S/PV.2241 Security Council

In accordance with the previous decisions [2233rd to 2236th and 2238th meetings], I invite the representatives of Israel and Pakistan to take a place at the Council table, I invite the representatives of Bahrain, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Yugoslavia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber and I invite the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Blum (Israel) and Mr. Naik (Pakistan) took plac*es at the Council table and Mr. AI-Saffar (Bahrain), Mr. Roa Kouri (Cuba), Mr. Elaraby (Egypt), Mr. Suwondo (Indonesia), Mr. AI-Ali (Iraq), Mr. Nuseibeh (Jordan), Mr. Bishara (Kuwait), Mr. Tue’ni (Lebanon), Mr. Halim (Malaysia), Mr. Kane (Mauritania), Mr. La- . raki (Morocco), Mr. Jamal (Qatar), Mr. Zowawi (Saudi Arabia), Mr. Djigo (Senegal), Mr. A. M. Adan (Sotnalia). Mr. Abdalla (Sudan), Mr. Mansouri (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Eralp (Turkey), Mr. Humaidan (United Arab Emirates), Mr. Alaini (Yemen), and Mr. Mu&inovie (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side qf the Council table. 2, The PRESIDENT: I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Algeria, Chad, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Mali, Oman, Uganda, the United Republic’of Cameroon and the Upper Volta, in tihich they request 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 those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the -provisional rules of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Bouzarbia (Algeria), Mr. Kesscly (Chad), Mr. AI-Hamzah (Democratic Yemen), Mr. Farah Dirir (Djibouti), Mr. Nguema-Mba (Gabon), Mr. KouyatP (Guinea), Mr. Fernandes (Guinea-Bissau), Mr. Shemirani (Iran), Mr. Elgariani (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya). Mr. Saleem (Maldives), Mr. Samake (Mali), Mr. Aboul-Nasr (Oman), Mr. Kilara (Ugnnda), Mr. Oyono (United Republic of C ameroon) and Mr. Ouedraogo (Upper Volta) took the places reservedfor them at the side qf the Council chamber.

Members of the Council have before them a draft resolution sponsored by Bahrain, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen [S/1403/]. I have been informed by the sponsors that the following countries have joined them as co-sponsors of the draft resolution: Algeria, Chad, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Mali, Oman, Uganda, United Republic of Cameroon and Upper Volta. 4. The first speaker is the representative of Egypt. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 6. It is the well-established policy of Egypt to reject every attempt and oppose every measure which purports to alter the juridical and political status of Jerusalem. In that connection, Egypt deeply regrets and objects to the timing and implications of the recently announced Israeli decision to transfer the Prime Minister’s office to Arab Jerusalem. It was, moreover, reported this morning on certain radio stations that the Israeli Parliament has decided to begin the first reading of the bill that would declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel. I have no information on that point from my Government, but to select the eve of the scheduled Security, Council meetings to announce that . provocative and illegal measure is ominous and cynical. If any. such measure is taken, it will definitely have the most serious consequences. 7. Over 30 States have submitted a draft resolution [S/14031]. Egypt has carefully studied the draft. We note with satisfaction and appreciation that its provisions emanate from two basic concepts to which we are deeply committed. First, the draft categorically reaffirms previous General Assembly and Security Council resolutions which declare all the Israeli measures invalid. Egypt has supported all these resolutions. Secondly, the draft reflects a fundamental legal norm: namely, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. The only logical corollary of this illegal norm is that territories occupied have to be vacated. Occupation and all its political and military ramifications have to be terminated. 8. It also follows that an occupying Power has to comply scrupulously with the relevant binding legal instruments that regulate and enumerate its obligations and responsibilities. It will be recalled that common article I of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions’ has clearly entrusted all States party to the Conventions with a specific responsibility “to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention[s] in all circumstances.” As the organ vested with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international, peace and security, the Security Council has to assume this joint responsibility on behalf of the international community. 9. Upon instructions from my Government, my delegation has co-sponsored the draft resolution. I should like, moreover, to inform the Council that a few days ago, during the Organization of African Unity meeting in Freetown, Sierra Leone, Egypt initiated and submitted a draft resolution calling for the condemnation of Israel’s policy on Jerusalem. This is yet another concrete expression of our rejection of 1 a policy that can only have detrimental effects. “The effort which is wasted on futile exercises should be directed towards imaginative ways and means for promoting peace. Reconciliation cannot be obtained through the expropriation of land and the implanting of hostile entities in the heart of other people’s land.” 1 1 . The adoption of the draft resolution would, in the view of my Government, undoubtedly be an added confirmation of the illegality of the Israeli policy and the Israeli designs on the Holy City. Egypt once more calls upon Israel to respect its international obligations and to carry out the injunctions of the Council.

