S/PV.2220 Security Council

Mr. President, I should like at the outset to express the satisfaction of my delegation at your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month and to wish you success in the discharge of your important duties, especially at the end of your term of office today. I am pleased to note : 1 Arab Emirates, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia to participate in the discussion without the right to vote and I invite the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to take seats at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Bedjaoui (Algeria), Mr. Al-Sear (Bahrain), Mr. Yankov (Bulgaria), Mr. Roa-Kouri (Cuba), Mr. Abdel Meguid (Egypt), Mr. Douglas (Guyana), Mr. B. C. Mishra (India), Mr. Bafi (Iraq), Mr. Blum (Israel), Mr. Nuseibeh (Jordan), Mr. TuCni (Lebanon), Mr. Rabetafika (Madagascar), Mr. Ayachi (Morocco), Mr. Jamal (Qatar), Mr. Allagany (Saudi Arabia), Mr. Adan (Somalia), Mr. Mansouri (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Lipatov (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), Mr. Humaidan (United Arab Emirates), Mr. Ha Van L.au (Viet Nam) and Mr. Komatina (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber and Mr. Kane (Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People) and Mr. Terzi (Palestine Liberation Organization) took places at the Council table.

I should now like to inform the members of the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Democratic Yemen in which he requests to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. In accordance with the 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 provisional rules of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Ashtal (Democratic Yemen) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber.

The first speaker is the representative of Bulgaria. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 5. My delegation has been following closely the present deliberations of the Council focused on the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People1 and on its recommendations. The Council has had ample opportunity to consider this issue on various occasions in the past. Taking into account the wide recognition of the imprescriptible rights of the Arab people of Palestine to self-determination and independence, including the right to establish their own State, and also the prevailing conviction that the recognition and realization of those rights is indeed the key to the achievement of a comprehensive, durable and fair settlement of the whole Middle East crisis, the Council is now called upon to adopt practical measures aimed at resolving the issue on the basis of the recommendations set forth in the report of the Committee. In the light of the extremely critical evolution of the Middle East situation and the continued denial by Israel of the rights of the Palestinians, the elaboration and implementation of such measures assumes an increasingly urgent nature. 6. It is the considered opinion of my delegation that the Middle East continues to be one of the most dangerous hotbeds of tension, fraught with dangers for peace and security. The situation is rendered all the more complicated and explosive by the separate Camp David accords. The overall deterioration of the situation which ensued in the aftermath of those accords, as well as more recent events in the Middle East, have furnished new evidence which has further substantiated our conviction that the separate deal between Israel and Egypt under the sponsorship of the United States does not lead to peace but to still further aggravation and inflammation of the conflict. Attempts to settle the fate of the Palestinian people without their participation have so far yielded no positive results whatsoever. As the President of the State Council of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, Todor Zhivkov, said during his recent visit to the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, “The People’s Republic of Bulgaria, together with all progressive and democratic forces in the Arab world, flatly rejects the separate deal between * Israel and Egypt, including their talks on so-called administrative autonomy for the Palestinians and the so-called normalization of relations between Egypt and Israel.” This basic position was reiterated only a few days ago by the President of the State Council, during his oflicial visit to the Syrian Arab Republic. 8. The continued insistence of the Government of Israel on going.ahead with its own plans to establish new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and its ongoing violations of the status of Jerusalem, as well as the aggressive acts against Lebanon and the United Nations forces in Lebanon, are a complete confirmation of the truth that pursuit of the road of separate talks, tempting as it may appear, can only fan the smouldering conflict, hinder the just cause of the Arab people and postpone indefinitely the prospects for a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East problem. It is our view that the Camp David agreements and the rapidly developing Egypt-United States-Israel alliance are heading precisely in this direction, despite the efforts of those countries to convince the world of their successful outcome. 9. With regard to this, I should like to reiterate the firm conviction of my Government that the establishment of a truly just and lasting peace in the Middle East necessitates, above all, the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab lands occupied since 1967, the realization and the exercise by the Arab people of Palestine of their legitimate and indisputable rights, including the right to self-determination, to the creation of their own sovereign State under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine, and theguaranteeing of the independent existence and national security of all countries in the region. 10. It is the hope of my delegation that it is precisely in this spirit that the members of the Council will endeavour to work out their decisions, decisions that will best serve the interests of all countries in the region and the interests of peace, security and cooperation in the whole world.

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

Sir, on this, the last day of your presidency of the Council, I have every reason to commend you for your vitality as well as your distinguished leadership. You represent a friendly country whose revolutionary tradition and .13. A few weeks ago the Council adopted a’resolution categorically condemning the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. It was not without significance that the United States Government retracted its vote under heavy-Zionist pressure. Be that as it may, those creeping settlements clearly demonstrate the aggressive nature of a Zionist State bent on expansionism. Since its inception, Israel has shown the world a model of a racist settler State with unlimited territorial ambitions. For the Palestinians, those settlements represent but one” episode in a painful tragedy; for they have been denied not only their elementary human rights, but indeed their very national existence. 14. Ironically, the United Nations was primarily involved in the Palestinian tragedy when the General Assembly decided, in 1947, to legitimize the Zionist usurpation of Palestine. That infamous decision was taken at a time when the Assembly, then consisting of some SO States, was subjected to imperialist pressure and blackmail. Ever since, the United States Government has sustained Israel by providing it with not only the means of survival but-the military capacity to wage aggressive wars-the Iast of which was its invasion of southern Lebanon. Emboldened by United States political support, as well, Israel feels secure enough to flout the Charter, ignore United Nations resolutions and disregard world public opinion. ._ 15. But times have changed since the imperialist Powers could bully the General Assembly and impose their will. Gone are the days when the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America languished under the yoke of colonialism. Twenty-seven years later, the Assembly, representing virtually all nations, in a historic moment of international redemption, adopted resolution 3236 (XXIX), recognizing the inalienable ‘rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and statehood in Palestine. The Assembly also recognized the Palestine Liberatlon Organization as the sole and authentic representative of the Palestinian people, thanks to its unrelenting struggle to resist Zionist occupation of its motherland. Subsequently, at its thirtieth session, the Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Bights of the Palestinian People, which first presented its recommendations in 1976, reaffirming the right of the Palestinians to selfdetermination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, including their right to create their own independent State and the right to recover their property and their homes. 16. That international consensus in support of the Palestinian people was, denounced by Israel and by 18. It was no accident that the Camp David accords were concluded at a time when the Shah of Iran was tumbling from his peacock throne. The United States had to find an alternative to serve its interests in the region. It , needed a staging board to arrest the revolutionary tide in the Middle East and Africa. The Camp David accords and the Washington treaty pr0vided.a geopolitical substitute for the loss of Iran -nothing more. They are irrelevant to the Palestine problem, which is the core of the conflict in the Middle East. 19. Now the Camp David affair is winding up in exploratory talks intended for internal consumption and election politics here and there. But the United States, which had hoped to re-enter the Middle East arena in a big way, is now emphatically being asked to stay away from our region-thanks to the unified Arab stand forged at Baghdad and Tunis. 4 20. As for the Palestinian people, their just cause is being espoused by the whole international community. Even the allies of the United States are wisely keeping their distance from the Camp David fiasco. They only have to be more forthcoming in asserting their independence. 21. Attempts are being made to divert public opinion from the deteriorating situation in the Middle East, but they have been fruitless. The Palestine problem remains at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East, threatening international peace and security. 22. The Security Council cannot indefinitely ignore the international consensus on Palestine. Four million Palestinians are now waiting for the Council to recognize their inalienable right to self-determination, national independence and statehood. Not only that: they are expecting this august body to enforce the international consensus so that they may be able to take their place among the nations.

