S/PV.2146 Security Council

It may be helpful to the Council if I give a brief statement on the current situation in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNI- FIL) area, based for the most part on reports from Major-General Erskine, the Commander of UNIFIL. 5. Since 26 May there has been a heavy daily exchange of artillery and mortar fire between the de facto forces and the armed elements situated in the Tyre pocket and to the north of the Litani River. To give some idea of the magnitude of this exchange, the figures for the last three days are as follows: on Monday, 28 May, the armed elements fired 51 shells and the de facto forces 321; on Tuesday, 29 May, the armed elements fired 144 shells and the defacto forces 367; on Wednesday, 30 May, the armed elements fired 66 shells and the de facto forces 145. The armed elements’ tire has been directed at targets in the de facto forces’ enclave and the defactoforces’fire at targets in the Tyre pocket, in locations north of the Litani River and also in the UNIFIL area of operation. General Erskine notes that the majority of exchanges of tire between the de facto forces and the armed elements in recent days were initiated by the latter. Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/2146) 1. Adoption of the agenda 2. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 30 May 1979 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/13356) The meeting was called to order at I.10 p.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 30 May 1979 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/13356) 6. The reason given by Major Haddad for shelling targets in the UNIFIL area of operation is that firing is being directed on Major Haddad’s forces from inside that area. This was also the reason given by him for rejecting on 28 May the UNIFIL proposal for a cease-fire, which had been accepted by the armed elements. After an exhaustive investigation and checking with approximately 100 UNIFIL posts in the area of operation, UNI- FIL has totally rejected that allegation. A public statement to this effect was made on 30 May. 1. The ‘PRESIDENT: I wish to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Israel and Lebanon, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. 7. In the past 72 hours the main developments in the UNIFIL area of operation have been as follows: -First, three artillery shells tired by the defacto forces fell on the village of As Siddiqin in the Dutch contingent area, killing four civilians and wounding one. At the invitation ofthe President, Mr. Tu&ni tLebanon1 took the place reserved fir him at the Council tab& and Mr.‘Blum (Israel) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber. -Secondly, 12 artillery shells from the same source fell in the centre of the village of Hebbarye in the Norwegian sector. One of these shells impacted on the roof of a shelter occupied by several Norwegian soldiers.

The Security Council is meeting today in response to a request from the representative of Lebanon which is contained in document S/13356. Members of the Council also have before them document S/13361 which contains the text of a letter dated 30 May from the representative of Lebanon. -Thirdly, in the village of Haris one shell badly damaged the building occupied by the headquarters of the Dutch battalion. 9. Today, 31 May, General Siilasvuo and General-Erskine have undertaken a new effort with all the parties concerned to agree to a formal cease-fire as of 1300 hours GMT. I have just been informed by General Siilasvuo that all firing has ceased since 0800 hours local time this morning, and that the de facto forces have now also agreed to the cease-fire. 10. I should also make reference to certain recent incidents which took place outside the UNIFIL area of operation, since these incidents have a direct bearing on the situation in Southern Lebanon. There were recently a number of bomb explosions in Israel, particularly one on 23 May, and a series of air, sea and land strikes by Israeli forces directed at targets in Lebanon north of the UNI- FIL area of operation. These incidents have been the subject of letters addressed to me by the representatives of Israel and Lebanon and by the Palestine Liberation Organization, which have been circulated as documents of the Security Council. I have recently received a further letter from Chairman Arafat on the same matter. 11. I am deeply concerned at the situation which has developed in Lebanon in the past few days. There can be no question but that, if a cease-fire is not maintained, the exodus of the civilian population will increase, as will the risk of loss of life both to the civilian population and to UNIFIL personnel. 12. As regards the general situation of UNIFIL, since 15 May when the President of the Council made a statement on this matter to the Council [214&h meering3, there have been continuous efforts to facilitate progress on the four points originally mentioned in my report of 12 January 1979 [S/Zj02a and, as an immediate priority, on the-improvement of the security of United Nations headquarters at Naqoura. The long-term aim of these efforts has been to further the UNIFIL deployment in the whole of its area of operation. That is a prerequisite for the progressive restoration of the authority of the Lebanese Government in the area as required by resolutions 425 (1978) and 444 (1979). Further meetings with the appropriate authorities are to be held in the area in the next day or two and I have asked General Siilasvuo to come to Headquarters here in New York immediately thereafter for consultations on this and. other matters. 13. I very much hope that an effective cease-fire can be maintained. I also would appreciate the continuing support of those Governments which are in a position in the words of resolution 444 (1979), “to bring their intluence to bear on those concerned, so that the Force, can discharge its responsibilities fully and unhampered”. For my part I shall pursue all possible means of securing the effective implementation of the mandate-of UNIFIL. : 14. In conclusion, Mr. President, I wish to express to you my deep appreciation for the great efforts which you your-

I thank the Secretary-General for the very kind words addressed to me. 16. The next speaker is the representative of Lebanon on whom I now call.

