S/PV.2155 Security Council

I wish to inform members -. of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Israel, Sri Lanka, the Syrian Arab Republic and Tunisia in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, 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 Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the invitation'of the President, Mr. Blwn (Israel), Mr. Fernando (Sri Lanka), Mr. El-Choufi (Syrian Arab Republic) and Mr. Mestiri (Tunisia) took the .places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. , .

I should also like to . inform members of the Security Council that I have'received a letter from the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People dated 29 June 1979 which reads as follows: "I have the honour to refer to the forthcoming meeting of the Security Council on the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights and to request that I be invited to address the Council. in my capacity as Chairman of'the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in accordance with the provisions of rule 39 of the Council's.provisional rules of procedure." On previous occasions the Security Council has extended invitations to representatives of other United Nations bodies in connexion with the consideration of matters on its agenda. In accordance with past practice in this matter I propose that the Council extend an,invitation to the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People pursuant to rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Fall (Senegal), Chairman of'the Committee on the Exercise of the'Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People took a place at the Council-table.

I should like to c_ inform the Council that I have received a letter from the Permanent Representative of-Kuwait to the United Nations dated 29 June 1979 which reads as follows: . "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 Security Council's consideration of the item, 'The question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights', in accordance with the Council's past practice." That letter will be circulated asa document of the Security Council with the symbol S/13422. The proposal by the representative of Kuwait is not made Pursuant to rule 37 or rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, but, if approved by the Council, the invitation to participate (The President) . 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. Does any member of the Security Council wish to speak on this proposal? . Mr. McHENRY (United States): _- I should like to ask you to put to a vote the question of the request for special procedure for theparticipation of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the proceedings of the Council. The PRESIDEITT (interpretation from Russian): If no other membqr 'of the Council wishes to speak at this stage, I shall take it that the Council is ready to vote on the proposal of Kuwait. ., A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Czechoslovakia, Gabon, rTamaica, Kuwait, Nigeria, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Zambia hpainst: United States of America Abstaining; Prance, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The result of.the voting is as follows: 10 votes in favour, 1 against and 4 abstentions. The proposal has been adopted. At the invitation of the President, Mr~Terzi (Palestine Liberation Or;-anization) took a place .at the Council table. The PRESIDEFJT (interpretation from Russian): The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council is meeting today in response to the letters from the Chairman of the Comrxittee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, dated 13 ilarch and 27 June 19'79 and addressed to the President of the Security Council, which are before the Council in dccuments s/l3164 and S/13418. Members of the Council also have before them document S/l3047 which contains the text of a note by the Secretary-General of 19 January 1979, by which he transmits,the text of General Assembly resolution 33/28 A. The first speaker is the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, ifis Excellency, Ambassador Fall, on whom I now call. I . Hr. FALL (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (interpretation from French): Permit me, Mr. President, at the beginning of my statement to express to YOU, on behalf of the members of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and on my own behalf personally, whole-hearted satisfaction at seeing you presiding over this meeting of the Security Council. Your country, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, isamong those States which, ever since the creation of our Committee, have lavished support and encouragement upon it. 'Permit me to add to that the constant interest always sholm by your country in the question of Palestine and the important role it has ahrays played in attanpts to bring about a settlement of this difficult problem. 'These eminently positive factors, taken together with your qualities as an enlightened and experienced diplomat, give us grounds to hope that this debate vi11 be marked by equity and wisdom. Permit me also, Sir, to associate myself with the words of.welcome which you have just addressed to-Ambassador Clark, the new Permanent Representative of the Federal.Republic of Bigeria, with whom I enjoy particularly friendly relations. The Council will recall no doubt that the General Assembly, in resolution 31/20 of 24 November 1976 endorsed the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. .In the same resolution, the General Assembly requested the Security Council to examine the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee with a view to taking the necessary measures to apply those recommendations so as to make rapid progress towards a solution of the problem of Palestine and the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. -In the sare resolution the General Assembly gave a mandate to the Conxiittee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People: II . ..'to exert all efforts to promote the implementation of its y recommendations and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its t thirty-second session.". It is on the basis of that mandate of the benera Assembly, a mandate which was repeated in General‘Assembiy resolutions 32/40 of 2 December 19'77 _ and 33/28 of 7 December 1978, that the Committee several times approached both the President and the permanent members or the Sectiity.Coun&il.in order to prevail upon this body of the Unit'ed Nations to'follow up the recommendations of khe General Ass.embly. On 27 October 1977, the Council undertook a new consideration of the recommendations of the General Assembly relating to the 'implementation Of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. It is therefore correct to say that the Security Council has been seized of this question uninterruptedly since 27 October l%"?'* This debate, therefore, is not a new debate but merely the continuation of an old debate which had only been suspended. Today, therefore, the Committee, after having displayed so much patience and goodwill, has decided to call-on the Council to resume . consideration of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the exercise of the inalienable ri.ghts of the Palestinian people. At 'the request of certain influential members of this Council,:the Committee had accepted, in October 1977, the suspension,of the examination of its reports. The Committee, at the time, wished to demonstrate its goodwill and not to hinder any chance. of progress in the quest-for peace in the Middle East. However, we wanted to make it clear that we could in no way agree to a sine die adjournment of the examination of the recommendations of the Committee by the Security Council. bk are obliged to note, 20 months after the suspension of the meetings, that nothing has been done to resume the examination of this question. The General Assembly,',in resolution W28 A of 7 December 1978, noted with regret that the Security Council had taken np decision on.the recommendations, and authorized the Committee: I' . . . in the event that the Security Council fails to consider or to take a decision on those recormnendations by 1 June.1979, to consider that situation and to make the suggestions it deems appropriate;". The Committee chose initially to remind the Council of its responsibilities and to call upon it to resume consideration of the recommendations of the General Assembly. Indeed, the Committee was encouraged in this action, _ in spite of the passivity -of the Security Council, by the fact that the majority of the members of the Council had, at-its meeting on 27 October 1977, reaffirmed that there could be no just and lasting peace in the Middle East until, inter alia, a just solution had been found to the problem of Palestine based on the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. (Mr. Fall, Chairman, Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,). v- Furthermore, all the members of the Council have, at one time or another, actually s:>oken out in ~XVOU~ of' the rights of the Palestinian people, trh&ller they be known as national or legitimate rights. But as soon as it comes to the recommendations of the General Assembly, certain members, in spite of their proclamations. in favour of the rights of the Palestinian' people, adopt Eli inflexible negative attitude, a particularly unjustified attitudeem This conduct in which they seem to have been inspired by their protggg in the Middle East, does a great deal to put a curb.on the peace process.in the Middle East. In so doing, they are blocking any progress towards the search for a settlement of the Palestinian problem which would take account of the legitimate national rights of all the parties concerned, While the Council has remained frozen in its passivity as a result of the efforts of some of its permanent members, the vicious circle of attacks followed by reprisals has continued. Every day innocent people have been dying in the Middle East. The Palestinians, who have no alternative but to resort to armed struggle, have been continuing their military operations against Israel in order to win back their usurped rights. In a word, the war between the Arab and the Jewish peoples of Palestine has continued and grown more intense. The Security Council, ironically to some, but tragically in our view, has been paralysed by those TTho have been dreaming of settling the Palestinian problem without the Palestinians and their legitimate representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The Committee could only be concerned over such a situation and in the face of such an attitude, because it seemed to it+ to say the least, paradoxical that the positions of the PLO should have been disregarded and that the slightest contact with it I should have been eschewed, while people were saying that they wanted to find a peaceful solution to.the Palestinian problem. Ever since the meetings of the Security Council in 197'i', the fhmes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have engulfed Lebanon. Its sovereignty has been constantly flouted and its territory has even been invaded and occupied by the Israeli army. (Mr. Fall, Chairman, Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienableghts of the Palestinian People) The