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

Mr. President, the Algerian delegation would like to reiterate its satisfaction at seeing you conducting the proceedings of the Council, which is meeting today to debate the situation prevailing in the Middle East. As we have already said, the Algerian delegation remains confident in your judgement, because it is you who have the formidable responsibility and privilege of conducting our debates in the course of this particularly busy month. 14. The fact that the Security Council has met several times this month to deal with upur!keid and the racist regime of South Africa, which for no reason at all has been stepping up its acts of aggression against sovereign States; and the fact that the Council has again been meeting to seek a solution in response to a measure contemplated unilaterally in the Middle East by the Zionist Government, is symptomatic of an international situation which is becoming ever more alarming in the areas concerned, and ever more dangerous to international peace and security. 15. It is significant that this situation should have been created by two regimes similar in all respects. The arrogant and aggressive attitude of both is the result of an ideology they share, the many manifestations of which have so often been mentioned here and so often condemned. Their shared doctrine is racism; their common objective remains expansionism and annexation; their favourite instrument is the use of 16. The current meetings of the Council are being held at the request of the Islamic Conference, which has already unanimously condemned most vigorously the measure contemplated by the Zionist entity: that of annexing Jerusalem. 23. It is also within the framework of that imperialist strategy and in accordance with the Zionist diversionary tactic that we should place the Camp David accords, the purpose of which-now clearly established-was to eliminate the Palestinian problem in its entirety and, by neutralizing one battlefield country, to weaken the ranks of the Arabs in order to strengthen the military and economic potential of Israel. Because it is going against the tide of history, because it disregards the existence and the importance of peoples and because it covers up the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, that strategy, which belongs to another time, is doomed to failure however elaborate it may be. 17. The many delegations we have listened to attentively here have broadly echoed this indignation and, in so doing, have expressed the international community’s refusal to endorse a further step in Israel’s policy of escalation. This natural reaction of the community of nations is eloquent proof of the importance of that thrice Holy City. Indeed, Jerusalem has been the capital of Palestine, of which it has always constituted-historically and geographically-an essential and indissoluble part. Moreover, by its very essence, it has assumed a sacred character because of its role as a city of peace, solidarity and tolerance. 24. The Algerian delegation has had occasion during these debates on the problem of the Middle East to express its position clearly. It remains convinced that the only solution to this succession of crises must and does require the restoration to the Palestinian people of their full national rights. That people, whose dignity has been trampled underfoot and which has been denied its rights and physically abused, is entitled to expect the international community today to condemn unequivocally the Israeli policy of occupation and oppression. 18. The gravity of the problem of Jerusalem is sufficiently well known; the interest shown and the solidarity expressed by the international community in the face of the Zionist manoeuvre is the best evidence of this. That is why we shall not tax the patience of the Council by recalling well-known facts, which, in any case, have been dwelt upon at considerable length. 19: Actually, the subject of our meeting is one of the facets of the basic problem: the Palestinian problem in ‘its totality, which for 30 years has vainly been exercising international public opinion. 25. The situation thus created by the Zionist administration’s policy of escalation and of fld mconlpli constitutes a constant threat to international peace and security. The responsibility of the Council in that respect makes it imperative that the Council should take all the necessary measures. 20. Therefore, we should not dissociate the case we are dealing with today from its natural framework, because, as is well known, the diversionary tactics habitually practised by Israel consist in fragmenting the problem in order to focus international attention on one or another specific effect of its annexationist policy, thus removing from the centre of attention in the debate the underlying reality of the Palestinian question.