Mr. President, two weeks ago, on I5 May, the Council, with great simplicity yet also with a certain solemnity, entrusted you, as President, with an unprecedented mission. You accepted with grace, discretion and-if I may say so-a great measure of courage, to carry out a diplomatic mandate on behalf of the world community. 18. Pursuing and developing what your predecessor, Ambassador Ole kg&d, had done, you have earnestly and patiently used the presidency of the Council to initiate, encourage and coordinate multilateral efforts aimed at preventing continued bloodshed and creating better conditions for the implementation of the resolutions of the Council. You opted for perseverance, objectivity, calm and moderation. We were so encouraged by your practical wisdom that my Government did not find it necessary to press for a long overdue debate on the mini-invasion of Lebanon by Israel, its defiance of the Council, and its aggression against UNIFIL. 19. It is customary to congratulate the President of the Council on assuming his functions and we regret that our expression of gratitude and admiration, for both you and the representative of Norway, should come so late in the day, at the very end of your term, and well after the end of his. May we invite you to have neither sorrow nor regret for having tried so hard. We have none. 20. Every day and every hour of every day since 25 April when we first called for an urgent meeting of the Council, people have been dying in my country. Cities and villages have been destroyed and devastated. Tens of thousands of simple people, peaceful Lebanese citizens, have become refugees in their, own homeland. Yet we chose to die in silence. I almost said “we chose to die in peace”, for we are a people that have, through long years of tragedy, learned the hard lessons of patience, resistance and faith. Yet today we all felt that the time had come to ask of the world community, here represented, that there should really be no more war, no more bloodshed and no more suffering. 21. That is our agenda. We all agreed to debate not the fate of Southern Lebanon, but the future of peace and peace-keeping in this martyred country which you with us have come to love so much. Allow me, therefore, to assure members once more in the ‘name of Lebanon that my country is neither for. sale nor for hire, that it is neither dispensable nor negotiable, and that its determination to survive is only equalled by our unshaken confidence in justice and human rights. We are a naive people, but ,we have come to you not in weakness but with strength. We know that we probably stand alone as if condemned by friends and foes alike to suffer beyond relief. But we also 22. I had promised not to abuse the patience of the Council, whose members have already spent endless hours in consultations on the issue now before us. Numerous documents, letters and reports have been distributed, read and discussed. I wish to add here the report of the Secretary- General, whose efforts have been so consistent in the service of the cause of peace; the good news he brings us is certainly a great encouragement. 23. I therefore submit that we should not transform the Council-as we may all be tempted to do-into a forum for rhetoric or a “debating society”. Let us, rather, try to approach the question with pragmatism. Let us try to seek solutions that will lead us all to the objectives set forth by the Council in the series of resolutions and statements agreed on with unprecedented unanimity since March 1978. And let us, above all, trust each other’s ability to understand the realities of the case, which none of us can disguise. 24. In this perspective, what do we ask of the Council? Our proposal is the following. First, we ask that the Council issue an injunction in the most compelling manner, for the halting of all acts of hostility against Lebanon and for an end to Israeli violation of Lebanese sovereignty, and the shameless sacrifice of human lives. Secondly, we propose that a strong and determined effort be made to fulfil the mandate of UNIFIL, beyond ambiguity. It has now been over a year since soldiers of peace came gallantly and valiantly to restore security in Southern Lebanon and assist in the restoration of our sovereignty. We have all carefully built a structure for peace and security. This marvellous achievement suddenly appears frail and threatened. We all have an interest in maintaining its credibility and in giving it the means to succeed, lest its coflapse bring further war not only to Lebanon but to the whole of the Middle East and probably beyond. And, thirdly, we ask for the immediate restoration of the only valid framework of peace in Southem Lebanon, the General Armistice Agreement of 1949 which was designed to lead, and can still lead, to a just and permanent settlement of the Palestinian question. For we all have expressed, though in varying terms, the fact that there cannot be peace in the Middle East without such a settlement and that no solution of the Palestinian question can be sought through the artificial or accidental creation of a no less dramatic Lebanese question. 