Security Council, as a result of such acts,has been obliged to send a peace-keeping force to that region. That Force unfortunately has not been able to discharge its functions properly because of the continuation by Israel of its policy of disguised occupation of southern Lebanon. The Committee. on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People at one point informed the Security Council that the dispatch of a peace-keeping force to southern Lebanon could not have lasting results if the fundamental problem was not tackled, -that is to say, the problem of the exercise of the rights : of the Palestinians in Lebanon to return to their homeland. In the face of this elimate of violence and tension, the Israeli leaders continue to pour oil on the flames. They,are persisting thusin denying the Palestinian people its fundamental right to self-determination. In this context, I should like to illustrate what I am saying by recalling that the Prime Minister of Israel stated, as recently as 6 June 1979, that there would never be any independent Palestinian State. He even went on to add: "If the Arab members of the Executive Council whichwill.emerge from the West Bank elections decide to proclaim Palestinian independence, they will be immediately arrested by the Israeli army." That is a fine example of scorn for the right-of-peoples to self-determination. But this constant denial of the national rights of the Palestinian people has its most provocative aspect in the Israeli policy of establishing settlements _' in the occupied Arab territories. Thus, over the course of 12 years, 110 settlements, comprising 16,000 inhabitants, have been set up by the Israeli authorities'in the Palestinian and. Arab territories that have been occupied since 6 June 1967. What is worse it is said that..the present Israeli authorities are preparing withinthenext five years to double the 58 settlements which already exist on the West Bank of the Jordan. Recently, at the beginning of June, the Israeli authorities decided to authorize a settlement at Eilon Moreh, at the very gates of the Palestinian town of Nablus. But we owe it to the truth to state that on that occasion. even the most faithful and traditional friends of Israel did not hesitate to describe that decision,' in the words of one of them, as "a mistake that is not in the interest of the State of Israel itself". (Mr; Fail, Chairman, Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People) That is but one example to illustrate the almost universal condemnation which has greeted the Israeli policy of settlements, because etieryone..realikes that that policy is aimed at-undermining the whole peace process and that it is contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law. (Hr. Pall, Chairman, Committee on the ' ,Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People) The climate of violence at present prevailing &.-the 14iddle East, i as well as the negative attitude of-certain parties to the conflict with . _ regard to the national rights of the Palestinian people, constitute serious obstacles to-peace. The Committee has had occasion in this regard to COmmUniCaie to the Council its position on the most.recent developments in the Middle East. This position can be sumed up as follows: First, the question of Palestine is.at the heart of the Middle East problem and consequently no solution can be envisaged without taking into account the rights of the Palestinian people; Secondly, the realiiation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to return to their homes and to achieve self-determination, independence and national sovereignty would contribute to a solution of the Q crisis in the Middle East; Thirdly, the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the representative of the Palestinian people, on an equal footing tjith the other parties on the basis of General Assembly resolutions 3236 (XXIX) and 3375 (Xxx),’ is indispensable in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations; and Fourthly, the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible and hence an obligation devolves on Israel to withdraw completely and quickly from all territory so occupied.. Furthermore, the Committee reminded the Council, in its letter distributed in document S/13210 of 2 April 1379, that the General Assembly in resolution 33/28 A, .adopted on 7 December 1978, stated that II . . . the validity of agreements purporting to solve the problem of Palestine requires that they be within the framework of the United Nations and its Charter and its resolutions on the basis of the full attainment and exercise of the inalienable rights of.the Palestinian people, including the right of.return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, and with the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization." (General Assembly resolution, OP. Para. 4) This position of the Cor&ttee is based essentially on the relevant resolutions of the United I?ations. It enjoys the support of the Group of Hon-Ali[;ned Countries, the I$lamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States, The recome&.ations of the General AssetAbly on the-exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian $eople, having been accepted by the majority of the international community,cannot be disregarded in any peace efforts in the Middle East. ., Certain deleEations felt that those recommendations were partial-and lacked balance. The Committee in this regard reacted positively by erqbarking on discussions with, the delegations in question, with, a view to explaining to them its objectives and the principles which underlay the recommendations; , .- above all, it invited them to make any suggestions or .observations which .' 8 &ht &prove the recommendations. Unfortunately, we noticed that those delegations Trere not ready to make any positive contributions to the work of the Committee. EIo7rever, we did not give-up all hope of seein thq one day adopting a more positive .atti&de towards the recommendations or the Committee. It is .I within this context that I would venture to remind the Council of the terms . . of the statalent on the Middle East published on 18 June $y the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the European Economic Community. The Nine examined the situa!ipn in the Middle East arid stated that :. "A just and lasting peace could be established only on the basis of a comprehensive settlement which should rest on the inadmissibility of the acquisition o f territory by force; the need for Israel to put an end to the territorial occupation it has maintained since the 1967 conflict: respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every State in the region and their right to live in peace within secure and reco&zed frontiers; and, finally, recognition that, in the establishment of a just and lasting peace, account should be taken of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, includinc their right to a homeland." (Mr. Pall, Chairman, Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rizhts of the Palestinian Peonle) I am sure that the Council will agree with me that our Committee could easily have claimed to be the author of those very words. That is all we have ever been saying> and we are ready to support any decision of the Council based on the-terms of that stater~ent of the nine European countries, The members of .our Committee are, after three years of activities marked by an attitude of systematic obstructionism on the part of certain members.of the Security Council, keenly aware,of the possibility of further abuse of the right of veto to impede the implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. However, Ire should like to invite those members of the Council to think over the fact that the recommendations of the General Assembly were adopted by the Palestinian Bational Council. Unless they wish to make a peace in Palestine without the consent of the -'. P&!kstinians, which is very far from bein realistic, they should take account‘i'of these recoizxendations, because they have been prepared under the auspices of the United I'Tations and enjoy the almost unanimous support of the parties concerned in the conflict in the Hiddle Fast. Another element which delegations opposing the recommendations of the General Assezbly‘ should bear. in mind is-the attitude of the Israeli people itself. Indeed, according to a recent poll carried out by the PORI Institute, 63.4 per cent 0 ‘ f Israelis auestioned replied that no comprehensive - peace was possible with the Arab countries without a solution to the Palestinian problem; and amon those who gave,other answers only 5.1 per cent felt that peace could be achieved without resolving the Palestinian probl=fi, provided that the IChC;do~~ of Jordan WL~ .>,; i i) associated with the agxei,lent - and that could prove to be a no less insurmountable obstacle. This is a positive develo&ent, which proves that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people cannot" continue to be disregarded. It is the view of the Committee that the adoption by the Security Council of the recommendations of the General Assembly as a basis for a solution of the question of Palestine would be c.n important contribution to the search for peace in the i.liddle East. , Indeed, most of the peace efforts undertaken since 1967 have ha?! a narrow foundation in which the national rights of the .Palestinian people Vere ilOt fully taken into account. Rence the Co&cil toc',cy has cn opportunit:,r Lo remedy this :;rave shortccmin? by layin? the fGU2c?AtlOilS for CL just' ciicl L:lStinG peace. (Hr: Pall, Chairman, Committee on the (Hr: Pall, Chairman, Committee on the .Zxercise of the Inalienable Rights .Zxercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People) of the Palestinian People) In conclusion, In conclusion, I should like to reiterate the conviction of the I should like to reiterate the conviction of the m=Jbers of the Committee that the present situation in the Middle East m=Jbers of the Committee that the present situation in the Middle East brooks no further procrastination and that the Council is in duty bound brooks no further procrastination and that the Council is in duty bound to live up to its responsibilities and open the door to peace for the to live up to its responsibilities and open the door to peace for the Palestinian people Palestinian people , represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). , represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The history of past and present negotiations demonstrates that there is The history of past and present negotiations demonstrates that there is no alternative to this. no alternative to this. The deterilination to ignore the rights of the The deterilination to ignore the rights of the Palestinian people has always made peace more remote. Palestinian people has always made peace more remote. Let us hope that Let us hope that the Security Council will learn the proper lesson from this truth and the Security Council will learn the proper lesson from this truth and once and for all adopt all.the recolmmendations of the General Assembly once and for all adopt all.the recolmmendations of the General Assembly on the implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. on the implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. . .

