the future, why is it changing to its own advantage the demographic, economic, cultural and religious composition of the oc- cupied territories, when it must know that by doing so it is contravening the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949? 57. All these facts combine to lend credence to the view that Israel is surreptitiously annexing part ofthe territories occupied since 1967. If this is so, what, then, can be the purpose of any future negotiations, when viewed from the Israeli standpoint? Only to ratify the faits accomplis of the Jewish State. 58. Since such negotiations would have no chance of being successful, the spectre of a fifth Israeli-Arab war is looming larger all the time. This very prospect was strengthened by the political changes in Israel, and by the intervention of the Israeli armed forces in southern Lebanon. 59. For a long time the Israeli Government has been stressing the question of security with regard to the settlements in the West Bank ofthe Jordan and in the Gaza Strip. These are supposed to be part of a defence plan of the Jewish State and do not imply, according to the Israeli authorities, the annexation of Arab territories. 60. But since the Likud came to power, we are entitled to doubt this interpretation; because the present Head of Government in Tel Aviv considers the occupied territories of the West Bank of Jordan to be liberated Israeli territories. As soon as he came to power, he made haste to legalize and authorize the establishment ofnew settlements, despite the unanimous disapproval of the international community. It would seem even that the Jewish State has a plan to settle 2 million Jews on the West Bank of the Jordan. 61. Thus these facts can only increase misgivings as to the desire of the Israeli leaders to restore the Arab territories that they have illegally occupied for over 10 years. 62. For our part we believe tliat this is irresponsible and dangerous behaviour. The law of the strongest, which the Israeli leaders have imposed as the code of conduct in the Middle East, might in the long term work against their own country. 65. Unfortunately for them, the state of mind of the main belligerents in the Middle East has developed. Israel has always had as an alibi the so-caIled bad faith and the so-called aggressive intentions of its neighbours. To listen to Israel, the only obstacle to peace is the refusal ofthe Arabs to accept its existence. But today, when the latter have made numerous steps toward peace, Israel is indulging in delaying tactics. Called upon to make peace, the Israeli leaders, in spite of all their pacifist rhetoric, are revealed as demonstrating a political stubbornness contrary to any spirit of negotiation. With their backs to the wall they are obliged to show their true face and to reveal their true intentions. 66. The truth is that the Hebrew State feels itself- wrongly-more menaced by peace than by war. This attitude will surprise only those who are unconditional supporters of Israel and have so far pardoned everything and have always believed that Israel will engage in negotia- tions as soon as the opportunity is offered. That is the price of having closed one's eyes for too long to the faits accomplis of the Israeli leaders and of not having under- stood that they were opposed to genuine negotiation or to a search for compromise. Today these friends of Israel, who cannot stand guarantee for this latter day romantic and dangerous colonialism, illustrated by the establishment of settlements in occupied Arab territories, are disavowing the acts oftheir protege. 67. The question is to know if those who are used to bending others to their designs, either by force or by political intransigence, will be able to change their habits and take up the question ofpeace in greater good faith and clear-sightedness. 68. The tactical manoeuvres such as those of delaying the establishment ofnew colonies cannot deceive anyone. Israel must therefore, if it wants its statements in favour of peace to be taken seriously, give up its policy of faits accomplis, which is totally contrary to and out of keeping with the true desire for negotiation and peace. The existing settle- ments must be considered as temporary settlements which will be withdrawn when peace is established. Meanwhile, of course, the establishment of new settlements should be forbidden and vigorously condemned. Moreover, it is necessary to recognize that international opinion has accepted this idea, which must now be translated into concrete action. 