25. My delegation is prepared to discuss, through the proper conventional methods, a resolution which will articulatethese proposals in a manner that will safeguard the spirit of consensus which has been maintained all through our long, and sometimes very painful, handling of the Lebanese question. However, should hostilities be resumed or continue, and should Israel persist in its defiance of previous resolutions, my delegation feels very strongly that a condemnation of Israel will become imperative, and so will the search for new avenues provided for by the Charter. 26. Our case, we believe, has been put very clearly in the memorandum presented to the members of the Council ‘. .$. 3 27. In conclusion, I should like to be allowed to make three brief remarks with the hope that the simple and candid manner in which they are addressed to the Council, and beyond the Council, will prompt an economy in the use of words and perhaps in the Council’s time. My first remark is about the Palestinians, my second is about the Christians in Southern Lebanon, and my third is about the Lebanese question. 28. The Palestinians are in my country a “diaspora-inrevolt”. Their most earnest hope, and ours, is that an end will be put to their dispersion and that they will be allowed to return home. Only .peace, not further violence or further terror, can bring an end to their revolt. What has happened between the Palestinians and the Lebanese will go into our history as a cataclysm similar to none in modern history. We are now determined that this shall not be repeated. 29. Within a framework of Arab solidarity, both the Lebanese and the Palestinians are now firmly committed to peace and to the undisputed restoration of Lebanese sovereignty over all of Lebanon. We expect our friends and the world community to understand with us this commitment and to believe once and for all that if there is no peace in Lebanon there will not, cannot, and shall not, be peace anywhere else in the whole Middle East. 30. The Christians in Southern Lebanon are, first and foremost, Lebanese citizens. Neither their national dignity nor their future aspirations can allow them to be looked upon as accessories to Israel’s strategic interests. Their problem is a by-product of the wars that Lebanon has been going through. Their fears andconcerns cannot legitimately lead them to become what Israel seeks: a tool of destabilization and disunity. Their only future is in Lebanon’s restored independence and sovereignty, Their present security can best be guaranteed by UNIFIL, not by vicarious occupation of their homeland. Never will Lebanon allow that they or any part of the south be detached from our historic body politic. Such a sacrifice is beyond our tolerance and, if ever envisaged, will only lead to another war, a war that the Lebanese will all wage together, in full unity, to preserve Southern Lebanon for the Lebanese, and the Lebanese alone, in freedom, security. and dignity. 3 1. What follows from this attitude is that,while debating the question of Southern Lebanon, it is the question of Lebanon as a whole that the Council is really debating. Every effort now deployed to preserve Lebanon’s unity, and to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty and authority, wiI1 be jeopardized if Southern Lebanon is allowed to explode. One war in the South, if allowed to develop, will inevitably lead to another, and Lebanon will then become again the arena it has been for almost five years now, unable to rebuild its national institutions and recover the unique position it 32. My final words should be for peace, not for war. Yet I must speak of the Lebanese army as the instrument on which we all depend to restore the authority of Lebanon over all its territory, within its internationally recognized boundaries. For such has been the tenor of the Council’s resolutions since March 1978. 33. In three weeks, the mandate of UNIFIL will expire and the Council will most probably be invited to renew it. When resolution 444 (1979) was adopted, a phased programme of activities was called for, and Lebanon was asked to start deploying its own troops in the UNIFIL area of operation. 34. Very few here-let us admit it-really thought that the challenge would be met. But it was, and we are proud that, against all odds, Lebanon thus demonstrated very modestly that it was prepared to share in carrying the burden of reconstructing a viable, independent, sovereign republic. Our soldiers are now under the operational command of UNIFIL, soldiers for peace. This is probably a unique contribution to a unique peace-keeping force. 35. So, let us see to it together that the Council’s debate shall lead to a resolution that will express both our concern for peace-keeping and the confidence and faith of the soldiers of peace who chose to imperil their lives.waging peace; not war.