I thank the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People for the kind words he said about me.and my country. The next speaker is the representative of Tunisia, who wishes to make a statement in his capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group of States for the month of June. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. ‘. .* Mr. MESTIRI (Tunisia)(interpretation'from French): We are delighted to see you, Sir, presidin g over the Security.Council for this extremely important debate. We are convinced that your wisdom and diligence will helpto expedite the work on the crucial matter of the rights of the - . . . Palestinian people which is once again before the Council. You represent I? a country which vigorously supports the cause of the Palestinian people as it does the cause of all peoples subjected to colonial.and foreign domination.. : I take this opportunity to welcome to New York and to the Council Ambassador Clark, the new Permanent Representative of Nigeria, a country with which my country has for a long time now had relations of friendship and brotherhood. Speaking in my capacity as representative of Tunisia and in my capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group, I should like at the 'outset to express to you,' Mr. President, and the other Council members cur serious concern at the situation which now prevails in occupied Palestinian territory. We see., on the one hand, the Security Council at a deadlock on this issue; and, on the other hand, we see an OCCUFyiIlg Power determined to set up the milestones of annexation before the eyes of all.' That shows how important is the time element, and it is for that reason that not only the Arab States but also countries of the third worldfeel '. theiranxiety increase in view of the rapid turn of events. Rarely has such a crucial m&ter,which affects the future of a whole people and a whole region whose strategic importance is decisive for peace and international security, met with such immobility, such inertia and such impotence, although,it has been discussed several times in (Mr. Mestiri, Tunisia) the Security Council. Indeed, from October 1977 the recokendations of the _ Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People have been transmitted to the Security Council for approv81 and for .consideration as a basis for a solution to the question of Palestine. Siiwe : that time-the recommendations.have remained before the Council, but no decision has been taken on them, notwithstanding the appeals of the Committee and General Assembly resolutions, including‘the last one resolution 33/28 A, which: "Once again urges the Security Council to consider and take as soon as possible a decision on the recommendations endorsed by the General Assembly in its 'resolutions 31/20 and 32/40 A and'in the present resolution." We must note that the Council's hesitation is the more incomprehensible because the recommendations are based.on United Nations resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council itself. I stress that point because the implementation of the programme adopted by the General Assembly' to sivc effect to the rights of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the Committee's proposals, urgently needs the staunch and active support of the Security Council. - With regard to the substance of the problem'-'that is to say the final, comprehensive settlement of the question of Palestine - one should perhaps recall that the Committee's recommendations contain four fundamental principles. First, the question of Palestine is at the very heart of the Middle ,East problem, and therefore no just and lasting solutidn can be envisaged which does not take fully into account the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Secondly, the full exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination, independence and national soverei?;nty, is the only means which can lead to a lasting settlement of the Middle East crisis. (Mr. Mestiri, Tunisia) Thirdly, the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, on an equal footing with other parties, on the basis of General Assembly resolutions 3236 (XXIX) and 3375 (Xxx) , is essential in all conferqnces and negotiations on the Middle East which are held under the ,auspices of the United Nations. Fourthl~, the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible and Israel has the obligation to evacuate speedily‘and completeiy any territory . so occupied. Those are, in summary the main recommendations of the Committee, the implementation of which - and they must be implemented - would provide.a positive response to the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. However, when we realize what has happened to the recommendations adopted by the General Assembly and supported by the non-aligned movement, the Fifteenth Summit of the Organization of African Unity .(OAU) and the Islamic Conference, we must perforce express disappointment and concern3 because nothing tangible has been done thus far to enable the Palestinian people to enjoy their most elementary'and most legitimate rights, and it would be tragic were we to allow latent resentment to explode, creating a situation whose consequences would be felt by the‘entire international community. The Councilts silence and procrastination can only encourage Israel to continue its policy of refusal and denial of the right of the Palestinian people to exist. Indeed, Israel seems bent on a definitive adoption of the language of fait accompli and of an attitude marked by scorn for the rights of others. This can only pave the way to more frustration, greater violence and greater risks of a conflagration which the international community certainly does not want. But no decisive effort has been made‘to avoid the worst possible outcome; the international community and.the United Nations are certainly entitled to expect more fromthose who have the means to compel Israel to be more reasonable. We are not trying to over-dramatize the situation. But the situation in the occupied Arab territories does not allow us to be optimistic at all; on the contrary, it daily reinforces ourconviction that Israel will continue to violate the fundamental principles of international law, the United Nations Charter and General Assembly and Security Council resolutions in arrogant defiance of world opinion. (Hr. Mestiri, Tunisia) Indeed, the inhuman practices perpetrated .against the ,Palestinians, the ordeals that they suffer physically and materiallythe lilurderous bombing attacks to which they are subjected daily in-their own occupied.territory and in southern .Lebsnon,notvithstanding the numerous Security Council resolutions, and the dangerous policy of establishing new settlements that is being continued and that is openly aimed at driving out ,once and for all the.Palestinians whose lands have been confiscated by force from their homes and their country are flagrant proof of the intransigence of the Israeli leaders vis-b-vis the international community and in respect of the most fundamental hwnan rights. Is there any need to recall that scarcely three months ago the Security Council adopted resolution 446 (1,979) calling upon Israel to refrain from applying such policies?: '. But statements made by members of the Israeli Government, which always 'find effect in the region itself, like the statement. attributed to the Minister of Agriculture pointing out that 27,000 settler families would be established on the F?est Bank during the next three years, confirm that Israel intends to c pursue its policy of creating new settler:lents, that is, a policy Of .-' overt expansionism and colonization. The Prime Minister of Israel himself has repeatedly stated in Parliament that for him there will never be a Palestinian State, that Israel will never return to the pre-5 June 1967 borders and that Jerusalem will always'be the capital o'f the State of Israel. All these statements, inspired by a religious fanaticism of'another era, enlighten us as to the real designs of the Israeli leaders regarding the region. Therefore, we should once more express our profound concern over the recent developments whose consequences scarcely seem favourable to the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,as defined by various United Zations bodies. It is time that the Israeli Goyernment understood once and for all that peace and security cannot be established to the. detriment of the rights of others to existence and to freedom, and they can be based only on equity and respect for the .eleinentary principles of rr,orality and international law. In this context, the events that have occurred in the Middle East prove that the policy practised by Israel based on the systematic' denial of the existence of the c (Hr. iiestiri, Tunisia) Palestinian problem,its oppression of that people and its obstinate refusal to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) can lead to nothing; four wars have not reduced the Palestinian people to silence nor made them amendable to foreign domination. Today more than ever the Palestinian people is determined, led by its liberation organization, to recover its rights,its territory and its 'sovereignty, supported by the overwhelming majority of peoples and nations throughout the world which have repeatedly expressed their profound conviction that there can be no peace in the Middle East' without a just settlement of the Palestinian problem. Perhaps we should repeat that we want peace in the Middle East, a just and lasting peace, negotiated with all parties to the conflict, and particularly the Palestinian people, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Arab