The next speaker is the representative of Israel. I invite him to make his statement.

It must have become obvious by now that this debate is yet another link in the long chain of initiatives-or, more accurately, acts of political warfare--conducted through the Council against Israel, with increasing intensity since the beginning of this year. 21. In this regard, the occupation of territory, the institutionalized repression of the civilian population, the pursuit of a policy of settlement, the repeated acts of aggression against Arab States, as well as the measure now contemplated-all these are part of the same tactics and constitute, within the framework of a deliberate and calculated policy, stages in Israel’s determination to achieve the final objective of Zionism and its natural ally, imperialism. 28. I have already had the opportunity to comment on certain aspects of this debate and to respond to some of the speakers who have preceded me. 29. It would take a long time to respond to each and every allegation and distortion that has been advanced in the course of this debate. Whole structures of ostensibly legal arguments. based on dubious assertions were offered here, some of them the products of sheer fantasy. Let me give just one simple but typical illustration. One of the speakers stated that since 1967 approximately 30 per cent of Judea and Samaria had 22. In spite of the almost unanimous reprobation of the international community and in spite of the many condemnations, Israel continues to display the same arrogant attitude. That attitude of scorn and defiance 30. The fact is that the area of Jerusalem within its present city limits is not even 2 per cent of the territory of Judea and Samaria. It is about 108 square kilometres and therefore of almost exactly the same size as the combined areas of the Israeli and Jordanian municipal areas of Jerusalem until 1%7. 31. I already had occasion to caution the Council against permitting the injection into this debate of incitement and prejudice. Regrettably, precisely this has dominated our discussions. The Council has been subjected to a series of repetitive statements by speakers representing a certain group of States bent on advancing their own sectarian interests, with little or no regard for the rights and concerns of others,. or for the truth, or for the people of Jerusalem. Yet distortions and falsehoods, however often repeated here, remain distortions and falsehoods. An untruth remains an untruth, even if repeated ad infinitum. 32. Jerusalem contains Holy Places and shrines held sacred by three great religions. It is also a vibrant, living, growing city-the home of some 420,000 people whose well-being depends on the City’s -peace and progress. It is the heart and centre of a country, and the capita! of a nation. Jerusalem is a city which should be approached with veneration and respect,- with reverence and serenity. It should not be an object for political expediency or a pretext for incitement or agitation of any kind. 33. *The problems of the ‘Arab-Israel conflict are complex enough. For their solution they require a spirit of’ reconciliation and a willingness to reach mutual. accommodation. They require honest dialogue and genuine negotiation. This is particularly true with regard to.Jerusa!em. Jerusalem, with its Holy Places venerated by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is an especially emotive subject.,Consequent!y, it calls for particular care and sensitivity in keeping with the dignity and singular character of Jerusalem. 34. The initiators of this debate view it as another round: in their campaign against Israel. This is not the first ,time that the Arab-Israel conflict has been exploited here for a variety of dubious objectives totally extraneous to that conflict. Frequently debates of this kind are intended primarily to create for their sponsors a semblance of unity, a unity which is otherwise lacking. Exercises of this kind are thus calculated to cover up internal dissensions and rivalries within certain groupings of States. 