The next speaker is the representative of Israel. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement.

Mr. President, let me begin by paying my warmest respects to you as President of the Security Council for this month. You represent a country with which Israel has the most cordial ties, and for which Israel has the highest regard. You have conducted the business of the Council with absolute fairness, propriety and wisdom, reflecting your outstanding diplomatic talents. 38. I should like also to take this opportunity of expressing my compliments to Mr. &gird of Norway, who, in his capacity as President of the Council last month, conducted its business with remarkable skill and efficaciousness. He represents a people which, even before the establishment of the State of Israel, demonstrated its deep understanding of the plight of the Jewish people and its abhorrence of any form of tyranny and discrimination. As President of the Council he demonstrated his consummate skill as a diplomat, so much appreciated by all of us at the United Nations. 39. We have been summoned once again to a meeting which is designed to satisfy the domestic needs of the Government of Lebanon, whose predicament is well known to all of us. Israel is not prepared to be drawn into or to let itself be used for a transparent exercise of this kind. However, since the Council has acceded to the Lebanese request 40. Israel supports the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries. As Prime Minister Menachem Begin stated in the Knesset on 7 May 1979: “I hereby announce in the name of the Government of Israel that our State does not have any territorial demands on Lebanon. We support the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Lebanon.” 41. The Government of Israel wants peace in and with Lebanon. To this end it has made and will continue to make all endeavours possible. Despite Lebanon’s ongoing problems and their complexity, Israel believes that the time has none the less come to exert all efforts to move towards a negotiated peace between Israel and Lebanon. In keeping with this primary objective of Israeli foreign policy, the Prime Minister of Israel extended a direct appeal to the President of Lebanon, inviting him to a meeting with a view to reaching a negotiated peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon. I quote from his words in the Knesset on the same occasion: “I have the honour to invite the President of Lebanon, Mr. Sarkii, to come to Jerusalem to meet with me. For my part, I am prepared to leave by civilian airplane for Beirut. The subject of our conversation, whether it takes place in Jerusalem or in Beirut, or perhaps in a neutral place, will be one-the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon. “I am confident that Lebanon will have no territorial demands on Israel, and I declare in the name of the Government of Israel that our State has no territorial demands on Lebanon.” 42. As has been acknowledged by the Secretary-General in several of this reports concerning UNIFIL, and again in his statement here today, the situation in Southern Lebanon cannot be detached from the situation in the country as a whole. Attempts to detach it will not enhance the cause of international peace and security, in fact are bound to fail. 43. The terrorist group operating under the umbrella of the murder organization calling itself the PLO are subverting the situation in Southern Lebanon, just as they have been doing in the rest of the country. There are some 2,000 armed PLO terrorists south of the Litani River, mainly in the Tyre area, and they constitute a threat to three tangible targets: to the citizens of Israel, particularly in the north of Israel, to the villagers in Southern Lebanon, and to the men of UNIFIL in the fulfilment of their mandate. Beyond that, there are another 10,000 to 12,000 armed PLO terrorists in areas of Lebanon north of the Litani. Taken together, these terrorists ‘constitute a menace to the restoration of the authority of the Government of Lebanon in all parts ofthat troubled country. ,. 44. In the past few months, there has been a marked escalation in the criminal acts against Israel perpetrated by 45. Lately, Israel has received information, based on reliable sources, that a decision has been taken to step up violence by the terrorist PLO in Southern Lebanon and this is undoubtedly the cause of the heightened tension in the area in the past few days. “It is difficult to enumerate all the illegal activities committed by those Palestinian elements.