countries and the PLO have constantly demonstrated their resolute will.to achieve peace and to contribute to the elaboration of a just and lasting solution of the problem. They have sholm flexibility and an understanding of the real facts and events,without seeking aggression or war. We think, nevertheless, that any attempt at a settlement, to be credible and to achieve satisfactory results for all, must not only take into consideration the rights of all parties as defined in the Charter and in the relevant United Xations resolutions but should also allow the participation on an equal footing of all parties concerned and first and foremost the representatives of the Palestinian people - the central element of the whole Middle East problem. That problem is a whole; it cannot be broken into parts. Israel must recognize that fact and accept it. To deny it is to persist in seeking false solutions based on the policy of fait accompli and on scorn for the indefeasible rights of peop1e.s. That is why Ire have confidence in the capacity of the United Nations to work out guidelines and actions that are both viable and effective, because they are just and lasting, for the settlement of the Palestinian question. Peace in the region and security throughout the world is at stake. In a letter addressed to the President'of.the Security Council dated 13 March 1979, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Hr. Fall of Senegal, wrote: "The Coztittee is profoundly convinced that concrete action by the Security Council on the basis of the irnpleLlentation of the Cormittee's recomendations would without any doubt lead.to the achievement of tangible progress tmrards a solution to the question of Palestine. The members of .the Cormil&ee accordingly believe that'the iI!lpasse c&rently prevailing in the region, characterized by the absence of any initiative that ztight lead to peace, and the prolongation of the illegal occupation of Arab territories ar& in no way conducive to the avoidance of neH cofifrontations; Ebreover, in the Comulittee's view,' that impasse could lead only to an aggravation of,the threat to international peace and security". @/13164, p. 2) The $Llpasse continues in the region, .and we 'know that the situation willbe deadlock as long as the question of Palestine is ic>nored. __ This requires XL a concrete action by%he Security Council, action that is the more urgent since the policies proclaimed iZi?d p?rectised by the Government of Israel do not favour a CliiiEYie conducive to a,truly peaceful solution, < ,i It is time that the Security Council took concrete steps to iti@le&nt the reccxmendations of the Comnittee lrhich are the indispensable foundation for the establishflent of peace based on justice and on law and to put amend to the suffering of a people that is reduced to living -in intolerable and inhuman conditions. The Palestinians cannot continue to be the hapless‘victims of a situation that they .did not create, a situation for which our Or.:;anization must assum its share of the responsibility. The PRkSIDE3T (interpretation from iGssian): I thank the representative of Tunisia for the kind words he said about me and.my country. The next speaker is the representative of Sri Lanka who wishes to make ,a statement in his capacity as Chairman of the Co-ordinatinc Bureau of Bon-Alil;ned Countries. I invite him to take a place at the Council table .and to m&<e his statement. Hr. FG3iJANDO (Sri Lanka): i4r. President, let me first thank you and the other members of the Security Council for giving;; me the opportunity of addressing the Council this afternoon. .I have no .doubt that, under your wise and able guidance, the deliberations of the Council will be fruitful. At the same time,,:_.1 should like to extend our thanks to the outgoinS President of the Council, Mr. Pereira of Portugal, for the services he rendered ;to the Council in the month of Hay. I should also like to associate my delegation with the welcome extended to Zr. Clark, . L: the new Permanent Representative of non-aligned BiCeria. (Mr. Fernando; Sri Lanka) Once more the Security Council has been convened to consider the question of Palestine. I wish to express appreciation of the initiative taken by Ambassador Fall of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to bring this important matter before the Council in response to resolution 33/28 A, adopted at the last session of the United Nations General Assembly. .- .-. I particularly value this opportunity to address the-C&&l for‘three reasons. First, I speak not merely as the representative of Sri Lanka,whose Government has consistently supported the Palestinian cause but,-even more, as the representative of the Bon-Aligned Movement, which numbers over 80 Members of the United Nations, as well as the Palestine Liberation Organization. The question of Palestine has been one of the foremost priorities of the Non-Aligned Group. Secondly, it is the strong and unanimous view of the non-aligned countries, a view shared by the vast majority in the international community, that the question of'palestine lies at the core of the conflict in the Middle East : As long as the question of Palestine is not settled, as long as the inalienable national c rights of the Palestinian people have not been recognised in reality, the Middle East will continue to be.denied the peace and stability that has evaded it for so long. Thirdly, although, by being repeated so often, this may sound platitudinous, the fact remains that unsettled conditions in the Middle East pose a constant ;threat to internaticnal peace and security. The ccttinuing state of political instability and injustice in the Middle East is, therefore, not merely of concern to the Palestinian people, or the Arab people, or the non-aligned countries, but also to every single Member of the United Wations. I returned to Bew York barely a week ago, having attended the Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-AlignedCountries, to which my country .was privileged to act as host. At that Conference what clearly emerged, as far as the question of the Middle East was*concerned, wasp that there was an unshakable conviction that the question of Palestine was at the core of the Middle East problem. It was clear that the interrelationship between the problem of the Middle East and the Palestine question was such that any solution of the Middle East problem could not @ .(Mr. Fernando, Sri Lanka) be complete or lasting or just unless the question of'Palestine also was settled. To be more specific, it is clear that a just and lasting peace in the region can be attained only on the basis of the total and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories and the restoration of the national and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, which would include the right to return to their homeland, the right to self-determination and the right to statehood. The Palestine .Liberation Organization, which is a member of the Non-Aligned Group, must have the right to full and equal participation in any serious deliberations that deal with the issues involved in the Middle East. No settlement of the Middle East question can be.considered comprehensive or just or permanent unless the Palestine Liberation Organization participates in the deliberations as an independent party on,an equal footing with all other parties concerned. It is remarkable that the intricate complex of issues that clusters around the question of the Middle East can be explained by a relatively simple truth - that is, that the persistence of the occupation by Israel Of Palestinian and Arab territories and the denial by Israel of the inalienable rights of those occupied peoples are the twin obstacles that have prcventcd.peace in the region. Ambassador Fall, who spoke before me in his capacity as Chairman of.the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, has already dealt with some related aspects of these obstacles to peace. I myself have personal experience of them through my membership in the Committee which probes into the question of Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the population of occupied territories. These two are but facets of the central issue, which must be the concern of all of us. At Colombo, the non-aligned Ministers were conscious of various developments relating to the Middle East that havetaken place in the recent Past. Unless the basic requirements that I have detailed are fulfilled, nothing can really settle the question of Palestine or the question of the Middle.East.- I do not wish to make a long statement, as I am aware of.the constraints of time. The basic decisions on the question of the Middle East that were reaffirmed by non-aligned Ministers in Colombo will'be made available soon as a United IJations document. HoxTever, in conclusion, I should like to emphasize that any settlement of the Middle East question must decidedly come to realistic political terns with the question of Palestine; any solution of the question of Palestine clearly requires that it be arrived at on the basis of the United Nations .Charter and on the basis of resolutions adopted by the United E;lations, including by the Security Council. Nore specificallY, that means that recognition of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, including the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization in all negotiations, is'essential together with the total and'unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian and Arab territories it has been occupying; Unless those two prime requirements are met, there can be no lasting peace in the Middle East.