Mr. President, allow me first to express gratitude to you and to all the other members of the Council for having given our delegation the opportunity to participate in the discussion of such an important item as the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable, rights. We should like to join in the expression of congratulations to you made by previous speakers in connection with your assumption of the responsible duties of the presidency of the Council for this month. 25. As a member of the Committee .on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic supported the initiative for the convening of an urgent meeting of the Council, so that it could finally adopt practical ‘measures to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations aimed at enabling the Arab people of Palestine to exercise their inalienable rights. 26; The question of the exercise by the Palestinian ‘people of its inalienable rights is not a new item for the Council. It took that question up ins 1977 and in .I979 but, because of the negative position of the United States, which gave active, support to the expansionist policy of Israel, the Council was unfortunately not able to take a decision on the question. 27: It is generally recognized that at the present time the question of Palestine is the core of the Middle East conflict. Unless a cardinal solution is found, a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East is impossible, and without such a settlement there can be no peace in the region. Consequently, international security and peace will continue to be under a real threat for which the Council bears direct responsibility. That has been reaffirmed repeatedly by the General Assembly and in other international forums., including the Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Havana last year. That Conference quite definitely stated that, if the Council was unable to take a decision on the question of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people because of the absence of unanimity among the permanent members, a special emergency session of the General Assembly would then have to be convened. ‘ 28. To our mind, it is inadmissible for the Security ,Council further to disregard the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which were drawn up and unanimously adopted by that Committee back in 1976 with due regard for the relevant decisions of the Council and the General Assembly. The recommendations contain concrete proposals for ways and means 29. All these recommendations should be implemented. without delay because the ruling circles in Israel not only are continuing mos1 flagrantly to violate the inalienable national rights of the Palestinians but are hatching schemes with a view to liquidating the Arab people. of Palestine. 30. During the debate in the Council, it has been noted several times that the aggressive aspirations of Israel have been considerably. intensified since the Camp David deal and the conclusion of the separate Egyptian-Israeli treaty under the aegis of and with the active participation of the United States. Such actions ,can only be evaluated.as an attempt to legitimize the presence of an aggressor on foreign territory expropriated by force of arms. That evaluation is borne out, in particular, by the negotiations which have continued for many months on so-called administrative autonomy for the Palestinians residing in the West Bank and Gaza. 31. It is quite obvious that attempts to resolve the problem of the Palestinian people in a manner inconsistent with the interests of its representatives and -without its participation are doomed to failure. That appears to be recognized now throughout the world by everyone, with. the exception of Israel and its protector, the,Uaited States.. 32. Israel’s aim is to hang on to the Palestinian lands it has occupied under. the. cover of a so-called administrative autonomy, and that aim cannot be masked by any manoeuvring or hypocritical statements endlessly repeated by the parties to the separate talks. 33. It is our profound conviction that the Palestinian problem cannot be resolved by a separate deal, such as that which has been attempted behind the backs of the Arab people of Palestine. The only just solution to that problem is the satisfaction of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including its right to self-determination and the creation of its own independent State, within a.comprehensive political settlement in the Middle East, with the participation on an -equal footing of all the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole authentic representative of the Palestinian people. That is precisely. the thrust of the recommendations of the-Committee. 35. The PRESIDENT~interp~ezarionfrom Spanish): The next speaker is the representative of Saudi Arabia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

To begin with, I wish to express my delegation’s deep appreciation and commendation to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and to its Chairman for the Committee’s thorough and objective report, which has left no doubt regarding the formidable plight of the Palestinian people under IsraeI’s yoke ofoccupation-Israel which has violated and continues to violate the basic principles of human rights, including the right of self-determination. 37. Ever since 1949, the Israeli Government and its Zionist agents have been harping on the tune that Israel has no territorial ambitions and has merely been interested in securing a peaceful coexistence with the Arabs in which each party would respect the teni- ,torial integrity of the other. From time to time, however, some of the more outspoken Israeli leaders have let it be known in public pronouncements that their Government will never withdraw from parts of the occupied territories. Those belligerent pronounce- .ments of intent were sometimes based on the alleged security needs of Israel, but, realizing that that would not provide sufficient credibility, their authors sometimes invoked historical and religious grounds for considering the occupied territories as theirs on the basis of a covenant from God. The individual pronouncements by public Israeli figures appeared to embarrass the Israeli Government since they betrayed the true but hidden aggressive Israeli designs, which Israel has preferred to accomplish through its notorious and fiendish policy of “creating” facts. That policy had helped the Israeli politicians in the past and they saw no reason why, with the support of their staunch friends in the West, it should not continue to help them in the future. On 10 August 1967, General Moshe Dayan made a statement reported in The Jerusalem Post of the same date wherein he said that people must realize that “the mountain range west of the Jordan lies at the heart of Jewish history*‘, and that “if you have the Book of the Bible, and the People of the Book, then you also have the Land of the Bible-of the Judges and of the Patriarchs in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jericho and thereabouts. On no account will we force ourselves to leave. ,This may not be a political programme, but it is more important-it is the fulfilment of a people’s ancestral dreams.” 39. Israel continued to ignore the recurrent and repeated resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council regarding Jerusalem, the whole of the West Bank and Gaza. I am limiting myself to the PaIestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 because the subject before the Council is the question of Palestineand the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. With utter defiance and contempt for the Organization to which it owed its very existence, Israel proceeded to expropriate and/or confiscate land and to build new Jewish homes and settlements for militant, aggressive and fanatic Jews, changing de facto the status of the occupied Palestinian Arab territories with the clear intention of “creating” more facts and forestalling any future attempts to implement Council resolution 242 (1967). One cannot overlook the fact that Israel could not have pursued such 40. Now we hope it has become more obvious, even to the closest of Israel’s supporters, that it was not peace that Israel was interested in but territorial expansion, aggrandizement, annexation and the calculated change of the physical character, demographic composition and institutional structure of the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. To those who know, the security needs of Israel are not a factor but a convenient tool used to deceive and win the support of-an influential segment of the Western, and particularly American, public and Israel’s supporters in the United States Congress. The Camp David accords, given so much fanfare by certain circles, did. not even attempt to curb Israel’s voracious appetite for territory. The .Palestinian people, who were the direct victims of the Jews of Palestine and the international Zionist movement in the process of the creation of a Jewish State in Arab lands, were totally ignored, and Israel succeeded by political pressures and devious manceuvres in excluding them, by excluding their legitimate representatives, from participation in the so-called peace process. The Palestinian Arabs, like the Palestinian Jews, were under a British Mandate awarded to Britain to prepare the country for independence. When Britain ended its Mandate in May 1948, the Jews declared themselves an independent sovereign State on Arab lands evacuated by their population, which constituted two thirds of the population of Palestine. Instead of statehood, the Palestinian Arabs were doomed to exile and to living in refugee camps for over 30 years. According to Israeli arguments, now the Palestinian Arabs can only be granted selfrule, not self-determination, or what it calls sover- &gnty of the people, not sovereignty of the land. This, is a new theory of self-determination conceived by Israel and its supporters which has no precedent or basis in international law, but which, accordingto Time magazine of 14 April, the Israeli Professor Yacob Talmon rightly called “an archaic concept, a trick to shut the Gentile’s mouth”. 41. Of course, Israel intends to retain sovereignty over the land, so as to enable it gradually and illegally to usurp more Arab lands and to replace the Arab population by transplanting Jews, thereby accomplishing the Israeli plan of annexing the West Bank, which Israel already calls Judaea and Samaria. 42. As I have already stated, the deceptive Israeli quest for peace is not and never has been genuine. Israeli and Zionist leaders have used it for so long that they have now lost their credibility, and the world community, including Israel’s close supporters, does not believe them any longer. They have played too long on the Western conscience by portraying Israel as a persecuted and harassed peace-loving and peace- 43. Even the leading American press, which has a tradition of supporting Israel, has begun to feel embarrassed by Israel’s loss of credibility in speaking peace and practising aggression. On 12 February 1980, The Washington Post published an editorial under the title “The price of West Bank settlements”, in which it pointed out that the movement of Jews into the West Bank was the patented formula for further trouble. It went on to state: . . . some Israelis still try to treat Jewish settlement in the West Bank as an issue with two sides: so let us argue it out, but meanwhile let us not allow it to get in the way of more important questions. But you have to be pretty stupid to swallow that line. There is no more important question. Jewish settlements are regarded everywhere-and most of all by the settlers themselves-as Israel’s way to establish its permanent control, leading eventually to outright annexation. The settlements undercut Israel’s pledge to leave open to negotiation, one in which the Palestinians who live there would take part, the ‘final status’ of the West Bank;” “ The editorial continued: . . . further criticism of Israel on this issue is pointless. So is wrist-slapping. More direct tactics are called for. Why not put a measurable value on the settlements and let Israel decide whether it wants to forfeit that much.from its American aid?” 6‘ 44. On 13 February 1980, The New York Times published an editorial in which it warned that whileit returned the Sinai to Egypt, Israel was moving by stages to annex the West Bank. It suggested that the Israeli people had been frightened by pretexts of “security” into supporting the extreme Zionist dream of a minority of their fellow citizens. It stated that Egypt had been disarmed by the Sinai transaction and enormous amounts of American aid, and that the American President was judged helpless to resist, especially in an election year focused on confrontation with the Russians. The editorial continued: “Under the cover of the Camp David accords and East-West tensions, Israel continues to change the The New York Times editorial went on to describe the devious Israeli procedures as follows: “As in the latest move into urban Hebron, the Israelis are careful never to create a clear focus for objection. New policies are adopted, but not immediately acted upon; new rules are labelled tentative, then kept indefinitely; laws are observed, but then bent out of shape. The move into Hebron was widely justified as retaliation for the murder there of a young Israeli; no one seemed to care that this demeaned the historical rights of settlement so heatedly claimed at other times. With every new step, a few more Israelis are exposed to terror and Arab hatred. They then need more protection from the army, more settlers to enhance security, more restrictions on the surrounding Arab life. The tentacles spread.” The editorial concluded as follows: “Israel’s defence of creeping annexation is no longer persuasive. The cries of ‘security’ ring hollow when Arab hostility is knowingly provoked and when the Israeli Army is left to cope with increasingly vulnerable outposts. The view that Camp David did not forbid settlements does not make them right. They offend the spirit of the ‘autonomy’ promised to the Palestinians.” 45. With regard to the status of Jerusalem, the Israeli Government resorted to a different apologia: they had to annex the eastern sector of Jerusalem and keep it within a so-called undivided Jerusalem because that was the only way they would secure Jewish access to the Western Wall within the Old City and that would also guarantee access to the holy shrines for the Christian and Moslem peoples of the world. 46. Israel argues that, under Arab rule, Jews were denied access to the Old City and the Western Wall, whereas since 1967 Israel has allowed such access to all Moslems. That is an entirely false, deceptive and misleading distortion of the facts. Throughout Arab and Islamic rule, Jews have never been denied access to the City of Jerusalem or tothe Western Wall. For centuries travel and worship were freely open to members of all religious faiths and denominations. In fact, the- Jewish Quarter in the Old City was built during Arab rule, and ‘the Arabs provided shelter to Jews who had escaped Western persecution. The only period during which access to the eastern section of Jerusalem was denied to Israeli Jews was during the short period between 1949 and 1967 when 47. But Israel has denied and continues to this day to deny access to Islamic Holy Places to the nationals of all Arab and Islamic countries, on the pretext that it has no diplomatic relations with those countries. Palestinian Arabs are only allowed to travel to visit their families who live under Israeli occupation after they have been carefully screened and granted permission by the Israeli military authorities. Many of them are denied permission to visit and many others are allowed in to face arrest and arbitrary administrative detention. Yet Israel claims, with incredible audacity, that by its so-called unification of Jerusalem it has guaranteed free access to the Holy Places to people of all faiths. 48. My Government does not and will not accept this aberration and insists that Jerusalem, as well as all the other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, be relinquished to their Arab owners, so that they may freely choose their own form of government without any interference from Israeli or any outside authority. The Palestinian Arabs are no less capable of ruling themselves than the Israelis and, in fact, they have displayed a far greater sense of international responsibility and respect for human rights than have the Israelis, by any standards. The Palestinian Arabs have been struggling for the liberation of their country against a ruthless enemy which has denied them not only the right of self-determination but even the right to exist. 49. Israel has based its policy on the racist concept of a superior and an inferior race. The killing of an Israeli is an unforgivable crime, but terrorism by the Israeli Government against masses of civilian AraBs and the massacre of women and children by the use of the most devastating ‘weapons is a defence of democracy and liberty. ” 50. My Government firmly believes that the world community has tolerated more than enough of Israel’s procrastination, intransigence, defiance of .the United Nations, of the Geneva Convention and of world public opinion and, above all, its denial of the human rights, including the right of self-determination, of a nation which has had a greater share of suffering than any other in recent memory. 51. The Palestinian Arabs were entitled to independence and the right to choose their own govemment at the termination of the Palestine Mandate. Israel cannot, on pretexts of security and so-called historical and religious roots, decide to deny this inherent and natural right of self-determination and sovereignty to the Palestinian people in the small portion of Palestine which escaped the land grabs of 52. There is no such thing under the Charter or under the International Covenants on Human Rights as self-determination for the people independently of the land on which they live. Again Israel arrogates to itself the right to lay down new concepts of international law, as though it were the law-giver of this universe. The Palestinian people are the party directly concerned in the Palestine issue and their problem is the core of the problem in the Middle East. The sooner Israel and its supporters realize this; the better it will be for all the parties concerned, for the world at large and no less for the Israelis themselves. If Israel wants real peace, it must change its mentality and place itself on a peace course, instead of the grave and ominous collision course on which it is currently proceeding. 53. My Government trusts that the Council will not fallto uphold the right of the Palestinian people toselfd&termination and to the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, which can only be implemented through the withdrawal of Israel from all Arab territories occupied since June 1967. My Govemment also trusts that the Council will unanimously atErm its previous resolutions, particularly with regard to the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbours, and to their inalienable right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent sovereign State.