35. While these are obviously the prime objectives of the sponsors of this debate, others have joined them in an attempt to divert attention away from such 36. The unique association of the Jewish people with the City of Jerusalem for over three millennia is an integral part of world history, inextricably entwined into the fabric of the cultural and spiritual heritage of mankind. Jerusalem has always been, as it is today, the capita! of the Jewish people. .And it has been the capital of the State of Israel since the restoration of our national independence more than three decades ago. : ‘( 37. Also, Jerusalem has always been a united city, except for the period between 1948 and 1967, when it was temporarily and artificially divided. While persecution and insecurity reduced the number of its Jewish residents periodically, Jews throughout the world have always clung to Jerusalem and have longed to return to : it. Since modem population statistics first became available in the early nineteenth century, those statistics have consistently shown the existence of an uninterrupted Jewish majority among the City’s residents. 38. Throughout the ages and up to the ,end of the British Mandate in 1948, Jerusalem had always been one united city. Until 1948, about two thirds of its population were Jews. The rest included Arabs as well as other non-Arab communities. Thus, in addition to its Jewish and Muslim quarters, the Walled City of Jerusalem-commonly known as the Old City-also. contained a Christian and an Armenian’ quarter, with their residents belonging to a great variety ‘of nationalities. _ I ,’ : . . . ‘_ 39. As a result, of Arab aggression in 1948, launched with the declared aim,of destroying the fledgling State - of Israel, the eastern part of Jerusalem was invaded ’ and occupied by Jord’arr and ‘Jerusalem became a divided city. From then on until 1967, Jordan persistently strove to change the physica! ‘character and demographic composition of that part, of the City. More particularly, every effort was made by Jordan to eliminate every trace of Jewish presence, as we!! as of the Jewish past of the City. That situation lasted, as I have just mentioned, for 19 years, until the City was united once again in 1967. 40. All those who are sincerely concerned for the well-being of Jerusalem cannot possibly wish to see a return to the situation which prevailed from 1948 to 1%7. 41. Our position on Jerusalem is a matter of public record. It has been stated in numerous debates held in this and other organs of the United .Nations since 1948. We have repeatedly stated that no discussion 46. In this regard, it is relevant to recall again that’ for ‘19 years between 1948 and 1967 Jordan barred the Muslim citizens of Israel from visiting and praying in mosques in the Old City of Jerusalem. They gained access to them only in 1967 when the City was reunited. 42. After the six-day war of 1967, our. position was presented by the then Foreign Minister of Israel, Mr. Abba Eban, at the 1529th and 1541st meetings of the General Assembly.* A detailed account of the administrative and municipal measures taken, on 27 June 1967 by the Government of Israel with regard to the reunified City of Jerusalem was set outin Mr, Eban’s letterof 10 July, appended to the Secretary- General’s report of the same date [S/80523. 47. During the 19 years of Jordanian occupation of the eastern part of Jerusalem, there had been no legislation to protect the Holy’Places in Jerusalem. Instead, Jordan systematicallyrazed the Jewish Quarter within. the Walled City of Jerusalem. Fifty-eight synagogues and houses of worship were destroyed. The ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated. Jewish religious, cultural and historical treasures ,in the Holy City .were defiled. 43. Israel’s position was reaffirmed in a letter of 17 September t978 from the Prime Minister of Israel to the President of the United States. That letter was annexed to the Camp David Accords of the same date, and it reads as follows: 48. Since 1967, Jerusalem has once again become a city open and accessible to all..Sacred buildings have been rebuilt, places of worship rededicated. Millions of Mulim and Christian tourists and pilgrims, in addition to Jewish visitors, have visited Jerusalem since 1967 and have prayed and worshipped freely at its mosques and churches. These tourists and pilgrims include hundreds of thousands of citizens of hostile Arab States; they too have been afforded freedom of access to, and worship at, their respective Holy Places. A!! these visitors can attest to the complete freedom of access to, and worship at, al! the Holy Places to the adherents of al! faiths, unprecedented in the history of the City. “I have the honour to inform you that on 27 June 1967-Israel’s Parliament (the Knesset) promulgated and adopted a law to the effect: ‘the Govern- ‘ment is .empowered by a decree to apply the law, the jurisdiction and administration of the State to any part of Eretz Israel (land of Israel-Palestine), as stated in that decree’. ,. ,I:‘“On the b&is of this law, the Government of Israel decreed in July 1967 that Jerusalem is. one .eity, indivisible, the capital of the State of Israel.” 