3 thank the representative of Sri Lanka for the kind words he addressed to me. '_ I wish to inform members of the Council that I have just received a letter from the representative of Egypt in which he requests to be invited to participate .in the discussion of'the item on the Councills agenda. In accordance with the c usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to .invite that representative to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, 'in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Councilss provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection;it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. El-Araby (Egypt) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber. - The PRESIDDJT (interpretation from Russian): 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. BLUM (Israel): The Middle East stands today at a crucial turning-point in its history. In the past three decades we have witnessed two diametrically opposed approaches to the conflict in our region, Both approaches nave been tried and tested, and the choice betweenthem has never been clearer. One approach has (Mr. Blum, Israel) .inflicted four wars and incalculable suffering on all the peoples in our region. The other holds out the only hope-for an end to'war and for a constructive future 'on the basis of co-operation and peaceful coexistence. The second approach is embodied in the United Rations Charter, which affirms the resolve of all 14ember States to 'live together in Peace with one another as good neighbours" and enjoins the pacific settlement of disputes'first and foremost by negotiation. That approach, based on mutual respect and the sovereign equality of all States, Tras reaffirmed by Security Council resolution‘242 (1367) of 22 November 1967, which recognized the territorial integrity and political independence of all States in the Middle East and their right to live in peace within secure and recogniied boundaries, free from threats or acts of force. That resolution was accepted by the parties and supported by the overwhelming majority of States PIIembers of the United Mations. It remains the only agreed and established framework for the achievement of a negotiated and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. peace in the Middle East. (Mr. Blum, Israel) This approach has also proved itself‘to be the most and so far the only promising process towards the achievement of peace in our region. The past year and a half has seen a serious and practical peace-making effort that .has already produced the first.ever Arab-Israel peace treaty. And, at this very time negotiations are continuing on the establishment of autonomy for the Palestinian Arabs in Judaea, Sam&z and the Gaza district. . Rowever, as I have said.before,.there is another approach to the Middle East conflict, an approach which ignores the rights of one party to the conflict while persistently favouring and serving the interests.of its adversaries. It is an approach that denies the inalienable rights of the Jewish people to self- . determination, national independence and sovereignty in its homeland. It,is an approach epitomized in the "covenant" of the so-called PLO, a terrorist organization which denies the existence of the Jewish people and calls for the destruction of a Member State of the United ETations. Masquerading under the guise of a national liberation movement, that group of international criminals has .cynically striven to gain respectability at the United I\Tations as 'a cover for its heinous crimes in the field. Armed with the resolutions of the General Assembly in one hand and with grenades and rockets in the other, ,-the terrorists of the PLO continue to murder innocent women and children in the most ruthless and indiscriminate manner. Regrettably, t&PLC .approach to the Middle East conflict has taken hold in this Organization and has steadily sapped its strength, prestige and effectiveness. Ever since the PLO was granted observer.status and irregular privileges at the United Nations in violation of the Charter and of the rules of procedure of the organs concerned, the General Assembly has gradually been harnessed to the PLO's aims and objectives, and has adopted so many belligerent and one-sided resolutions that they stand today as one of the major manifestations of opposition to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. One of the most harmful of these was resolution 3376 (XXX) of 10 November 1976, which established the so-called "Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People." That resolution which wilfully ignored the inalienable rights of the Jewish people to self-determination, national independence and (Mr. Blum, Israel) sovereignty in its homeland, was so biased and hostile to Israel that it was not supported by any Member State of the United Nations preserving a modicum of objectivity.and discernment. Inspired by Arab countries in a state of war with Israel, that resolution was specifically designed to bypass and undermine Security Council resolution 242 (1967). The Committee's composition has remained a function of the resolution which created it. Nineteen of its 23 members have no diplomatic relations with Israel, and to this day several of them even deny Israel's right to exist. No country maintaining full diplomatic relations with both sides to.the Arab-Israel'conflict has responded to the Committee's repeated invitations to appear before it, so utterly prejudiced is it considered td be. Indeed, it is clear that the Committee has become a pliant tool in the hands of the PLO which remains the dominant voice in its proceedings. Little wonder, therefore, that, in keeping with the PLO's declared aims, the Committee's recommendations as first submitted in its report to the thirty-first session of the General Assembly in 1976 were for all practical purposes a thinly disguised formula for the dismantlement of the State of Israel in stages, merely translated into the pseudo-legalistic jargon of the United Nations. The recommendations ignored Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and failed even to mention the concept,of negotiations. It is those recommendations which have been ritualistically endorsed in the General Assembly over the last three years by the numerical. majority at the disposal of the,Arab rejectionist States and their supporters, and it is those recommendations which the Council has been invited to consider once again. In fact, the supporters of the PLO, not content with having turned the General Assembly into a tool of their destructive designs, have systematically attempted to subvert every organ and body of this Organiiation for their own purposes. They have established a unit in the Secretariat itself, the "Special Unit on Palestinian Rights", thus undermining the Secretariat's integrity and misusing international funds for PLO propaganda. They have violated the status of the specialized agencies by using them for political ends. Indeed, the enemies of peace have used the Arab-Israel conflict and the PLO itself as a means for advancing their own interests. (Mr. Blum, Israel) Twice before, in June 1976 and October 1977;the "Palestine Committee" has attempted to draw the Security Council into eroding Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and endorsing the Committee's otm proposals, in defiance. of the Council's responsibilities under the Charter of,the United Nations. Constituted to promote international peace and security and intended to encourage a negotiated settlement of international conflicts, the Security Council now stands in danger of being exploited by the enemies of peace. The choice between the two approaches to the MiddWEast conflict which I have just described has never been clearer. If the Council cannot bring itself to endorse the current negotiations and peace efforts, let it at least not lend a hand to those whose purpose is to fan and perpetuate hostility and war in our region. Let there be no illusions, the insistence of the nPalestine Committee" in pressing this debate on the Council at this moment is occasioned by their undisguised attempts to subvert the ongoing peace.process in the Middle East which has.now entered its second phase. There may be some Member States, both in the Council and outside .it, which recognize the issues at stake but none the less may find it difficult to .resist the temptation of trying to gain certain political advantages by participating in this debate. Such tactics can scarcely be regarded ashelpful and can only be' regretted. This debate is manifestly designed to obstruct the peace process. The cause of peace is better served by non-participation in these proceedings. Therefore, and in conformity with its consistent position vis-&vis the "Palestine .' Committee" and all its works, Israel will have nothing to do with this debate, whatever its course and outcome.