The next speaker is the representative of-Jordan, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

During the past week, a torrent of very grave reports has been received from the occupied territories of the Holy Land, describing the intensification of acts of despicable oppression, terrorism, hooliganism and vandalism and a military occupation establishment going literally 56. Spearheading these acts of terrorist assault is the Gush -Emunim -dehumanized movement, whose spiritual fathers are no lesser terrorists than Menachem Begin, Borg, Shamir and their like. They evidently cannot overcome their deep-rooted terrorist behaviour and have a compulsive penchant to return to it when acting against valiant but unarmed civibans in various towns and villages throughout the occupied territories. The following are just examples of what has been happening, events which have received the scantiest of coverage. 57. The twin towns of Ramallah and Bireh, to the north of Jerusalem-Ramallah, incidentaIly, even though we make no distinctions whatsoever, is an overwhelmingly Palestinian Christian Arab town whose inhabitants have quite a substantial number of relatives of American citizenship since the .tum of the last century-were the target of a savage attack by IsraeIi colonists at 1.30 a.m. in the dawn of 24 April, during which attack the windows of numerous houses and shops were smashed by iron-bar-wielding hooligans, who also “cannibalized” 150 cars. This dawn attack occurred when the inhabitants were, of course, asleep. 58. The reports indicate that the occupation authorities have resorted to a new pattern of which this is just one manifestation, the purpose being to make lie so intolerable-or so they think-as to induce the inhabitants to leave their homeIand. 59. The attackers, armed with iron bars and machineguns, divided themselves into various assault units to destroy as much of the inhabitants’ property as they could, simultaneously. All information indicates that the hooligans come from a number of Israeli colonies in the area, planted illegally amidst the Palestinian Arab population centres, which proves that the aftermidnight assaults were premeditated, well-prepared and carried out with the knowledge of the occupation authorities, who boast of having a highly sophisticated intelligence apparatus. A three-day striie was carried out by the inhabitants, and the damaged cars were paraded in occupied Jerusalem and in the locations of the Israeli settlers. The Mayor of Ramallah declared after those dastardly acts: “Our people willrespond in an appropriate-manner to these attacks-whose aim is to drive us out of our country*‘. 60. The twin towns of Ramallah and Bireh were littered with broken glass and the debris which followed the clashes between the Palestinian youths and inhabitants and the Israeli usurpers, while the Israeli forces patrolled the streets of the battle-scarred towns. occupied territories. herbicide sprays resulted in the total destruction of the crops. 62. If any stones were thrown at intruding Israeli vehicles, it was not at the urging of the Mayor but was an inevitable consequence of an endless occupation. Troops did open fire on student demonstrations which erupted in several towns and .villages and the students responded with the only weapons -they possess: stones and empty bottles. 63. Curfews were imposed upon the villages of .Ein Yabrood, Silwad and Dair El-Assal and many other villages, and army reinforcements have been brought to the area in increasing numbers. The Israelis claimed that stones were thrown at an Israeli military patrol near Dair El-Assal, but the truth is that armed Israeli bandits driving a Peugeot had tried’to storm the homes of villagers at midnight, in an attempt to steal the villagers’ livestock and belongings. The villagers pursued them and their car collided with a bus. -Several villagers were wounded and hospitalized as a result of Israeli gunfire. 64. The Israelis also attacked the Kalandia vocational training school and Bir Zeit University because.people there had demonstrated against the Camp David accords and demanded independence. A suspension of studies was decided on at Bir Zeit University to prevent Israeli army atrocities. 65. A total strike was observed in various towns and villages of the Holy Land, including Arab JerusaIem and various universities and colleges, on the occasion of the thirty-second anniversary of Israel’s usurpation of Palestine. The Gush Emunim conducted provocative parades which led to clashes between the inhabitants and Israeli troops. In those clashes scores of Palestinians and Israeli soldiers were injured, six of them mortally. 66. The Israelis also arbitrarily decided to prevent the holding of elections to the municipal councils, although the time to hold them had come, for fear that the outcome would be a reiteration of the Palestinian Arabs’ rejection of the discredited Camp David accords. 67. Another aspect of Israel’s IawIessness and its systematic attempts to strangulate the inhabitants economically has been the destruction of large areas of cultivated land by helicopter spraying with poisonous herbicides in the village lands of Dura, Idna, Al- Dhahiriya, Yatta and a score of neighbouring villages inthe Al-Khalil governorate. Olive, wheat and barley crops have been destroyed; the crops of a,whole year of toil and sweat by. the area’sfarmers were instantly lost to a people impoverished by 13 years-of occupa- 68. Even philanthropic societies have been prevented from obtaining funds either internally, from their people, or from the outside, so as to paralyse their humanitarian programmes. 69. The Zionist Rabbinical Congregation ‘in Israel. recently and provocatively adopted a resolution demanding jurisdiction and sovereignty over the land of the Al-Haram Al-Sharif Holy Sanctuary in Jerusalem., This, I need hardly state, has been responded to by our people under occupation, and will be more universally responded to as the Zionists’ aggressive plot against Islam’s first Qibla and third holiest shrine unfolds. These are the lands and the people who for 13 years have been brutally held hostage by a Zionist entity which holds far stronger forces hostage, preventing them from exercising their will and shouIdering their world-wide responsibilities. 70. No matter what the outcome of this debate ‘on the draft resolution [S/13911] before the Council, I urge’ the Council to raise its voice loud and clear to safeguard the oppressed Palestinians pending a final solution. This is a humanitarian act devolving upon the Council and the Secretary-General. It is a matter of elementary human rights for which I appeal to the Council to shoulder the responsibility. There is nothing. in the draft resolution, as I see it, which has not already been enshrined in numerous resolutions of the United Nations. 71. Self-determination and the cessation of an oppressive occupation should be a sine qua non of any. just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle’ East. The right of return is as natural as it is incontrovertible under all laws, human and divine. Failure to support it would simply demonstrate the serious malfunctioning of a United Nations true to its ideals, true to its resolutions and true to the eternal laws of justice and humanity. This is the acid test of honesty versus hypocrisy, -freedom versus bondage, humanity versus subservience to the brutality of power and inhumanity. 72. It is ‘the earnest hope of my delegation that the Council will find it bossibie to see the light of truth and the road to a just peace, thus ending the indescribable agony and suffering of the Palestinian people.