“3 50. In striking at the ‘terrorist bases from which the murder gangs of the PLO launch their criminal raids against the civilian population in Israel, my Government is exercising its inherent right of self-defence, a right enjoyed by every sovereign State, a right which has found expression also in Article 51 of the Charter. Like any other Government, the Government of Israel has the right and, indeed, the duty to take all the measures necessary to protect the lives and safety of its citizens. 46. The Secretary-General in his statement today has also confirmed that the majority of the acts of violence in Southern Lebanon in recent days were initiated by the terrorist PLO, euphemistically referred to in United Nations jargon as “armed elements”. 47. In my letter of 9 May [S/13312], I spelt out the catalogue of violence against Israel conducted over the past six months by PLO terrorists operating out of Lebanon. I also indicated that, in almost every case, it was through its news agency at Beirut and its radio station broadcasting from Lebanon that the terrorist PLO had openly boasted of its responsibility for those criminal activities. 51. The right of a State to take the measures necessary to hold back and to foil hostile activities emanating from across its boundaries is a principle well recognized by international law and international practice alike. What is more, the very tolerance by a State on its territory of armed bands engaged in hostile activities against another State is considered a breach of international law on the part of the State tolerating the presence of such bands on its territory, irrespective of whether such a State is unwilling or unable to curb such activities. This principle was clearly expressed by Fawcett in his series of lectures delivered at the Hague Academy of International Law under the title “Intervention in International Law, A Study of Some Recent Cases”: 48. Let me reiterate the Israeli actions are specifically directed against concentrations of terrorists in Lebanon. The unfortunate fact is that for years now the terrorist PLO has chosen to take cover behind refugees in camps and Lebanese civilians in towns and villages throughout that country. 49. This fact is well known and beyond dispute. Moreover, the terrorist PLO marauds with complete freedom throughout Lebanon in total disregard for Lebanese sovereignty. Who of us has forgotten the extraordinarily candid speech made on 14 October 1976 by Ambassador Ghorra, the former Permanent Representative of Lebanon? Addressing the General Assembly, he desi cribed in detail, “constant Palestinian intervention in the internal affairs of Lebanon and intolerable encroachment on its sovereignty*‘.* Ambassador Ghorra also reminded us that in 1973 President. Suleiman Franjieh “denounced the illegal occupation of parts of Lebanese territory by Palestinian elements”.2 He recalled that the terrorist PLO did not respect the many accords which were concluded with them over the yearsto limit their presence and activities in Lebanon. Let me again quote from his statement: ‘. ‘6 . . . where incursion of armed bands is a precursor to an armed attack, or itself constitutes an attack, and the authorities in the territory, from which the armed bands came, are either unable or unwilling to control and restrain them, then armed intervention, having as its sole object the removal or destruction of their bases, would . . . be justifiable under Article 51.“4 Israel’s response to the PLO’s criminal acts is thus what any self-respecting, sovereign State would do in the circumstances. 52. Indeed, I ask, how many States represented here in this chamber, would sit back passively and watch their own women and children being killed and wounded by terrorists? As the representative of a country that is one of the prime targets of international terror, I can only repeat what I have told the Council before: that the Government ’ Ibid. paras. 64-46. ’ J.E.S. Fawcett, “Intervention in International Law, A Study of %Xne Recent Cases”, Academic de droit intematio@, Read &S tours, 1961. vol. II, p.363. , 8, “ . . . they [the Palestinians]. . . increasedtheinflux of arms into Lebanon . . . . They transformed most--if not all-of the refugee camps into military bastions. 2 Ibid., para. 62. I/ 1 ., I 54. Let me conclude by repeating what I said at the outset, namely, that Israel sincerely desires peace with and in Lebanon. Israel also desires that the national sovereignty of Lebanon and the effective authority of its Government be restored within the internationally recognized boundaries of that country.