The next speaker is the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization on whom I now call. Mr. TEBZI (Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)): I wish to thank you, Mr. President, and through you the. other members of the Council, particularly c the members who have joined in extending this'invitation to the Palestine Liberation (Mr. Terzi, PLO) Qrganiz:xkion, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the debate on our own fate, on the free exercise of our inalienable rights in our own country, Palestine. Mr. President, only a few days ago I visited your beautiful country and I saw Your heroic people engaged in the serious process of retionstructing and building for peace. I saw the destruction that was brought upon your country and people. I saw the great respect shown for the martyrs that gave up their lives in their determined and resolute struggle against fascism. The cemetery outside Leningrad, which enshrines the remains of 470,000 martyrs, iS a striking reminder and an encouragement to us to keep up the fight against racism in all its forms and manifestations,.apartheid and Zionism included, until the final and complete elimination of racism is accomplished. Mr. President, through you I wish to extend a hearty welcome to. Ambassador Clark, the. representative of the friendly Republic of Nigeria. I have had the pleasure and satisfaction of working with Ambassador Clark in our joint efforts and endeavours towards the establishment of peace and the welfare of mankind. I am referring in particular to our co-operation during the meetings of the non-aligned countries, and especially the recent meetings held in Colombo, the capital of hospitable Sri Lanka. The United Nations has been dealing with the question of Palestine since its establishment. The question of Palestine is one which must find a solution in this chamber, and we know that it is within the power of the Secuiity Council to find a solution. We must find a solution if we are to spare our People and the world from the scourge of w=, devastation and bloodshed. The injustice wrought upon us must be redressed and justice must be done. Only through justice can this Council secure peace for the Palestinian people, the Middle East and the world at large. MY People has been suffering the results of the injustice which has been done to us since we were forcibly driven out of our homes in 1947. My people has been denied the inalienable right to self-determination in its OWII homeland, Palestine. My people aspires and hopes; but it is determined to continue its struggle, including its armed struggle, in order to attain and freely exercise its inalienable rights. W people takes no pleasure in carrying guns and in spending sleepless nights on the alert against planned massacres, for we will not be standing targets or peaceful sheep driven to the slaughterhouse or to the gas chamber. We will resist. (Mr. Terzi, PLO) My people appeals to this Council to help us return to our homes, ' where we can, like all peoples, freely exercise our inalienable rights to self-determination and national independence. Thus, this Council can help us to contribute effectively towards the establishment of a just and comprehensive peace 'in the'Middle East and in the world as a whole. As a matter of fact, it is precisely this, namely, the attainment and exercise of our inalienable rights in Palestine, that the General Assembly endorsed in resolution 31/20, as it endorsed the recomniendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable -Rights of the Palestinian People. The General Assembly entrusted the Committee on'the.Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People with the task-of recommending &,programme of implementation to enable the Palestinian people to exercise its rights in Palestine. Those inalienable rights have already been recognized in other General Assembly resolutions, particularly resolution 3236 Wax), in T?hich those rights are recognized as follows: " . ,:t "The General Assembly, 11 .i. "1. Reaffirms the.inalienable rights of the Palestinian people-in Palestine, including: “(a) The right to self-determination without external interference; The right to national independence and sovereignty; "(b) "2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;". The Committee laboured hard during long hours and days and weeks, and presented a programme of implementation in document A/31/35. Whatdo we note in those recommendations? The Committee took into consideration some basic considerations and guidelines, foremost among which was the fact that: "The question of Palestine is at the heart of the Middle East problem and, consequently, the Committee stresses.its belief that no solution in the Middle East can be envisaged which does.not fully take into account the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people." (A/31/35,.para. 59) (Mr. Terzi, PLO) The Committee also took as a basic guideline the fact that: "The legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian'people to return to their homes and property and to achieve self-determination, national independence and sovereignty are endorsed by the Committee in the conviction that the full implementation of these rights will contribute decisively to a comprehensive and final settlement of the Middle East crisis." (ibid., para. 60) Furthermore, the Committee was of the opinion that: "The participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, on an equal footing with other parties, on the basis of General Assembly resolutions 3236 (XXIX) and 3375 (XXX) is indispensable in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East which are held under the auspices of the United Nations." (ibid., para. 61) The Committee considered that it was: 11 . . . the duty and the responsibility of all concerned to enable the Palestinians to exercise their inalienable rights." (ibid., para. 63) These'recommendations were presented to the meeting of the Palestine National Council in March lYj'7. The National Council adopted a unanimous decision which considered those recommendations as a positive and constructive step towards the establishment of peace through the attainment and exercise of our inalienable rights. We were just told,that the cause of peace would be better served by _- non-participation in this debate. I wonder whether the one who said that really believed it. If he did, he could have spared us the time and-the effort of listening to his statement. While the United Nations and the world community were seriously considering efforts to bring about peace in the Middle East and to solve the question’of Palestine in accordance with the principles of the Charter and the resolutions Of the General Assembly; at a time when the two co-Chairmen of the Peace Conference, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, on 1 October 1977 had made the welcome statement that they would jointly work.towards peace taking into consideration the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people; and while there was 'a consensus on the establishment of peace and a formula was being prescribed and accepted, what happened? Someone just walked out and refused the international approach. Someone refused to work for a comprehensive peace. Someone just reneged and acted against the will of the international community. . (Eir. Terzi, PLO) Subsequently s we were told that some framework for peace had been achieved in Septaber 1972 in what has come to be commonly known as the Camp David Accords. Bow., what do these accords provide us Hith? Uhat is in them for the Palestinian people? FJh:.t is in them that is in conformity with the decisions of the United Hations? Yhat is in them that is in conformity Trith the principles of the Charter of the United Hations? First and foreilost the accords deal trith the future of the Palestinian people 1 and I wish to state here that no Palestinian nor the Palestine Liberation Organization has authorized the parties to the accords at Camp David to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people. Not President: Sadat, nor Begin, nor President Carter WRS authorized by the Palestinian people to speak on their behalf. They usurped that right for themselves and tried to impose their will upon us. Yhat is in those accords? The Camp David accords envisage a final resolution of the Palestine problem which precludes the exercise of the inalienable national right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination and statehood in Palestine, the natural human right of dispersed Palestinians to return to their homes and the elementary right of the Palestinian people to choose and designate their own representatives. Uhat the General Assembly of the United Nations has adopted on this question and continues to adopt every single year is a reaffirmation of the right of the Palestinian people to return.to their homes and live in peace. The Cap David Accords deny that right very bluntly, and that is why the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) promptly declared that that foMula was unacceptable. The leaders of the Palestinian population in the IJest Eank and Gaza9 the Governments of the Arab States and all post-Camp David meetings 'of non-aligned countries, Islamic States and socialist States all have declared their non-acceptance and their rejection of that formula, because it has transpired and the world has perceived that the Camp David formula forPalestine was a violation of the international consensus on the.Palestine problem, which has been repeatedly expressed by the summit conferences of all those groups of States as well as by the United Nations. (Mi. Terzi, PLO) Furthemore,' the Cmp David franlework divides the Palestinian people into separate categmies and offers different formulas for dealing with their respective situations. It places in one special class and