44. ,_ There.is thus no substance to the allegation that, Israel is in the,process of altering the existing situation in%Jerusa!em. It is erroneous to suggest that the Government of Israel proposes to alter the status of Jerusalem, which is the capita! of Israel. f 6 :’ 45; We are a!! aware that religious and historical sites’ in Jerusalem are precious to Christians and Muslims as‘we!! as to Jews. Israel is deeply mindful of the spiritual treasures and universal interests in Jerusalem. This is expressed in Israel’s policy with regard to~Jerusa!em’s Holy Places, as reflected in the Pro-. tection of Holy Places Law of 27 June 1967. Under this law, unrestricted access to all the Holy Places is giraranteed to members of a!! faiths. Article 1 provides that: 49. The measures taken by the Government of Israel to secure the protection of the Holy. Places are only one part of its effort to ensure respect for universal interests in. Jerusalem. Israel has abundantly dis: played its will and capacity to secure these universal interests. It has ensured that the Holy Places of the three great monotheistic ,faiths -are administered by the ,respective religious authorities which hold them ,I sacred, so that, for the first time in the City’s history,,.. the universal character of the -Holy Places has found effective expression. 2” i 50. I have already pointed to the purpose of this debate. Let me add one more word. There is a danger that this debate might be exploited to play upon religious sentiments and to fan the flames of incitement, both religious and political. Surely, al! the members of the Council must agree that the injection of fanaticism, incitement and hatred into the proceedings of the Council is highly undesirable. “The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything ‘;:like!y to violate the freedom of access of the mem- ,;bers of the different religions to the places sacred ” to them or their feelings with regard to those places.” Article 2 goes on to say that: * I~; “(0) Whosoever desecrates or otherwise violates ..,~a Holy Place shall be liable to imprisonment for 5 1. Experience has shown that questions of this kind require a balanced approach. This cannot be achieved and maintained in the contentious atmosphere prevailing here in the deliberations on any aspect of the i3 term of seven years. 52. Israel for its part will continue to work for the peace and well-being of Jerusalem and its people, as well as for the preservation of the special place which Jerusalem holds in the hearts of people of diverse faiths around the globe. -. 53. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is therepresentative of Jordan. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 54. Mr. NUSEIBEH (Jordan): The representative of Israel has made several references to what he called his country. How can it be that a man who only in the 1930s came from Czechoslovakia-a country for which I have the deepest and greatest respect--claims Jerusalem as his country? Secondly, when I mentioned a year or two ago that the Israelis had confiscated almost 30 per cent of the occupied territory, I made it categorically clear that that was the area colonized in the West Bank, including Jerusalem. I itemized the areas in which all that colonization was carried out which ate up the heartland of the West Bank. The Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979) endorsed my facts and figures, and the Council itself also endorsed them. 55. My reference to Jerusalem was that it had been expanded many times so that it now extends from the doorstep of Ramallah in the north to the doorstep of Bethlehem in the south, let alone to the east, at Khan Al-Ahmar, and to the entire hilly region in the west. 56. I have on many occasions already replied to Israeli policies and deeds which have led to the dismemberment of Jerusalem. I do not intend at this point to repeat myself again. Let me come now to Israel’s claim that Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel. 57. We are now bringing a week’s debate on the destiny of Holy Jerusalem-Al-Quds Al-Shari&to a close and therefore it is essential to highlight a few established facts. 58. First, and within the historical dimension upon which the Zionists lean so heavily and with such dis- 59. Furthermore, scholars are almost unanimous in their conviction that the Canaanites and .their kinsmen, the Phoenicians-they were linked with each other-were the first Arabs to invent the alphabet and to pass it on between 850 B.C. and 750 B.C. to the Greeks, the Latins and beyond. Subsequently, the Aramean Arabs spread it throughout natural Syria, the Near East, and it is known by its Arabic origin Alef Baa’-the alphabet. 