It. is far from my intention to disgress, but I should like to relate a rather juicy piecer of. news: a former member of the Rhodesian Government of the notorious Ian Smith, Mr. Rowan Cronje, asked the 74. This warning, clearly the bitter fruit of a belated facing of the facts, could equally well apply, word for word, to Israel, whose stubbornness with regard to the vital problems of its region is at least the equal of the blindness of the South African regime. 75. This is the umpteenth time that the international community, and Israeps friends, allies and sympathizers, have called upon that country to make the necessary effort to contribute to restoring peace in the Middle East. It is the ,umpteenth time that, having heard the international community, its own friends, allies and sympathizers, Israel has persisted in its refusal and increased its acts of arrogance to make it clear that it is still invulnerable in its isolation. The daily deterioration of the situation in the West Bank, in which the Israeli settlers and soldiers are closely involved, the unbridled colonization of Arab lands in which Israel continues to strengthen the Jewish settlements, the Judaization or impending Judaization of several Arab towns in the occupied territories, frequent and murderous raids on the territory of certain neighbouring States, the continued and carefully intensified profanation of Jerusalem, all this demonstrates that Israel is determined to defy international opinion and to engulf the whole region in a vast conflagration if necessary. .. 76. Neither the Security Council nor the. world can permit so explosive and dangerous a situation to continue. That is why Niger believes that the time has come tocall on the Council to abandon an attitude which is far too dilatory and has the grave disadvantage of giving comfort to Israel, and which keeps the Arabs and the Palestinians seething with frustration. 77. The resolutions of the General Assembly must be vigorously followed up in the Council. They must be translated by us into a courageous resolution in which the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people ‘are finally recognized, proclaimed and protected. The reportof the Committee on the Exercise ofthe Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which has been before. the Council since 1376, contains. recommendations in that regard, and the least we can do isput them into effect rapidly. These recommendations highlight the rightof the Palestinian people to self-determination, national sovereignty and a return to their homeland; they deplore Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territoriesoccupied since 1967; and, at the same time, they indicate ways and means to solve the Palestine problem. 79. But Niger believes also. that at least two countries are needed for a fight, and that the will to peace must equally emanate from all the parties in question. That is why Niger-is making an urgent appeal for the cessation of the state of belligerency in the area so that in all quarters grudges may be set aside and future relationships fashioned on the basis not of military commitments, aggressive intransigence or warlike aims, but of a firm and positive determination to come to terms with the circumstances, while preserving what is essential and showing respect for law. As the Committee has itself affirmed, the existence of Israel is a reality which must be taken into account. But there is also the Palestinian reality, and at long last that reality must be given hope and a future through the creation of a free and sovereign Palestinian State. It is our duty to-work towards that end.

In opening this debate in the Council, on 31 March, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Ambassador Falilou Kane of Senegal, reminded the Council of this elementary imperative: “if we truly desire to solve the overall problem of the Middle East we must start by recognizing the right of the,Palestinian people to self-determination, a right that is at the very heart of the Palestinian question” (2204th meeting, para. 361. He concluded: “We have every hope that the Council will. do this because.that is the price of peace in the Middle East and, indeed, in the whole world.” [Ibid., para. 37.1 81. The draft resolution before.the Council in document S/13911 only reproduces, in their essence, the. recommendations ofthe Committee, which have been , before the Council since 1976. If the Council did not take a decision then, or in October 1977 or in June and. August 1979, it was because a member of the Council on. each occasion asked for a postponement of a decision, pleading the negotiations under way on the Middle East problem. 82: The argument seemed convincing in the sense that it gave rise:, to some hope. for progress on the political outcome and. on a lessening of tension in the area. On .both. scores, the Council is today quite well educated, because our discussions during the past six weeks have dealt with one or another of the aspects 83. At its last session, the General Assembly took note of the danger and, in its resolution 34/65 A, urged the Council “to consider and take as soon as possible a decision on the recommendations endorsed by the General Assembly”. We believe that the Council is in a position to do that, and indeed has the duty to do it. 84. The draft resolution before the Council was prepared by the Committee. It is our hope that the members of the Council will come out clearly and overwhelmingly in favour of it.