focuses its attention upon the so-called inhabitants of the TYest Bank and Gaza. l?e are no longer citizens; we are just inhabitants, just numbers in our olrn n country; and that is ~fily they referred to us as just "inhabitants". The Cmp David Accords then take cognizance of a second Group of Palestinians consisting of those who were displaced from the 17est Dank and Gaza +I 1967. Finally, they refer imprecisely to the ref'ugee problm. iTow, we all tno%r that the majority of Palestinians were not registered with the United Rations Relief and ?rorlrs Agency (Ul%WA) as refueeds. So, vho are the refugees? And thus the distinction among the various groups of Palestinians is not rpade solely for the procedural purpose of providing appropriate formulas for dealiw with each Group in accordance with its distinctive present situation. On the contrary, the Cmp David confereeshave assiGned each of those groups a separate and distinct pemanent fate. For example - and I wish to be specific here - I ms born in Palestine, born in Jerusalem and raised in Jerusalem and I still have q' books in Jerusalem, but I do not know whether the right of return mill apply to me, despite all the relevant United Nations resolutions. That the Camp David Accords offer me is the possibility of applying for ahission to uy own birthplace. And who, according to the Csap David Accords, will be deciding on Roy fate? . It will be a Committee coqosed of Israel, E,gypt and something called the autonomous body9 the governing authority or whatever. that vi11 be imposed by the Israeli military Goverment - and those who siBled the Canp David Accori,s just took it for granted that the Kingdom of Jordan r?ould just be an.accoqlice to them. Well, the Government of Jordan .has nade its position very clear: it will not take part in that crime. And zrliat will that Comittee decide? It will decide whether I am to be admitted to rly otm hale and each one of them will have a veto on this decision. And that procedure deals only with some Palestinians t&o were forced out of their ones in 1967. !?hat is to becorfie of the resolutions of the United ITations since 1948 - sane of which were adopted even before Israel was admitted to nezbership of the United Nations - callint: for the return of the Palestinians them that right? Are Tre to negate their existence? .That is one aspect of the Carp David Accords. There are a few others, but I should like briefly to revert to the role of the United States in the issue. On 17 Septaber 1972 President Carter, while presenting these famous . Csmp David Accords - which were called "a framework for peace in the iiicX!!e East" - said: Yhis frm1elrork concerns the principles and some specifics in.the *most substantive way TThich l,rill Govern a comprehensive peace settlement." I really lronder whether President Carter really believes that, by negating the existence of almost 4 million Palestini&ns,.by denying the national ri&ts of an entire people, he is truliy s,erving the interests of peace in the Trorld. Of cquxe, 1,do not expect an answer from the representative : 1 of the United States. . *. And Be have just heard someone mention the Hard “autonomy". I woni!er what that word means. If ve look it UJJ in the dictionary, tre might find thatit has a meanin different .from what we are faced with. According to this "autonoLm$ the p0pul.l =.tion of the !7est Ear& and Gaza is to experience some ,: relaxation of direct rule by the Israeli-military Government and a measure of self-rule, s0methi.n~ more or less in accordance Trith the proposal.first made by &Sin in December 1977. Althoyqh in his address to a joint session of Consess.on 18 September 1978 President Carter described this transfonaation _ by saying that ?Fhe.Israeli military government over those areas trill be Trithdrawn \ and will be replaced by self-government with full autonomy", it is explicity stated in the Camp David framework that the precise powers and responsibilities of the self-*Governin s authority to be exercised in the 17es-t Da& and Gaza have .yet to be defined. (Mr. Terzi, PLO) So, was President Carter prejudging the issue? I think that in the light of his recent experience President Carter is having second thoughts. Maybe he was filled with goodwill and good intentions and believed at least in Begin with whom he was dealing. What about Palestinian participation - is it fact or fiction? -It is true that the Camp David Agreement also provides that in those negotiations in which the powers and the responsibilities of the self-governing authority are defined "The delegations of Egypt and.Jordan may" - I underline the word "may" - "include Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza'or other Palestinians as mutually agreed;" That modest permissive clause has given rise to some extravagant rhetoric. Thus Secret&y of State Vance told the United Nations General Assembly in September 1978: . 'The Camp David framework also gives the Palestinians a vital role &shaping their destiny by recognizing them as participants in all aspects of the negotiations that determine their future. They will pdrticipate in the negotiations to set up their self-governing authority..." (A/33/PV.14, p. 52) Contrary to that assertion, however, Palestinian participation in that regard is subject to six crucial limitations. First, ,the actual inclusion of Palestinians in the Jordanian and Egyptian delegations is not mandatory. As I said, it "may" take place; it is subject to the decisions of the Governments of Jordan and Egypt - but, of course, we now know that Jordan will not take part in the crime, so it will be subject to the decision to be taken by Egypt. 1 Secondly, the selection of individual Palestinians is also subject to . the will of those Governments; and the selected Palestinians will be, notrepresentatives of their own people, but appointees of an Arab Government. Thirdly, if either Arab Government chooses to include Palestinians in its delegation, every Palestinian it selects must first be approved by Israel, which can thus veto the participation of any individual Palestinian in either Arab delegation, Jordanian or Egyptian. Thus that gives veto power even to Israel over who represents the Palestinians, even within the E,rryptian delegation; it is as if Israel should choose our representatives. Fourthly, during the negotiations, any proposal which a Palestinian member of either Arab delegation may wish to make must be approved by the Arab delegation,concerned before it may be formally presented. So in this case, before a Palestinian who is part of the Egyptian delegation can open his mouth and express an opinion,he must go to the Egyptian leader of the delegation and say: "Sir, would you permit me to speak on behalf of my people?" It might sound funny, but that is exactly what the Camp David Accords have for us. Fifthly, proposals, whether Israeli or Arab, which are unacceptable to , any Palestinian participant will not be rejected by the Arab delegation , concerned,unless its Government also finds the proposals in question unacceptable. And, sixthly, any proposal made by a Palestinian participant must.be approved by the delegation of Israel before it may be reflected in the final agreement. Mow, what sort of autonomy was foreseen for us in those Camp David Accords? Since those Camp David Accords were adopted we have noticed the escalation and intensification of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and the establishment of more and more illegal settlements; we have seen them driving our people from their homes by force, imposing curfews9 even in refugee camps, and preventing water from getting to those camps. I shall just cite one example of a little village outside Hebron called Halhul. In that village there was something that the students did not like and they demonstrated. What the Israeli occupation forces did - and this is happening in a territory which is illegally occupied and under military administration - was to impose a curfew on the village of Halhul. The main water pipe that brings water to that village was shut off and for 11 days people had to make do with the little water they had in store. But since Halhul is an agricultural village and it had no irrigation for ll days the crop for the year was destroyed. Is that not reminiscent of the -territories that the Eazis used to burn? .Instead of burning it, those (Mr. Terzi, PLO) neo-fascists just cut off the water and the crop was destroyed. That is a sli::htly more sophisticated Qy--e of Bazi revenge. Furthermore, during the transitional period of five.Years b&ore '!autonomy rule" - and nobody knows -trhtit that is - what happens? Be,'rin made. his 'purpose clccr, I'ic s$.d: "After five years I will declare Israeli sovereignty over those tqrritories." Why wait five years? I will tell the Council why they Trait for five years: because during the five years they will use those Nazi methods to force our people to leave, or at least they will be "thinned" out. And that is a quotation from Koenig of the Ministryof Interior of Israel who plans to "thin" out the population of Galilee. Perhaps during the five years Israel will achieve the "thinning" out of the Palestinian population. But if it does not, in the meantime it will have something like a few hundred settlements on the Arab property, and those settlements will be new Israeli tolmships. I think it was the man in charge of settlements in the Jewish Agency who suggested that new Jetrish settlements in the Arab territories should have at least 5,000 inhabitants.. So that is why I said they will be "tolmships". In five years how many ne$ tolmships shall lre'have in the Arab.territories? Thus they are creating new conditions so that in'five years we will have more problems to face and shall not have solved spy of the problems that now exist. Durin;2 that period of five years - and, as I havesaid, after five years Begin plans to declare Israeli sovereignty over the territory - the Camp David framework bestows some sort of American-Egyptian legitimacy upon the continued occupation of the Palestinian 'areas in question. The projected Egyptian-Israeli negotiations, whicli,it is stipulated must be conducted on the basis of the Camp David Agreement, are predetermined to confer further if Jor&.n does legitimacy upon that occupation through Jordanian consent; and, not want to participate, then Egyptwill talk on behalf of the Jordanians and the Palestinians. Furthermore, the so-called self-governing authority in those Palestinian territories must acquiesce in that continued occupation. (Hr. Terzi, PLO) So, what do tre have? We have a purported Palestinian legitimacy, but in fact there is no such thing as Palestinian legitimacy. Thus, thanks to the Csmp David framework for peace? an Israeli occupation which the entire international community,and in particular the Security Council, have for 11 years declared illegal TTill now, all of a sudden, be enabled to maintain itself in the Palestinian territories concerned as a legitimate occupation for several more years, if not permanently.