69. Mr. UN Chao-nan (China),(translation from Chinese): We have listened attentively to the statements made by the 70. Overr the past three decades, Israeli zionism has occupied large tracts of Arab territories through one aggressive war after another. To date, it not only refuses to withdraw from the occup~ed Arab territories but brazenly and absurdly declares that they are "liberated Israeli lands" and that "the qaestion of annexation does not exist". In the occupied areas, it has been stepping up the pursuance of its policy of "zionization" and has flagrantly decided to extend Israeli legal systems to the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip, wantonly persecuting and repressing the Palestinian and other Arab people there and establishing "settlements" on a large scale so as to create faits accomplis and thereby p~rpetuate the occupation of Arab territories. Of late, at this very forum, the Israeli Foreign Minister once again clamoured that the establish- ment of "settlementi' was "legal". The Israeli Minister for Agriculture has declared that a so-called "security belt" will be built and that 2 million Jews will immigrate to settle:on the West Bank in the next 20 years. All this shows once again to the whole world that Israeli zionism will never withdraw from the occupied Arab territories of its own accord, nor will it ever give up its policies of aggression and expansion. 71. The.question of the Israeli-occupied territories is a part of the whole Middle East question. The root-cause of the non-settlement of this question over a long period lies in the rivalry between the two super-Powers in the Middle East. The handful of Zionists feel emboldened to do all kinds of evils in this area and persist in making themselves the enemy of the 100 million and more Arab ~ople primarily because they have the backing, encouragement and abetment of. the two super-Powers in different forms. As is known to all, one super-Power has long been giving energetic support to Israel politically, economically and militarily. And the other super-Power, which styles itself the "natural ally" of the Arab people, is helping Israel by more sinister and insidious means. It is trying by hook or by crook to split and undermine the unity and struggle of the Arab people and has sent a steady flow of Jewish emigrants to assist Israel in establishing "settlements". This super-Power's ugly behaviour of sham 'support 'and real betrayal, sham assistance and real control, of the Arab and Palestinian people is being seen through by more and more people. . 72. The Chinese Government and people strongly con- demn Israeli zionism for its policies of aggression and expansion and its provocative acts of establishing "settle- 73. The struggfe ofthe Arab and Palestinian people against Israeli zionism and super-Power hegemonism is a just one. Their struggle has won the broad sympathy and support of the African and Islamic States and the other third world countries as well as all countries and peoples who uphold justice. This has found full expression in the general debate at the current session of the General Assembly. Although Israeli zionism is still obstinately clinging to its reactionary position, although the super-Powers are more active in employing intrigues and manoeuvres and the Arab and Palestinian people are still facing difficulties of one kind or another, we are deeply convinced that, by upholding principles and persisting in unity and in struggle, the Arab and Palestinian people, with the support of the people all over the world, will overcome obstacles and difficulties and continue to win new victories in their struggle to recover all their lost territories and regain their national rights. 74. Mr~ ROS (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): -Argentina is a sponsor of draft resolution A/32/L.3 and Add.l and 2. 75. That decision of 'my Government is not the fruit of improvisation or of unconsidered alignment. with the positions of any of the parties to a conflict that has lasted far too long. It is the well-considered expression and the categorical ratification of one of the many principles that have been the constant pillars of Argentina's foreign policy for more than a century and a half. I am referring to the 'inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force or its de facto acquisition. 76. In Rio de Janeiro on 10 October 1933 Argentina, together with the sister republics of Latin America, signed the Anti-War Treaty (Non-Aggression and Conciliation). Arttcle n of that treaty, which was inspired by the idea propounded by Carlos Saavedra Lamas, the then Foreign Minister and later Nobel Peace Prize recipient, stated ".'.. between the High Contracting Parties territorial questions must not be settled by resort to violence and ... they shall recognize no territorial arrangement not obtained through pacific means, nor the validity of an occupation or acquisition of territory brought about by armed force."4 77. That principle was as valid then as it is today. It is for this reason that last year we became a sponsor of the draft 78. It was for the same reason that the Foreign Minister of \llY country stated in this same hall on 30 September 1977: "... it is disquieting to note that, despite the efforts made to smooth out the obstacles on the way to peace, intransigent attitudes persist· which do not meet the aspirations of the international community nor the specific recommendations ofthe United Nations. "My Government believes that the most tangible contribution that the parties involved in the conflict can make at this time ifthey seriously desire a just and lasting peace is to put an end to or refrain from carrying out any act which could directly or indirectly mean an impedi- ment to negotiations. " . "..