I wish to inform the members of the Council that I have just received a letter dated 31 May [S/I33683 from the representative of Kuwait which states: “I have the honour to request that the Security Council extend an invitation to the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the meetings of the Council to be convened pursuant to the request by the representative of Lebanon which is contained in document S/13356.” 56. This proposal is not made pursuant to rule 37 or rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure but, if approved by the Council, the invitation to participate in the debate would confer on the Palestine Liberation Organization the same rights of participation as those conferred on Member States when invited to participate pursuant to rule 37. 57. Does any member of the Council wish to speak on this proposal?

The position of my Government on the proposal before us has been made clear on a number of occasions in the past. We would be prepared to agree to the requested hearing under rule 39, which is the rule clearly applicable in this case. We are not prepared, however, to agree to a hearing on the basis which has been proposed and we therefore request that. the proposal be put to a vote.

If no other member of the Council wishes to speak at this stage, I take it that the Council is ready to vote on the proposal of the representative of Kuwait. A vote was taken by show of han&. Infavourr Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Czechoslovakia, Gabon, Jamaica, Kuwait, Nigeria, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Zambia Against: United States of America Abstaining: France, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland The proposal was adopted by IO votes to 1, with 4 abstentions.

The representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization has asked to speak, and I now call on him.

I thank you sincerely, Mr. President, for allowing me to speak and I apologize to the members of the Council for speaking at such a late hour, but I promise to be brief. 62. I would not have asked to speak had it not been for the barrage of lies, falsifications and distortions to which the representative of the Government of Menachem Begin has subjected the Council in his statement this afternoon. 63. The facts are very clear. Our position on Lebanon is known to our Lebanese brothers and has been acknowledged by the representative of Lebanon. We are for the sovereignty of Lebanon, for the territorial integrity of Lebanon and for the national unity of Lebanon. We are committed to those principles. 64. We are not in Lebanon by choice. We are in Lebanon because we have been expelled from our homes and property in Palestine, and we are in Lebanon because there are people like the representative of Israel, who comes, like his Prime Minister, from a country in eastern Europe. We are in Lebanon because there are 3 million Jews and 80 per cent of them are settlers and colonials occupying the houses and the land of our people who are refugees in Lebanon now. We are not in Lebanon because we want to be in Lebanon. We are in Lebanon because we cannot be in Palestine at this point. But we promise the international community and our Lebanese brothers that once we have Palestine we will carry the bones and the ashes of our martyrs out of Lebanon and take them to Palestine. 65. The greatest act of terror that has been committed in recent history has been the destruction of a nation, of the Palestinian people. For the past 31 years our people have been living in exile. For the past 12 years our people have been living under military occupation. Military occupation means soldiers with machine guns, violating the sanctity of the people, violating the human rights of the people. The occupation of our lands is unprecedented in human history. As recently as on 2 May when the thirty-first anniversary of the -Zionist State in Palestine was being celebrated, 70,000 settlers moved into the villages and towns of the West Bank, beating people, insulting people, and one settler even thought it proper to take out his gun and shoot a student at Bir Zeit University. 66. What does the international community expect of the Palestinians? Does it really expect us to throw flowers at our occupiers? Of course not; we are like the French people under the Nazi occupation. They resisted occupation. We are like every other people in this world which resists occupation and wants to live in freedom and dignity. That is our purpose. 70. There have been cover-ups and bigjokes about autonomy and a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. Onejoke is that the other day a journalist asked the Zionist, Menathem Begin “Suppose the Administrative Council on the West Bank declares independence, what are you going to do?“; and he said, “Well, I will clap them into gaol.” 71. This is the kind of autonomy that is offered to the Palestinian people. At best what they receive may amount to a bantustan and at worst to a reservation such as those here for American Indians. We reject the concept of bantustans and we will not be put into reservations. We shall continue our legitimate struggle until our rights as a people to self-determination and national independence are recognized.

As no further speakers are inscribed to take the floor at this stage, I propose to adjourn the meeting now. The consideration by the Council of the present agenda item will continue, and members‘f the Council will be informed of the date of the next meeting. 73. Before we adjourn, I should like as outgoing President of the Council to make a brief personal statement. I should like to thank the members of the Council for the cooperative spirit they have shown throughout this month and especially during the consideration of the item before us. Our work could not have been completed without the help of the very competent personnel of the Secretariat, to whom I also wish to express my appreciation. 68. The missions of death that the Zionist State of Israel conducts on a daily basis against our civilian people and our Lebanese brothers are carried out with aircraft made by the United States: Phantoms, F-l%, F-16s. And the missiles and rockets, which are sometimes as large as 1,000 kilograms, the cluster bombs and the fragmentation bombs that are used to kill our civilians, and used by their navy as well as their troops against our people, are made in the United States. Ninety-nine per cent of the victims of the missions of death flown by Israeli Zionist pilots are civilians; only 1 per cent, probably, are Palestinian combatants. 74. In regard to the subject under discussion, I should like, before I relinquish my presidency, to address an appeal to all parties, which I hope will be heeded, to respect the cease-fire in accordance, inter aiia, with the Armistice Agreement, to refrain from all acts of violence to help UNIFIL to carry out the mission entrusted to it by the Security Council in resolution 425 (1978). 69. We are told here that Israel is acting in self-defence. What self-defence? If you have your boots on the neck of someone and he tries to change that situation, does it become aggression because he threatens the sta&r quo? That is exactly our situation with the Zionists. they have had their boots on our necks for the past 31 years, and the international community, at one point at least, seemed to The meeting rose at 2.15 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS Unite t Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences d.+ositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous auprPs de votre libraire ou adressez-vous B : Nations Unies. Section des ventes. New York ou Geneve. KAK IfOJIY’fIfTb NBAAHUR OPrAHZi 3AlWZI OG’bEAIIHEHHhIX HAUUtl HJAamui OoraHw3auHw O@bezWieHHbix HauwR MOXCI(HO wynwTb B w?~xnbl~ bmm- SHHLY w arewrcTsax so Bcex paRoHax Papa. Harronme cnpamw 06 ~sAaHsu?x a aau3eM x**xltHo* Maraawsze WAH n*ma=e no anpecy : Opramisawia O@benwnemibrx Haulrft. Cexqwa no npoAazxe HJ~a~HR. HbH)-BopK EXJIH XeHeBa. COMO CONSEGUIR PIJBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estin en venta en libredas y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Cons&e a su librero o dirfjase a: Naciones Unidas, Secci6n de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1.50 79-70002-February 1982-2.250