- and from all indications the aim of the Zionist movement is to stay'there permanently. PTaturally, ae always neet with the very central problem and question of Jerusalem. What is the fate of Jerusalem? Ue have heard Begin speak of Samaria and Judaea. iiis spokesman here mentioned something about the inhabitants of Samaria and Judaea. But let me make the clarification that even in the Bible we read passages containing references to Samaria, Judaea and Jerusalem. Sorehow Jerusalem does not full fit into.this Samaria-Judaea concept. \ In a letter by an Israeli legal expert published in a bulletin called The Jerusalem Quarterly, the legal contention of Israel is stated, that Samaria and Judaea do not include Jerusalem since, according to Israel, Jerusalem was annexed in 1967 and is no longer a territory in dispute. So the territory in dispute would include Uablus, Ramallah,Rebron and probably Bethlehem, but not Jerusalem. Bow, Trhat is the fate of Jerusalem? In the Camp David Accords, Jerusalem is totally outside the scope of the powers and responsibilities of the projected self-governing authority. It has been reported that during the Icnesset debate on the Camp David Agreements, Begin disclosed that he had threatened not to sign the Agreements if President Anwar Sadat of j&vpt went ahead with his intention to send him a letter of disagreement regarding Jerusalem. Well,' I am not aware of such a letter of disagreement, but9even if there was an exchange of letters,Eegin told his IZnesset that "1 do not really mind what Mr. Carter writes to Hr. Sadat, or what i-ir. Sadat writes to l.ir. Carter. Jerusalem will remain the eternal united capital of Israel, and that is that. What we declare on this issue is what will stick". I think some members have heard Adolf Ilitler at one time using similar language: "F.%at I dictate is a diktat, and that is how it will be". , During the televised theatrical signing that took place on 26'March 1979, in explaining his signature - in something like an explanation of a vote before the vote - Begin made it clear that one of the most important days of his life was the day that Jerusalem was unified, and that Jerusalem was indivisible. And it was' on .this understanding that Eegin signed that paper in Washington, D.C. on 26 March. And that deals with our destiny, the destiny and future of the Palestinian people. It so happens that Jerusalem is a city in Palestine, and that is why I am conc'erned and am addressing myself to the problem so directly. 'Did Tre hear President Sadat or President Carter speak in explanation of their position.before signing the treaty? They just let it go, and that is why we can believe that both President Sadat and President Carter acquiesced in this and granted Besin his will. I have a lot to say, but I can elaborate further in later deliberations on this matter. I should like to conclude my statement today with a quotation from the Bible, because some people quote from the Bible .so often and I think it is incumbent upon me: too, to do so. It reads: "Woe to them that devise iniquities, for they shall bear the consequences of their iniquities". The PRRSIDEBT (interpretation from Russian): -- I thank the representative of the-Palestine Liberation Organization for the kind words he said about me and my country. I should like to inform the.members of the Council.that I have just received a letter from the representative of Jordan in which he requests to be allowed to participate in the debate on the item on the Council's agenda. Accordingly, I propos in accordance with the usual practice and with the consent of the Council, to invite the representative of Jordan to participate in the debate, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, the proposal is adopted. At the invitation of the President, -- Hr. Shamma (Jordan) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber. --.-- -- Mr. CLARK (Nigeria): !lr. President, -- I'am most grateful to you for your very kind words of welcome. I am equally touched by your reference to my election today to the chairmanship of the Special Committee against Apartheid. I feel particularly honoured to be welcomed, at the first meeting of the Security Council that I am attending in my present capacity, by you, Mr. President. Your hi,rh standing in the esteem of this Council and the most cordial relations that so happily exist between your great country and mine encourage me to hope that my presence here Trill be felicitous and that I shall always be able to count on your friendship and co-operation. Similarly; I wish to thank the representatives of Senegal, Tunisia, Sri Lanlta and the Palestine Liberation Organisation for their friendly and gracious words of welcome addressed to me. My brothers Mr. Fall of Senegal and Mr. Mestiri of Tunisia have been more than kind to me. Both have allTays been a constant source of inspiration to me, as they have been to other African diplomats of my generation both here and in the councils of the Organization of African Unity. I am abundantly confident that I shall continue to be able to rely.on their Visdom and brotherl;;r friendship. Twelve years ago, when I had the privilege of representing my country in this Council, one of our main preoccupations then was the question of the .- exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable riGhts. It is a paradox that following that period of &bsence - a period of i-tore than a decade marked at every stage by an historical awareness that was long overdue and that has led to the liberation and independence of many colonial and oppressed peoples, by an awareness that in our time and age a United Hations solution of an international question on the basis of humanitarian 1s~ and mutual respect of national sovereignty was preferable to.a solution dictated 13~ force or cruel war, by an aTrareness that the rirJht of a people,anywhere to self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations is inalienable - I should return to the Council only to be confronted on the,very first occasion of my attendance bv the same nroblem in the' form.of our agenda item. (Mr. Clark, Nigeria) I recall what Lord Caradon, the then Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, said as he,introduced the draft that became Security Council resolution 242 (1967) - that peace and justice are.not incompatible. May I conclude by pledging my full support and co-operation to you, Sir, as President of the Council, as you direct our affairs with a sure and confident hand.

I thank the representative of Nigeria for the kind words he addressed to me. I should like to say that I entirely share his views with regard to.the~firendly relations existing between my own country and Nigeria. Mr. BISRARA (Kuwait): In the course of.our informal consultations it was clear that it was the general wish of the members of the Council to confine the beginning of the debate on the report of the Committee on Palestine to, I would say, a limited number of speakers so as to clear the atmosphere and make it conducive to serious negotiations with a view to arriving at a constructive document. But at the present meeting I have found some representatives unexpectedly inscribing their names on the speakers' list. Of course, that is their right; that is their prerogative, which I cannot dispute. I had intended to answer the representative of Israel at length on every Point he made. But it is not my nature to attack a person in his absence. I was really shocked by his Disneyland behaviour in walking out on the Council. That did not add to the dignity and the seriousness of our debate. Because of his absence I shall not now address myself to the points that I had intended to elaborate upon. My main point in speaking now is to say that, from our informal consultations, the delegation of Kuwait understood that when this meeting was adjourned it would be our hope to resume our deliberations on this item at the end of July or at the beginning of August. I should like to place on record my delegation's understanding that this debate will be resumed at the end of July: (Ur. Bishara, Kuwait) -. - This debate shall not be buried in silence. Ue shall revive it, and we shall pursue the cause of the promotion of the rights of the Palestinians no matter what kind of impossible odds Tre may encounter, no matter what kind of Orwellian argumentation we may face.

There are no further ---- speakers. In accordance with the understanding reached in the course of consultations, to lrhich the representative of Kuwait has just referred, members of the Council Trill be informed of the date of the next meeting of the Security Council to continue consideration of the item on its agenda. The meetinS rose at 6.05'p.m. --- i