I now call on Mr. Falilou Kane, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

Thank you, Mr. President, for giving me this final opportunity to express the views of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which initiated this series of Council meetings. 87. Since 31 March, when the Council began its consideration of the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, all the delegations that have participated in the debate, with one sole exception, have unequivocally stated that they favour self-determination for the Palestinian people and that people’s right to establish a sovereign, independent State. That means that the international community is fully aware that no lasting solution can be envisaged or implemented in the Middle East while there is disregard for the aspirations of a-people that has been and is still being trampled under foot, martyred and condemned to exile. 88. How can we respond to the hopelessness of that people? How can we redress an injustice which has lasted far too long, an injustice the perpetrators of which are among us? Those are the questions which arise and to which the Security Council.is called upon to reply. 89. There can be only one reply: the one that preserves peace in that part of the world, the one which we have advocated and which is embodied inthe draft resolution before us, sponsored by Tunisia. In a disrupted world in which uncertainty and insecurity tend to become the rule rather than the exception, it is difficult to believe that the Council could adopt a position which would contradict that of the General 90. In our view, there cannot be two opposing and contradictory wills in this institution, that of the General Assembly and that of the Security Council. The countries which might bring that about must shoulder the full responsibility, which would be comparable to the responsibility of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse who sowed terror, death and destruction in their path. 91. The region of the Middle East is a powder keg. It has been so and is even more so today, if one takes into account what is occurring in Afghanistan and in Iran. Who can foresee today what could happen in that region? The boldest experts would hesitate to advance hypotheses. Continuing to act like an ostrich by refusing to recognize the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination will not enhance the prestige of the Council nor contribute to restoring the fortunes of the United Nations. On the contrary: it is the opposite attitude, that of courage, which has been adopted by almost all the delegations taking part in this debate, which is logical and understandable. That is the only path that is in accordance with the Charter because it preserves peace and security in the world. Finally, it is that path which will enable us to foster the hope for justice among the oppressed peoples, and first and foremost the Palestinian people.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of MEXICO. 93. Today we shall come to the end of another stage in the consideration of an age-old problem, a problem that has repeatedly and urgently held the political attention of our Organization. In fact, the multilateral treatment of the question of Palestine antedates the existence of the United Nations and is clearly the vestige of past imperial disputes. 94. In the course of more than 30 years, the question on our agenda has become a prototype which bears witness to the evolution of the international conscience, as reflected in the votes in the General Assembly, and which has constantly tested the prestige and the effectiveness of the Security Council. 95. One by one, almost 100 peoples have attained their independence during the life of the United Nations. One by one, the political and territorial conflicts in the Middle East have found the paths to a solution. Viewed in that light, the still pending case of Palestine appears both as an unjustifiable exception and as the main centre of instability in what is today the most coveted region in the world. , 96. Every approach to. the question of Palestine has been taken in this forum: from political pleas to 97. With the passage of time, however, the intemational community has reached certain irreversible conclusions, namely: that there will be no just and lasting peace in the Middle East without a recognition of the right of every nation to an independent existence; that the self-determination of the Palestinian people entails and presupposes the full exercise of its national rights; that Israel must withdraw from the territories occupied by force since 1967; and that the Palestine Liberation Organization is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and of its struggles for freedom. 98. Those tenets have been defined through the expressed will of the majority in the United Nations and they derive from the fundamental rules on which the Organization rests. For Mexico, as well as for many other countries which have suffered oppression and persecution, the affirmation of those principles is closely identified with national dignity. 99. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of my country, in referring, infer aliu, to the question of Palestine at the Sixth Summit Conference of Non- Aligned Countries, stated: “The first and foremost right of man and of peoples is the right to self-determination, which is a prerequisite of all other rights. No other claim, to so-called historical or any other rights, enjoys the same pre-eminence in our time as that to selfdetermination. For Mexico, that is the overriding and key principle which must obtain before any other consideration. We believe that the main political problems of the world arise from the fact that the right of many peoples to determine, for themselves and in a sovereign way, their political organization as independent States has not been enforced.*’ 100. When my delegation spoke on 27 February [2202nd meeting], it expressed various considerations about this conflict. We have now reached a definition .of principle which some are attempting to oppose with “argumentsof interpretation and timing with which we do not agree. 101. The first such argument refers to-the scope of the concept of self-determination. For some, recognition of the right to the existe.rice of an independent and sovereign State is tantamount to prejudging the direction in which a people will exercise its right to, selfdetermination. This argument is historically inaccurate. Any nation which has emerged to independent life after a.process of armed struggle has claimed the right to independence, not only as a logical conse- 102. It is also argued that it is out of order to reaffirm the right to constitute a State unless we previously define its territorial boundaries. That thesis is put to rest by a reading of resolution 242 (1967) to which, in the view of my delegation, we should add this afternoon. Thus, we would recognize the right of all the .peoples of the region to existence as States and conditions would effectively be created for them to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. 103. Finally, some maintain that the time for issuing statements on the substance of the question has not yet come. We respect the reasons of those who hold this view, but we believe that, since we are dealing with fundamental principles on which the existence of a nation as well as the maintenance of peace depend, the sooner the better. 104. Any effort in good faith which may be under way or which may be attempted to resolve the problem must begin with a recognition of the principles and the rights.,embodied in the draft resolution before us. That is the framework which should guide the actions of the interested parties and of all States in the search for a true solution to this conflict. 105. At the end of this meeting we shall also come to the end of the period during which the delegation of Mexico, after more than a third of a century, has had the honour to preside over the work of the Council. I wish to express my appreciation to all members for their co-operation, to. the Secretary-General for his diligent interest in our work and to the Secretariat for its invaluable co-operation with us. 106. We have worked very intensely from the first to the last day of the month. The present circumstances, together with the sense of responsibility of the members of the Council, have kept us in practically continuous activity. The debates have concluded with two resolutions. adopted on problems whichrequired urgent decisions-acts of aggression against Zambia and in. Lebanon. The question on our agenda today will&o culminate in a vote which we hope will co-ntribute to the solution of an old. and serious problem. 107. The questions we have considered reflect, at the same time, the pressures of everyday political 108. The questions we have dealt with during this year have one characteristic in common: all of them have taken place in developing countries and all of them reflect or involve global interests and strategies of a unilateral character. 109. In recent months we have suffered from a trend towards bipolarity, which we had thought was a thing of the past, and, in response to that, the medium-sized and small countrieswhich do not wish to lose any part of their independence or to be placed under the security guarantee or trusteeship of any Power, have tended to realign themselves. 110. Every day we witness new. incidents which affect not only the precarious political stability of the world but also the life and safety of diplomatic agents, that is to say, representatives of national States. This is but a symptom of the deeper evils that we must remedy through a comprehensive understanding of the root causes of the crises. 111. Mexico has taken,an active part in the process of making international liie more democratic. This trend, which summarizes the evolution of today’s world, today meets with new resistance and obvious dangers. It is our responsibility, as developing countries, to promote at all levels a juster ‘international system. We sincerely believe that the activity of the Council must be increasingly tailored to the essential. mission which has been entrusted to it, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security. 112. Several delegations concur as to the need for us to adopt a more active stance which might enable us to foresee the course of events and to enter into dialogues that may prevent crises. For that purpose, we may meet at any time and even resort to the exceptional procedures provided for in Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Charter. The holding of meetings at the highest level might allow us, through participation on an equal footing, to overcome the. obstacles along the.path to greater political andeconomic co-operation among States. In any event, it is our duty to explore whatever means may be necessary and possible so that the process of political and social change is not interrupted and so that it can take placepeacefully. 113. I inherited the presidency of the Council from a diplomat of irreproachable integrity who represents a country with which we stand as brothers in our common decision in favour of independence. I shall hand over the presidency to the noble representative of a nation which shares the same concerns and hopes. I wish him every success, 114. I shall now resume my functions ‘as PRESI- DENT of the Councfi. 116. I shall first call on those members of the Council who wish to make statements before the vote.

My delegation approaches the issue before us today imbued with a profound sense of responsibility and aware that the decision of the Council will be a milestone in its history. It is an issue that has defied solution for decades. It has been before the United Nations from the adoption of the partition resolution of 1947 and -before that-it had been before the League of Nations since i922, following the Baifour Declaration of 1917. Our decision can make or break the peace, already made fragile by the loss of so many lives, the destruction of so much property, and by so many tragedies and so much suffering of the peoples in the Middle East. 118. For the sake of a just peace in the region, my delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/13911, in keeping with my country’s policy of support for the just and legitimate cause of the Palestinian people. More specifically, the Philippines supports the right of the people of Palestine to exercise its inalienable national right to selfdetermination, including the right to establish an independent State in Palestine. In doing so, we affirm once more that the question of Palestine lies at the very heart of the Middle East problem and that unless it is first solved there can be no hope for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in that region. Unless there is a just peace in the region, international peace and security are imperilled. This is the syllogism of peace that the international community must pursue with all resolve and vigour. 119. In my delegation’s statement on the item entitled “The situation in the occupied Arab territories” [220fst meeting], we said that the illegal occupation of Arab territories denies a homeland to the Palestinian people, which has every right to it. Just as resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) recognize the right of the Israeli people to a secure existence as a State, so must we recognize the right of the Palestinian people to a secure existence as a State to ensure an even-handed and balanced approach, to the whole question. - 120. Resolution 242 (1967) provides a progressive series of steps leading to a comprehensive and just solution of this problem, first, by providing for the withdrawal of all occupying forces and, secondly, by recognizing the right of ail the peoples in that region to live within secure and recognized boundaries as States. That must necessarily entail the right of the Israeli State to exist, as it must entail the right of the Palestinian State to exist. Justice demands that the 121. Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes and to live in peace with their neighbours should be enabled to do so, and those choosing not to return should receive just compensation for their property, as provided in General Assembly resolution 194 (III). 122. Experience has shown that there may be practical difficulties in implementing decisions achieved at the conference table, difficulties arising from, first, the obvious lack of mutual trust and confidence between the parties-a serious effort must be made to establish a favourable climate; secondly, the cloud of suspicion that hangs over attempts to negotiate this issue-which must be dispelled; thirdly, the.refusal of both parties to recognize each other’s existence and even each other’s right to exist. Let us appeal to both parties to begin to recognize each other’s existence. 123. Because this question has confronted humanity for so long, my delegation welcomes all initiatives, including the draft resolution that is now before the Council, aimed at achieving a just, peaceful and comprehensive solution. Let us hope that in an effort to bring this question to a successful conclusion, all parties will henceforth resolve their differences at the conference table. 124. We can debate this issue endlessly; we can adopt resolutions one after another; but unless the parties directly concerned begin to face up to and accept their responsibility to mankind, we shall never be done with this problem. We believe that nothing is impossible of achievement in human affairs, as long as all the parties are willing to come together and exercise political will in the spirit of good will and mutual trust. It is time indeed for the peoples of Israel and Palestine to embark upon this historic enterprise and for all humanity to stand fast with them.