60. It is deplorable that there is a deliberate historical distortion regarding the forefather of all the prophets -1brahim Al-Khalil-Abraham. Scholars are agreed that his era dates back to 1,900 years B.C. It was a purely Arab era in language, nationality and religion, and it is divided from the age of the prophet Moses, who came to Palestine subseque.nt to Abraham from Egypt, by 700 years. Abraham was, of course, a Semitic Aramean Arab leader whose original roots were in the Arabian peninsula before he migrated and settled in Iraq. This explains why he is venerated as the founder on the Ka’ba, God’s oldest house of worship in Mecca. He preached the worship of La Illaha Ila Allah, the universal God whose message encompasses the whole of mankind. The prophet Moses felt his origins in Egypt and moved into the land of Canaan 13 centuries B.C. His followers deviated from his teachings and followed their own exclusive God, Yahweh; considering themselves to be the chosen people. 61. Throughout the entire period, including the 72-year-old Israeli hegemony over the West Bank,, which is adrop in the bucket compared with 5,000 years of uninterrupted Canaanite habitation, the Canaanites were the overwhelming majority in Jerusalem and the 62. I would not wish to delve into historical details any further, out of respect for the Council’s precious time. But in view of the falsifications and slanders which the ancient Hebrews heaped mercilessly upon, in particular, the indigenous ancient Palestinians, much as the Israelis are now heaping them on the present-day Palestinians through the mass media, it would be an immeasurable contribution to truth and to the history of the evolution of modem civilization if the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization were to form a team of highlevel scholars without any preconceived ideas, prejudices or misguided emotions to study the history of Palestine analytically, objectively and archaeologically as part of the great Syriac civilization and within an integrated and unified theory of the Near Eastern civilization. Representatives of all faiths, including those who do not subscribe to monotheism, should and could participate in such a study. The only criterion should be integrity and the pursuit of truth. Since the struggle over the fate of Jerusalem, because of Zionist intransigence and exclusivity, is going to be a prolonged one-the Israelis today announced that they were going to have their first reading of that notorious bill before the Knesset-the Council and the rest of the world are entitled to know the truth as it really is and not as the Zionists want them to know it. 63. If anyone thinks that this would be redundant and does not fall within the purview of the United Nations, let me declare my own deep conviction that perversions, misconceptions and outright falsifications have, directly and indirectly, contributed substantially to the downfall of the people of Jerusalem and of the rest of Palestine. 64. Secondly, there is universal agreement about the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force both in the Jerusalem of 1948 and the Jerusalem of after 1967. The applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949” is a sine qua non and has been repeatedly reiterated by the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as by all other relevant organs of the United Nations. And yet, and without prejudice to ail other measures vested in the Security Council by the Charter, it may be helpful if, at the request of the Council, the Secretary-General were to seek a definitive and judicious opinion from the International Court of Justice as to the legal imperatives which must govern the fate and future of Jerusalem in its entirety-barring, of course, the illegality of military conquest. 66. Fourthly, the Israeli representative has indulged in his usual distortions. I shall spare the Council’s precious time and not refute them now. I shall doaso in writing, addressing myself to the President and members of the Council, point for point and word for word. 67. May I, in conclusion, express my gratitude to the President of the Council, for having called upon me once more. I would express gratitude to all the Member States whose conscience, sense of justice and legality have not succumbed to mundane and ultimately unworthy expediency. I can only pray for the souls of those who have succumbed and who have deviated from the path of righteousness.