• Those who adhere to rigid positions, trying to overlook the facts around them, and who aspire to the consolidation of transitory territorial conquests by means of measures that have been condemned even by their allies are conspiring against their own interests by postponing and making more difficult an integral solution to the crisis." [15th meeting, paras. 203-204 and 206.J 79. We know that the specific item we are dealing with today is but on~ facet of the problem. We know that a just and durable peace. in the region will not be achieved. until Israel withdraws from all the Arab territories occupied since 5 June 1967 and that the threat of a new armed conflict wfll not disappear until the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination without foreign interference are rec- ognized. 80. We are similarly convinced that Israel and all the States in the area have the right to a peaceful and secure existence within clearly defmed boundaries, the invio- lability of which could even be guaranteed by the United Nations if necessary. However, we are in duty bound to urge all the parties, with the same emphasis with which we advocate peace, to exercise the necessary moderation and prudence that wfll make the achievement of peace possible. 81. We are in duty bound to point out that no violence of any kind ever leads to the negotiating table. 82. We are in duty bound to reiterate that any measure designed to change the legal status,. the geographical nature or demographic composition of the occupied Arab terri- tories or Jerusalem will not be recognized by Argentina or the international community. 83. The strategy of fait accompli, when it is not supported by international law, is juridically erroneous and politically counter-productive. No partial interpretation of the fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 wfll succeed in altering our conviction that its provisions are fully appli- cable to the situation we are dealing with. This has been our understanding since 14 June 1967, when we submiited to the Security Council, in the name of Argentina, Brazil and 84. Allow me now to devote a special comment to the situation prevailing in the city of Jerusalem, a city venerated throughout the world by millions of human beings. 85. We understand fully the importance of Jerusalem for the Jewish people and religion and, hence, the value and interest which Israel attaches to it, as evidenced by the care the Jerusalem aediIes take of the city. But we are equally certain that there is not the 3lightest doubt that, at least in equal measure, that value and interest are also the patri- mony of Christians and Moslems. 86. No one can deny the very special convergence of a plurality ofhistoric and religious rights in Jerusalem. It is in the interest and the duty of all to ensure the protection of the city by a special status guaranteed by an international legal instrument. 87. The unavoidable need to preserve Jerusalem from any attempt to change that special status must therefore be recognized. This was the understanding of the Security Council on 25 September 1971 when, with the affIrmative votes of Argentina, Belgium, Burundi, China, France, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Poland, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States, it adopted Security Council resolution 298 (1971), which confIrms the content of earlier decisions of the United Nations on the invalidity of any legislative and administra- tive measures adopted for the purpose of changing the status ofJerusalem. 88. We must therefore not innovate, not merely to preserve the status of the city, but also to prevent the inflammation of political and religious passions, which would make even more difficult a negotiated solution of the problem as a whole. 89. The history of mankind is the history of the progress of justice, and our task is to fuciIitate its development. When, enjoying a precarious position of advantage, we create unnecessary and avoidable obstacles between a situation of conflict and the path to its solution, we often run the risk of fmding that the results are exactly the opposite of what we desire. 90. My country is proud of its tradition of respect for all the protagonists in the difficult Middle East question. We maintain the same relations of friendship with them all. This explains our permanent concern, our single-minded intention of co-operating in order to remove the obstacles that divide them, and our desire that the road to peace shall be re-embarked upon as soon as possible.

There are no more names on the list of speakers for this afternoon. May I remind representa- tives ~t the list of speakers in the debate on item 126 will

Several representatives have ex- pressedthe wish to speak in exercise oftheir right ofreply_ I shaH now call on them in mm. Representatives will recaII that the General Assembly has decided that statements in exercise of the right of reply should be limited to 10 minutes.