The delegation of Portugal has always emphasized in the Council the importance it attaches to decisions adopted by consensus. Our efforts have always been directed towards achieving consensus; for we are aware that politics is the art of the possible and that it is preferable and certainly more constructive to obtain by means of negotiation and in a spirit of conciliation results that can mobilize the general will of the members of the Council. 126. The patient search for that kind of solution, made with a clear aw.areness of the facts and a humble .spirit of balance, must however take place at a time or within a context that requires both a softening of positions and some flexibility of views. But we fear that in the case before us. this initial difficulty has not been overcome, and we note with great regret that 127. In so far as my’ delegation is concerned, and addressing ourselves to the substance of the matter, we wish once again to reaffirm that we consider that no all-encompassing search for peace in the Middle East can be undertaken without first taking into consideration the legitimate national and political rights of the Palestinian people and, therefore, its right to return, its right to self:determination and its right to a homeland. The fate of this people lies at the very core of the question of peace or war in the Middle East, and only respect for these rights will, in our view, make possible a lasting, peaceful settlement of this conflict in the region. 128. Such a settlement would also call for the direct participation of thet legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people in all negotiations aimed at achieving a just and comprehensive peace and would have to be accompanied by the total withdrawal of Israel from the Arab and Palestinian territories occupied in the June 1967 war, including Jerusalem. The acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, as we have already emphasized. 129. Finally, and without any ambiguity, we wish to reaffirm the right of the State of Israel to exist within secure and recognized boundaries. 130. These elements, which we consider essential, constitute the framework within which the search for peaceshould be condbcted. My Government hopes to be able to contribute to itssuccess and is willing and determined to do so. However, some conditions must accompany these steps. We earnestly hope that they will soon emerge, but in as much as they still seem to be lacking today, we shall abstain in the vote on the draft resolution before the Council. 13 1. Mr, KOLBY (Norway): The Security Council is addressing the question of Palestinian rights at a particularly delicate stage in the Middle East peace efforts. It is important that the present debate be concluded in a way which may be helpful in achieving our common goal, namely, a just and Iasting peace in the Middle East. At the present stage, this may require considerable restraint, as well as flexibility, from all the parties concerned. 132. Norway supports resolutions 242.(1967) and 338 (1973)‘ as a basis for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. According to the Norwegian view, peace in that area must be based on the following principles: first, the acquisition of territory by force cannot be accepted; secondly, all the States in the area must have the right to exist in peace within secure and recognized boundaries; thirdly, the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people must be implemented. 134. On the other hand, progress seems so far to have been rather modest in the trilateral talks on autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza. These talks are, as we know, supposed to be completed before 26 May this year. In accordance with the Camp David agreements, autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza can only be seen as a transitional arrangement, pending a just, comprehensive and durable settlement of the Middle East conflict. Whatever the outcome of the current trilateral talks, the Palestinian issue will remain the key issue which has to besolved if a comprehensive settlement of the conflict is to be achieved. 135. Since 1974, my Government has taken the view that an overall peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict must give the Palestinian people the opportunity to exercise its right to self-determination. Invariably, my Government has at the same time strongIy underlined the fact that the right of the Palestinians to self-determination must not in any way undermine or threaten the right of Israel to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. 136. Whatever the outcome of the trilateral talks, Palestinian participation in the negotiations for a comprehensive settlement remains a key element, both as a requirement for further progress and as a concrete expression, at the present stage of the peace efforts, of the Palestinian right to seEdetermination! Also, the Camp David agreements stipulate that representatives of the Palestinian people should participate in negotiations on the resolution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects. 137. The ’ question of PaIestinian participation in future negotiations of course raises the question of the role of the Palestine Liberation Organization. ,The question can always be raised as to how representative a given Palestinian group or organization in fact is. However, it is clear that no other organization, group or individual can claim to be more representative than the PLO. Hence it is difficult to envisage real progress without the PLO’s sharing responsibility for the negotiations in one way or another. 138. The Council is now about to vote on the draft resolution before us. My delegation regrets this, It would have been advisable to await a larger measure of agreement before. &he Council takes a decision on a question of such major importance. We consider the draft resolution before us unbalanced. It also seems to prejudge the outcome of future negotiations. Norway will therefore abstain in the vote on it. 140. But there are some positive developments. As a result of statesmanship on all sides, a peace treaty was signed between Israel and Egypt, and this was an historic event which would have been considered unachievable prior to President Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem and his warm reception there. 141. Important as the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty is, all concerned recognize that it deals with only one aspect of the many-faceted Arab-Israeli conflict. The Palestinian dimension is one of the crucial issues which must be resolved in the context of working towards a comprehensive settlement. Accordingly, the Camp David accords call for the solution of the Palestinian problem in all of its aspects. 142. As evervone knows. we are now engaged in serious and iniensive negotiations to provide for the security of Israel and to fulfil the commitment in the Camp David framework to establishing full autonomy for the people of the West Bank and Gaza during a transitional period, pending further negotiations to resolve the final status of these territories. If successful, these negotiations will provide the Palestinians living in those areas with a real opportunity to manage their own lives for the first time in modem history. 143. The Palestinian issue is of central importance. The question is how best to make progress on this and other important outstanding issues. 144. We recognize that the approach we have taken has generated disagreement among some in the Middle East. This is not unexpected, nor are we surprised at the difficulty of the problems that are now under negotiation. We do not seek to persuade the pessimists or those who despair of a peace settlement. We know that conviction will come only with results, and that results will require time. The point is that this is the only politically viable avenue available at this time. No ‘one has been able to” come up with a workable alternative. Although allof us agree on the necessity for a solution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects, there is wide disagreement on the best means of achieving this goal. It is nevertheless essential that we do so. 145. There are over 3 million Palestinians in the Middle East, including many of the best educated and most able people of the region. Their voices must be heard and their desire to manage their daily lives and their political future must be recognized. Some live in the Arab world outside the West Bank and Gaza and 146. At the same time, the people of Israel have sought for more than 30 years to live at peace with their neighbours, within secure and recognized borders. Until President Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem, Camp David and the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Israel was denied any practical expression of that desire. With the autonomy talks, Israel has a chance to move one step closer to the comprehensive peace it has long sought, and this reality too must be taken into account. 147. On an issue of such importance for the world, and for the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, we should not be distracted by approaches that offer no prospect for making practical progress. We should not adopt an approach that does not endorse resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the agreed basis for all peace efforts in the Middle East, an approach which, indeed, seeks to change resolution 242 (1967). We should not allow the United Nations to be used in this way. The clash of opposites and the sharpening of contradictions have no place here., in this body dedicated to the maintenance of peace and the resolution of disputes through peaceful means. 148. The United States is engaged in negotiations within the framework agreed on in September 1978 at Camp David with the participation of the President of the United States. By accepting the Camp David framework, Israel and Egypt have committed themselves to working towards a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, a peace which, the two parties firm in the accords,‘must resolve the Palestinian question in all its aspects and recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. This must be done in such a manner as to permit the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza to participate in the determination of theif own future while preserving the security of all the parties. We ‘are now entering a crucial stage of the negotiations which, if successful, will constitute an important step towards the realization of those objectives. 149. I know that in many quarters there is scepticism as to whether the negotiations in this framework can succeed. The road ahead will be difficult. But ‘together with Israel and Egypt we ask only to be judged by the results we obtain. At the same time, if we ask that others judge us by the results of our efforts, we will apply the same standard to this draft resolution. Judged by that standard, it cannot bring the achievement of peace one day closer to practical 150. There, simply stated, is the approach which the United States takes towards the draft resolution before the Council. It follows, therefore, that the United States will oppose the draft resolution. 151. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spa% is@: I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution contained in document S/l391 1. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Bangl?desh, Ch.ini, German Democratic Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, Niger, Philippines, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Zambia Againsr: United States of America Abstaining: France, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Iteland The result of the vote was IO votes in favour, I against and 4 absrentions. The draft resahtion was not adopred, the negative vote beingthat of a permanent member of the Council. 152. The- PRESIDENT (interpret&on from Spanish): I shall now call on those members of the Council who wish to explain their vote after the vote.