According to the very statements of the highest authorities of Israel, the Parliament of that country will soon have before it a bill that would annex the Arab part of Jerusalem and make the city the capital of the country. France cannot concur in such a plan, which would have serious consequences, and we hope that it will not be carried out. In fact, the plan goes beyond the measures to integrate the Arab part of Jerusalem in a unified administrative entity, which have already been condemned time and again; it aims at modifying the status of the city. 69. The Council has had this problem before it a number of times since 1967. In its resolutions 252 (1968) and 267 (1969), the Council censured in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem and in fact declared them invalid. Neither of those resolutions, and none of the many others, many of them adopted unanimously, have been implemented by the Member State to which they were addressed. It is, then, in defiance of the will of the international community that Israel has pursued its policy off& accompli. 70. The plans that have occasioned this meeting of the Council have understandably aroused strong feelings among most of those who belong to the three 71. For .that reason, -France feels that all legislative and other measures adopted by the Israeli authorities to integrate the part of Jerusalem that has been occupied since 1967 are, like the creation and extension of the settlements, contrary to the rules of international law under which the Administering Power must prey serve the demographic, economic and cultural character of the occupied areas. If has been quite properly recalled here, that, at its last meeting, in Venice, on 13 June; the European Council adopted the following position: . “The .Nine recognize the special importance of the role played by the question of Jerusalem for all .:the parties ,concemed. The Nine stress that they will not accept any unilateral initiative designed to change the status of Jerusalem and that any agree- ,.ment on the city’s status shpuld guarantee .free- “dom of access ,of everyone to the Holy Places.“. [S/14009, para.’ 8.) : 72. It is quite clear that this excerpt from the declaration’ of the heads of State and Government of the. countries’ ‘.inembers of the,, European Community cannot be dissociated from ‘their position on the entire question of the Middle,. East. If there is no global settlement in keeping with the principles and conditions proposed .at Venice, the problem of Jerusalem cannot be resolved unilaterally. .’ 73. I would solemnly warn the Government of Israel against the plans that have‘occasioned these meetings of the Council. I appeal to it not to commit irreparable acts that would only provoke violent reactions and compromise the chances of peace. The very name of Jerusalem commands that we seek peace along the path ofjustice within the community of the faithful. I _.

:.My. delegation has followed the course of this debate with the closest attention. I have been profoundly impressed by the quality of some of the statements we have heard. We -have listened to sombre words of warning all the more telling because ‘of the restrained and measured languagein which some speakers have uttered them. 73.~ This debate .has heavily underscored once again the universal importance of the question of the status of Jerusalem. We, the British, after many centuries of close involvement in the area now known as the Middle East, are of all people unlikely to forget how strong are the chords which Jerusalem strikes in the hearts and minds of men and women not only in the area but throughout the continents of the world. 77. We have consistently maintained our policy that no unilateral action should or can change the status of Jerusalem. No such action should be allowed to. prejudge the future of the City. That position was most recently reafXrmed in the declaration by. the nine heads of State and Government of the European Community at Venice on 13 June. What the Community said has been quoted by a number of. speakers in this debate, most recently by the last speaker, the representative of France. I will therefore not repeat it.. 78. My delegation deplores the changes which Israel has made to the physical and,demographic character of Jerusalem in the years since the June.. 1967 war. We. deplore Israel’s failure to heed earlier Council resolutions on this subject. In view of the special significance of the city to hundreds of millions of followers of the three great religions., we strongly urge Israel to eschew further such actions, which can only serve to stoke the tires of resentment, frustration and mistrust throughout the area and beyond, thus adding to the burdens of the already desperately difficult search,for a comprehensive settlement of the conflict in’the Middle East. a. 79. ‘By the same token, and turning to the draft resolution in front of us [S//4031], my delegation could have wished that some of the language in it had been. less abrasive. We understand the strong feelings. of ., the’ sponsors of the draft resolution, but ,we frankly,. doubt whether the use of such language ‘in ,reso!utions is likely to produce the effect desired by a!! of us. ”