It seems that the Israeli Ambassador thought he was making a speech to a Zionist assembly to give them a lesson in Israeli propaganda. He said that approval of the draft resolution before us would be nothing other than a reversion to the laws of Niirnberg. In fact, the Israeli Ambassador knows best about the laws of Niimberg and their application against the population of the occUpied territories since his Government appointed him the military governor of Jerusalem after the Israeli aggression of 1967. 94. Israel thinks it is the only one that is right, while the whole international community is wrong. Israel wants the whole world to accept its occupation, give its blessing to Israel's expansionist designs, and support its expulsion of the Arab peoples, the expropriation of their property, their gaoling, their suffering and their subjugation to all kinds of torture. None ofthis is surprising because the Israeli leaders are faithful pupils of the teachings of nazism and its ideology, which is based on the' elimination of all the indigenous inhabitants by any and all means in order to consolidate the occupation. 95. Among the most surprising arguments which were used by the representative of Israel is his allegation that Israel has rights in the occupied territories. I do not want to reply to him here except by referring to the principles of international law, the provisions of the Charter and the resolutions of the Security Council. Israel thinks that all these documents do not concern it. But I should like to refer to what was said by an outstanding Israeli, Professor Nathan Weinberg, a professor of international law and international relations at the Hebrew University in Jeru- salem. Professor Weinberg said on 11 October that the Israeli Government has no legal document by which it can justify its claims to the occupied territories of the West Bank ofthe Jordan. 96. Furthermore, the claims made by the Israeli Prime Minister are incompatible and in contradiction with the principles of international law, which supersede any na- tional law. But, as Professor Weinberg said, any country can make such claims and do as it pleases. With regard to the annexation of the West Bank of the Jordan~ Professor Weinberg wonders how many countries have so far rec- ognized Israeli sovereignty over Arab Jerusalem. 98. The Israeli representative went so far as to claim once again that the Israeli settlements do not constitute any obstacle to peace and that the Israelis are entitled to live in peace. If what he claims is true, then why do the Israelis not allow the original inhabitants of this land to return to their homes and. property, which were taken from them by Israel? Is it possible to believe what is claimed by the representative of Israel' that not a single Arab has been expelled from his land or has suffered injury? 99. I should like here to refer to what one ofMr. Herzog's colleagues, a member ofAhe Israeli Knesset, said in the form of a request to the Knesset at the beginning of this year with regard to the policy which Israel continues to pursue in destroying Arab homes and expelling Arab inhabitants. He said that these practices harm Israel's imag.;::. That is a small example of what Israel is doing. United Nations document8 are full of such examples. Has the Israeli representative forgotten the famous Koenig report, pre- pared by the adviser of a former Israeli Prime Minister, which contains a whole plan to elimjnate the Arab people in Israel and to change their identity? 100. With regard to the "advantages" of Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the "happiness" of its inhabitants thar.ks to this occupation, that is most surprising indeed. It seems that the Israeli representative has forgotten-or pretends to have forgotten-the dozens ofhouses destroyed by Israel, the thousands offamilies dispersed and the many inhabitants imprisoned. 101. A correspondent of the London Times recently replied to those Israeli claims by saying: "To represent the refugees in Gaza as if they were living a happy life under Israeli occupation is not conftrmed by the facts and realities in the Gaza Strip, hecause the majority of the Palestinians whom I met in Gaza-both inside and outside the camps-continue to strive for their fmal goal, which is to return to their homeland." 102. With regard to the high standard of living of the "Jesus, you once looked on Jerusalem from the Mount inhabitants of the West Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza of Olives and said, 'The day' will come that you will be Strip claimed by the representative of Israel, even if we surrounded on all sides, and that they will destroy you recognize that, the re~i"~sentative of Israel should refer to and your children.' If you look from Heaven you will find the report of the Secretary General entitled "Permanent your land in Jerusalem exactly as yoU had cried over it, sovereignty over national re~ources in the occupied Arab and you will fmd your true son in chains and you will territories", dated 11 October 1977. That report clearly cry, 'I am incarcerated in the torment of the conquerors. states that I am the victim of the