For reasons which my &$egation h-as explained, clearly and repeatedly to the parties principally concerned, the United Kingdom abstained on the draft resolution on which. the Council has just voted. The decision to abstain was taken solely b.ecau$s_ of the timing of the draft resolution. We have not considered its substance. But this should not be taken 8s a sign that we are not interested in the active search for a peaceful and just settlement in the Middle East, or that we do not accept that the right of the Palestinians to determine their own future as a people lies at the heart of the problem, or that we do hot believe that Israel has a right to exist within secure boundaries.. On the contrary, the .question was disc.ussed at the. recent meeting of the Heads of State.’ and Government of the European Community i.n Luxembourg, urhen they directed their Foreign Ministers to submit a report on the Middle East problem for the next session of the European Council, which will be held in Venice at the end of June. 154. Mr. LEPRETTE (France). (interpreration frum French): We have now reachedthe end of a.further debate on the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. O;n several occasions in the past my delegation “The right of each State in the region to live in peace within secure, recognized and guaranteed borders must be confirmed, This right to security is a universal right, as we have pointed out in the United Nations, and France understands in that connection the legitimate concerns of the State of Israel. But Israel must recognize that its occupation of Arab territories since 1967 prevents it from establishing with its neighbours the peaceful relations to which it aspires . . . At the same time, we must recognize the true nature of the Palestine problem. It is not a refugee problem but, rather, the problem of a people aspiring to exist and organize itself as a people. By exercising its right to selfdetermination-also a universal right-within the framework of a peace settlement, it must be able to take a decision on its own destiny. and to possess a homeland. For France, those. are the two conditions for peace in the Middle East. Their implementation requires the co-operation and support of all the parties concerned.” 155. Now, who can say precisely that that cooperation and support exist at the present time? I am sure that no one would venture to make such a claim in present circumstances. That is why, from the very beginning of this debate, a postponement seemed to us by far the best course. During consultations over the past few weeks, we have been unstinting in our efforts to have this view conceded and to spare the Council a deadlock. And that had seemed to us to be the view of several other delegations too. 156. When it became clear, nevertheless, that that appeal would not be heeded and that our Council would have to take a stand on a text that could not be adopted, the French delegation made one last effort. It seemed to us that if certain amendments were made, the draft before the, Council could win broader support. But our efforts didnot meet with the response we had hoped for. Thus, although this text does contain a number of provisions that also reflect our point of view, we have had to abstain in the vote taken this evening. 157. My delegation remains convinced, however, that matters must not be left as they stand and that everything possible must now, be done to establish conditions that would enable the Council to take up again-and this time under favourable conditions-the “Only a just and lasting comprehensive settlement could bring about true peace in the Middle East. Aware that Europe can, when the time comes, play a part, the Council instructed the Foreign Ministers to submit to it at its next session a report on this problem.‘* 158. The countries of the Euronean Community thus had in mind the search for a ‘common position leading to a new initiative when the necessary conditions have been met. I would express the wish that very soon we shall have grounds for hope in this regard.

The delegation of the German Democratic Republic, like the overwhelming majority of the members of the Council, voted in favour of the draft resolution in document S/1391 1 because it contains the necessary fundamental requirements for a comprehensive and just solution to the Middle East conflict. The draft resolution confirms the inalienable national right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination, including the right to establish an independent State in Palestine. It de-mands that Israel withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. It also calls for guarantees for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in the area, including the sovereign independent State of Palestine, and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. 160. This draft resolution thus constitutes appreciable progress when compared with previous resolutions of the Council. In the view of the delegation of the German Democratic Republic, however, a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the Middle East conflict cannot be achieved without vigorous resistance to the imperialistic rnameuvres typified by Camp David. We stress this even more energetically in connection with the dangerous policy that has once again been demonstrated here today by the use of the veto. We see here a link with other actions by the imperialistic circles in the United States designed to intensify international tension in various parts of the world, be it the Near and Middle East, the Indian Ocean or the Caribbean. 161. The delegation of the German Democratic Republic would like once again to confirm-its support for and solidarity with those peoples offering resistance to that kind of imperialistic policy, whether in the Near and Middle East, in South-West Asia or in the Caribbean. 162. We wish once again to express the hope that reason and an understanding of the facts will prevail. 164. The United States, which has just prevented the Council from adopting a resolution confirming those fundamental principles of a just settlement in the Middle East, cannot fail to understand this. 165. There can be no doubt that everyone fully realizes that without satisfying the legitimate demands of the Arab people of Palestine for the restoration of the homeland which has been taken from it, there can be no peace or tranquillity in the Middle East. 166, The natural question then arises, is the United States really interested in a just and lasting Middle East settlement? Is not the United States seeking to maintain.in the Middle East a situation of instability and tension, so as to expand its military and political beach-heads in the region, which, besides Israel and Egypt, might include other Arab States? 167. United States policy in the Middle East is not determined only by considerations of the electoral campaign in this country, as the press sometimes tries to imply. Four years ago, when the- United States twi.ce voted in the Council against resolutions confirming the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, there was also talk at the time of so-called electoral difficulties in the United States. Now, four years have gone by since the presidential elections of 1976 and the United States not only failed to take advantage of the existing opportunities to establish a lasting-and just peace in the Middles East but indeed adopted the 168. I listened most attentively just now to the representative of the United States and I must confess my disappointment. None of the arguments that he adduced, if subjected to scrupulous analysis, justifies the position taken by the United States in the Security Council. In spite of painstaking attempts by the United States to represent itself as the defender of Arab interests, the anti-Arab essence of American foreign policy in the Middle East is becoming more.and more obvious. with every passing day. The fact that the United States today prevented the adoption of a draft resolution in support of the lawful rights of the Arab people of Palestine surprised no one. It came as no surprise to the Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries, who at the Sixth Summit Conference, held last. September in Havana, adopted the following statement: “The Conference condemned the threat by the United States to use the veto in the Security Council against any resolution concerning the implementation,of the Palespinian people’s inalienable national rights.“2 169. The discussion of the Ptiestinian problem in the Council~and the. vote on the draft resolutton submitted by the deiegation.of Tunisiahave served as one more powerfuland clear reminder of the fact that we cannot go on postponing &solution to the Palestinian problem, since upon its speedy and just solution depend not only the fate of 4 million Palestinians but also the fate of peace and security in the Middle East, and indeed not only in that region. It could nut have been more cogently demonstrated that the Palestinian problem cannot. be resolved behind the backs of the Palestinian people without the full participation of its sole legitimate and authentic representative, the Palestine Liberation Grganizatian. 170. At the same time, the discussion inthe Council has shown that en early and just solution to the problems of the Middle East is certainly not being, facilitated by the position of those States which, in words, recognize &he inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and even declare they are in favour of the participation of the PLO, on an equal footing, in talks on these problems, but when it comes to taking a concrete decision, openly boycott any discussion of 172. In conclusion, the Soviet delegation would like to stress that the strugglefor the establishment of a just and lasting peace ifi the Middle East and for the implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people will not be ended by this discussion but will continue and will draw ever more supporters. The important thing, in thisdifficuit and noble struggle, is not to weaken the efforts of the Arab peoples and their friends to reach that goal. We are sure that that stiilggle will inevitably be crowned by success, like all the genuine national liberation movements in the present century.