force of the rulers'."6 "Israeli sources themselves admit that 'hardly any of the 106. Mr. GAMMOH (Jordan): The Israeli representative in heavy infrastructure investments required for the ac- his statement this morning referred to the record of my celerated development of industry in the administered country on the West Bank and he mentioned how the area have been made by the government or by another hIli t' t d t th Ab' th· Public authority' ". [See A/3'2/'204, para. 194./ umane srae' occupa lon guaran ee 0 e ra s m elf occupied territories the right to free speech, freedom of the Th dd h press, freedom ofmovement and so on. But I should like to e report a s t at: re~d him and to refresh his memory about what a "Over-all, however, it is difficult to fmd evidence of a ••••S O lid b a si s fo r e c o n o ffil• c.dellv.e.lo.p.m.e.n.t.h.a.Vin.g.b.e.en.crr~~.a~te.d•••6!!1QU:tedinEDgli"Shb Y thespeakef" 3 'I!!'••••II 103. The Israeli representative referred to what was said by a United States Assistant Secretary of State, but he left out what that official had said OIi the question now before the General Assembly. Mr. Atherton in his statement said: "First, we"-that is, the United States-"have viewed these settlements as an obstacle to peace.... "Second, we see the Israeli settlements are ~consistent with intemationallaw." Mr. Atherton again conftrmed his country's attitude to the fourth Geneva Convention and to the occupied Arab territories and added that the United States does not agree with the Israeli viewpoint.. The United States view is that the Convention prohibits the establishment of Israeli settlements. 104. When the Israeli representative spoke of the West Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza Strip, he did so as ifthey were territories without inhabitants. The same argument was adduced by Golda Meir and by the former colonialists. The Palestinian land belongs to the Palestinian people, which is the only people entitled to self-determination and is represented by its only representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization. But, as we have heard today, Israel does not recognize that right and defies it completely, as was shown by one of the experts on intemationallaw who gave a Zionist interpretation of that law so as to serve Israel's interests. 105. I should like to conclude by saying with regret that the Israeli r(~presentative is jeopardizing our respect for the Holy Places by his arrogance, which cannot be responded to, but I should just recall that Archbishop Hilarion Capucci, a member of the Christian church, is still languishing in an Israeli prison. In court, after he had been sentenced to imprisonment, he said, addressing Jesus Christ: "The flISt thing which their occupation authorities did was to organize by all means, "both by ways of cruel coer~ion and by supposedly 'humane' ways, a mass- expulsion of Palestinians from their motherland.... There is almost no Palestinian family where that 'policy' hasn't caused separation of parents from children, of brothers from brothers and sisters, in short, human suffering which it is hard to describe. But for the government of Israel, for all the Zionist parties and for undercover servants of the government like Uri Avneri, this is not a human problem, this is not a gross and cynical trampling underfoot of the most elementary values of justice-this is only the well-known 'demo- graphic problem'."7 107. Professor Shahak also =ommented on the Jewish settlement in their conquered territories, and I quote what he said in that article too: "At the time of the sterile discussion about. 'legal' or 'illegal' settlement, there is a tendency in Israel to forget that any settlement of civilians of a conquering power in the occupied territories is a violation of section IV of the Geneva conventions. I regard with much greater opposi- tion the 'legal' settlement authorized by the Israeli government than the illegal settlements. Not only because of the Geneva convention, and not only because it prevents or does not prevent Peace ... but also because of more essential motives: the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, from their very nature, constitute a dispossession, a discrimination and a system ofapartheid. The territories confiscated, or acqUired by pressure and deceit for settlement, became territories where only Jews are allowed to live, and where only Jews shall be allowed to live in the future. They are taken out of their natural geographic context, and become typical imperialist bases, serving the strategic needs of the colonialist power ... that has erected them."8 108. The representative of Israel spoke of the alleged economic prosperity in the occupied territories. He deceives nobody when he gives us a rosy picture of economic life and standards of living in the occupied territories. Even assuming that, can the occupation of foreign homelands be justified on the ground of economic benefit to the people under occupation? Shall we infer from the painstaking 7 Israel Shahak, "What are my Opinions", Middle East Inter- national, January 1975, No. 43, MEt extra, first page. SIbid., third page.