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

This is a glorious result: the Council, by a vote of IO to 1, has voted in favour of the right of the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable rights in its own country. The United States has chosen to single itself out and it stands in a minority of one. 175. We are grateful. My people will appreciate, through history, the position of those 10 States that voted in favour of and in support of our rights. As to the States that abstained, we can understand but we cannot find any legitimacy in their reasoning or rationale for delaying a vote on the destiny of a people. Because the best time to vote and to act on the destiny of a people is now-and not in a month or two months. 176. The current debate on the attainment and exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people has demonstrated the overwhelming support of our rights by the international community. The United States has chosen to be singled out in the Council as an obstacle to peace and as an enemy of the principles of the-Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly-but primarily as an obstacle to peace and to the attainment of-international security. 177. At the beginning of the current debate, the Palestine Liberation Organization made it clear that the aim of the so-called framework for peace is to nullify the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The veto just cast by the United States confirms our reading of that framework and its ramifications. It is 178. The struggle for freedom and the movement for national liberation are not regressive. They are progressive by nature, inspiration and outlook. The Administration of the United States cannot stop the march of time. It cannot order history to “advance counter-clockwise”. The writing is on the wall and Washington cannot remain-indeed it cannot afford to remain-illiterate. The lesson of Zimbabwe should be recalled. The Government of the United States is voluntarily blinding itself to the realities of the situation in the Middle East. Need I cite the developments in Iran and the resolution of the Iranian people? But the United States still prefers to ignore the fact that there are peoples in this world, and that electronic devices are no substitute for the will-power of human beings. The United States continues to ignore the human element, it continues to ignore human rights and the aspirations of peoples. 179. Seeing all its ill-fated attempts and acts of aggression, the Government of the United States cannot and must not-indeed it had better not-attempt to perpetuate the bloodshed, misery and turmoil in the Middle East. 180. The veto cast by the United States is no subrise. The current President of the United States is banking on a chip-“no national independence and no selfdetermination for the Palestinian people**. He was reported to have said on 24 March: “We oppose the creation of a Palestinian State”. The destiny of a people is not a game of blackjack or of dice. The destiny of a people is decided by that people and the support it gets from the rest of the world, And we did get overwhelming support today. 181. Our Deonle is also determined to continue and to escalate-its-struggle, including its struggle in this chamber, in all the organs and agencies of the United Nations and in all other international forums, be it the non-aligned movement, the Organiztition of the Islamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity-to which the PLO has been invited in the capacity of observer--or the League of Arab States. Our struggle also takes shape in other legitimate means against the forces of occupation and foreign domination. We shall maintain and escalate our struggle until we have attained and exercised our inalienable national rights in our own country, in. particular those. rights affirmed in General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX). That is our will and that is the will of the international community. 182. In its policy against the rights of the Palestinian people the United States Government has remained “Accordingly, the United States should announce its conviction that the only settlement which can be sustained is one which, respects the security and right to self-determination of both the Israelis and the Palestinians in their different parts of the old mandate territory. . . . This might not have immediate effect on Israeli policy, and Israel would no doubt do all it could through the United States Congress to change that policy, but a public United States posture in favour of such a settlement would exert powerful influence and would probably gain both domestic and international support. “There are obviously difficulties with such a policy. It will certainly be argued that it goes too far and that it puts pressure on Israel when it is Israel’s life, not that of the United States, which is at stake. It can also be argued that it does not go far enough: it would not pf itself put immediate pressure on Israel to change course, and might be constantly under fire. from Congress. . . . The United States, as the only Power with the capacity to give longterm solidarity to coexistence within the old Palestine between a Jewish and an Arab State, must not take the initiative for an international settlement. 6‘ . . . The Israelis fear that acceptance of a Palestinian State is tantamount to acquiescing in the potential destruction of Israel. But if Israel continues to ignore this problem or to insist that only it can choose the Palestinians with whom to negotiate, it will condemn itself to living perpetually at war and bring about the very danger that the refusal to speak to the PLO is designed to avoid.” Those are the words of Mr. Brzezinski. Yet when Mr. Brzezinski is in power, he seems to forget or not to know whether Gaza is Palestinian, Arab or what, and he says, “Bye, bye, PLO”. 183. I shall cite another example. We were told in the Council on 1 March that the United States recognized that there would be no comprehensive peace in the Middle East until the problem of Palestine in all its aspects had been solved. Today the United States has vetoed a constructive approach to bringing about a peaceful and global or comprehensive solution that would be conducive to peace. I do not want to question the credibility of the United States here, but these are just some comments that come to mind. 185. The Council went through a similar exercise that was aborted by the United States way back in January 1976. Mr. Khaddoumi was heading the delegation of the PLO then, and I should like to quote the following short paragraph from his statement: “Where do we go from here? As you are fully aware, the PLO is a liberation movement engaged in combating-militarily, politically, economically and culturally-the Zionist occupation of our homeland. We take pride in the fact that our just aspirations and our armed struggle brought so much international support and recognition for the national rights of the people of Palestine and for the PLO.” [1879rh meeting, para. 203.1 186. In its resolution 34165 A, the General Assembly had naturally anticipated this aborting of the Council’s action by the Government of the United States and its obstruction of the peace efforts, and had authorized and requested the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People “in the event of the Security Council failing to consider or to take a decision on those recommendations by 31 March 1980, to consider that situation and to make the suggestions it deems appropriate’*. So we have not reached a dead end. The Committee will, I am sure, take up this matter again to decide on the course to be followed. 187. Before I conclude, I should like to make a few remarks in reply to the statement of the representative of the United States. He said: “We recognize that the approach we have taken has generated disagreement among some in the Middle East” [para. 244 qbove]. In the Balfour Declaration there is a reference to the Jewish population and the non-Jewish population of Palestine, and the Jewish population was 8 per cent; the majority was referred to by the expression “nonminority”. Today the United States chose to use a different expression.-“some”. But the “some’” are the principal party to the conflict; they are the Palestinian people, and should not be referred to as “some”. They are the principal party to the issue. That is only an attempt at insulting the intelligence of the, people. 188. The United States representative also said: “No one has been able to come up with a workable alternative” [ibid.~. Is he not aware of the General Assembly resolutions in which the Secretary-General 189. We were then told that “the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza [will be permitted] to participate in the determination of their own future while preserving the security of all the parties*’ [para. 148 above]. That is something new-that a people should be permitted to participate with others in its selfdetermination. “Selfdetermination” is just that. We are not going to a party or to a football game. There is a national right called the right to selfdetermination. 190. He then told us to judge them on the results they obtain from Camp David. Of course, one of the results is that Sadat permitted his country to be used as a base for the C-130s that invaded Iran the other day. Is that what the Camp David or the framework accords are meant to do? ’ Oflciai Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 35. 2 A/34/542, annex, sect. I, para. 133. 192. For you, Mr. President, this has been a very long month. We are proud of your perseverance; we are proud of your endeavours and of your prudence. Our trust in you has proved legitimate. Even though the Council has been prevented from discharging its duty, I would say that it has done its best, but for the tyrannical vote of the United States.

There are no further speakers on my list. The Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda. The meeting rose at 8.10 p.m. NOTES HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United 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 D-E!3 NATIONS UNIES Ixs publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans Ies Iibrairies et les agencesd@sitaires du monde cntier. Informez-vous auprts de votre libraire ou adressez-vous & : Nations Unies, Section des venta. New York ou &r&e. KAK HOJlYIHTh HIAAHHSf OPrAHH3AqHH OWLEJJHHEHKhIX HAQHH H3nauwi Opraxn3aqm 06'be~KKeaKbxx RaqKR ~osctio uynwrb a KHHXUibIX stara- 3KKax A areKTcTBax so ecex paftoxax uspa. HaBonKre cnpaeKn 06 K3AaKnnX a natueu Kxnntno~ kfara3tixe Km nsitmrre no anpecy: Qprann3aqwt 06aeAKHeHKbrx HaqnR. CeKuHIl no nponaxe HaXaHHfi. HbiO-L?OpK AIlsi %eHeBa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciona de las Naciones Unidas estin en venta en l~brerfas y easas distniuidoras en todas parks del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas. Secci6n de Ventas. Nueva York o Ginebra. titho in United Nations. New York lxl400 83-61462-M@ust 198&2.425