At this time I should like to reply to the wlgar accusation of the representative of the Fascist Zionist entity against Libya. However, I should like to reserve the right to discuss the matter fully in the Generai Assembly. 110. I will give the Zionist representative credit for one thing. At least he is unequivocal in his deep-rooted hatred for the Libyan people, and he makes no attempt to conceal the fact. Why this terrible hatred for Libya? Solely because we do not accept Israel's -self-bestowed right to Palestine. We reject the right of one people to live at the expense of and at the cost of the ruin of another people. We reject Israeli claims to Palestine and we support the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to regain Palestine by whatever means possible. 111. Our support for the Palestinian people and other peoples struggling under tile yoke of colonialism and imperialism makes us a victim for the crude propaganda campaign being waged by the Zionists. We in the Jama- hiriya do not support terrorism. We are against terrorism. We shall continue to oppose terrorism in all the ugly forms it takes. 112. We have reiterated our position many times in the United Nations and in other forums. Our support for the various liberation movements throughout the world cannot be equated with support for terrorism. We repudiate the vicious and baseless accusations of the representative of the Fascist Zionists in occupied Palestine. 113. Mr. Herzog's accusations will not intimidate us. Ifhe hopes they will, he is guilty of a grave error ofjudgement. On the contrary, they increase our determination to continue our just struggle against zionism and imperialism. We are not alone in our struggle against the remnants of racism in the world. Peace-loving peoples throughout the world have expressed their solidarity with us and their deep conviction of the inevitability of our victory and the ultimate defeat ofzionism and imperialism. 114. The Zionist representative, true to character, is determined to exact the last ounce of propaganda in order to produce appropriate United Nations or international action to cater to the whims of the Fascist entity to which he is in servitude. He is the last one who should point a fmger at any country and accuse it of terrorism or even of supporting terrorism. How dare he have. the tasteless effrontery to stand here and with his usual pejorative adjectives seek to drag down this international Organization to the level of the Fascist entity he so proudly serVes, an entity whose very foundations are based on the most vile acts of bestiality known to mankind, whose very existence depends on the shedding of blood-the blood ofArabs and the Palestinians in particular? 116. Even the fanatic Zionist Ben-Gurioij wrote to an- other Zionist on 15 May 1963 that in his opinion Menache~ Begin, one of the most despicable terrorists of the twentieth century, was . u... a thoroughly. Hitlerite type, ready to destroy all the Arabs for the unity of the country, who devotes all his efforts to a holy purpose: absolute rule. And I see him as a great danger to Israel, domestically and internationally. I cannot forget the little I know of his activity, and it is clear-meaning the murder of dozens of Jews, Arabs and EngIishmen in the explosion at the King David Hotel, and the pogrom at Deir Yasin. I have no doubt that Begin hates Hitler, but this hatred does not prove that he is different from him. When I heard Begin on the radio for the first time, I heard the voice and the screeching of Hitler." 117. The terrorism and the aggressions committed by the Zionist Fascists receive glorification and indulgence from the very same people who are the fllSt to condemn terrorism. These same people allow the Zionists to break all 118. With regard to his opprobrious remarks about Libya vis-a-vis Chad, the Zionist representative should be made aware that we in Africa are capable of handling our own affairs. We do not need the meddling of the Zionists in our affairs. Libya respects the Charter and the resolutions of the General Assembly. We respect the charter and the resolutions of the Organization of African Unity and, in particular, the resolutions concerning respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States which have gained inde~ndence after having been ruled by impe- rialism. We have good neighbourly ties with Chad. We belong to one African people, and we have both spiritual and ethnic ties with them. We ~do not despair of the African people, as we do not despair of the Arab people. We are together in our determination to remain free, and those who are still struggling for freedom know we stand by their side in their fight. 119. As for Mr. Herzog, my advice to him is this: uDo not meddle in the affairs of Mrica. You will not be allowed to tUrn Africa into another Palestine or Lebanon."