The next speaker is Mr. Clo-’ vis M&soud;Permanent Observer for the League of’ Arab States to the United Nations, to whom the Courici! has extended an invitation under rule 39 of its pro-, visional rules of procedure at its 2233rd meeting. I invite him to take a place at the Council table-in order. to make his statement. .,‘.‘*, :_. -*: 81. Mr. MAKSOUD: During this debate we have been subjected by the representative of Israel to the< spectacle of a sort of semantic acrobatics, which was an attempt to defuse the impact of the universal con: demnation of Israel’s measures in the further annexa+, tion of the .Holy City of Jerusalem. In that regard, we are faced with what is perhaps a unique situation4 in which we find the Israeli representative seeking to: undermine the credibility of the sponsors of the draft resolution and the universality of attitude and perception held by the world community with respect to + Jerusalem. . I> I 82. To question even the attitude of the partners in’, the Camp David accords concerning Jerusalem-ini 83. In that regard, we find in the Egyptian interpretation of this debate and of its subject a definite refusal to accept a determination to dissociate itself from Israel’s definition of the term Jerusalem as it is described in the letter that was read out this morning by the Israeli representative. We are also sure that the United States does not subscribe precisely to the terms of reference found in that letter. Therefore, in addition to the ,universal condemnation of the inter-’ national community, even the partners in the Camp David accords do not subscribe to Israel’s determination on the status of Jerusalem. : ,, 84. Hence, we find this is an attempt to impose on the’ international community, in an ex cafhedra man- ’ ner, not only a unilateral definition by Israel of the status of ,Jeiusalem as the capital of Israel but ‘the idea that Israel is within its. rights in ‘changing ‘the status of Jerusalem an in deciding whatever it wishes to do inside Jerusalem, irrespective of the consequences for .the, region or of the question of peace in the region. 88. It is this ex cuthe&~ approach on the part of Israel that shows the degree to which the Zionist State of Israel seeks not only to arrogate to itself the rightto sanctify its measures merely on the grouncls that’ they have been taken, but to impose the idea that any measures taken by Israel must be approved by its partners. This is therefore the time for the partners of Israel in the Camp David accords to.put an end to the equivocation that has ‘characterized their approach and attitude to the question of Jerusalem and to the question of the Palestinians. : ’ IS ,. I.; 89. The PRESIDENT: The ‘representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization has asked to make a statement in reply. I call on him.

At the outset, I should like to shed some. light. on the credibility of the Zionist ent’ity. ” 91. Way back in July 1948, the then.Prime Minister,. Mr. Sharrett, made. the followi,ng statement: ,. j . ,. “Morally, we do not regard ourselves as bound by our agreement to the November 29 decision concerning Jerusalem, even though we do. not consider the time has come for us to make any clear decisions concerning our new position.*’ .I ‘,’ / . .., ..: . . 92. I ,think this set the pattern for thecredibility of the policy and the statements made by the representai tives of Tel Aviv. However, the time has come to recall some biblical statements. . . . ; , , . 85. ’ What is it that enables the Israeli representative, aside from uttering a repetition of insults to this body and attributing’ motives to the sponsors of the draft resolution that are extraneous to this debate-what is it that enables him alone, unilaterally, without inhibition, to state ex cufhedru that Jerusalem is not only, the capital of Israel but the capital of the socalled Jewish people? 861’ We are thus faced with a situation whereby Israel wants to present the Council and the world community with fairs uccomplis, finally established facts that render any minor compliance of Israel with the international consensus a major sacrifice on its part. That is what I meant by semantic acrobatics. I am thinking of Micah, when hesays: : ’ ; ( ‘, : c’ ! “Hear this, 1 . . ye heads of the tiouseeof’J&b and princes of the house of 1srael;that abhor$tdge-’ ment and pervertall equity. 1 i’ “They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquiiy.4 _’ 87. Jerusalem is a Holy City for three principal religions of the world-Judaism, Christianity and Islam, But as the representative of the United Kingdom just said, Jerusalem is an occupied city: East Jerusalem has been occupied since the 1967 war., Therefore its annexation is illegal. The attempt on the part of Israel unilaterally to determine the fate of Jerusalem, which is an Arab city, is an attempt to pre-empt the role of the Council, which is responsible for deciding what measures shall be taken and what measures may be considered relevant or credible. Israel feels that it has the power to paralyse the will of the international “Woe to them that devise iniquity . . . . “They covet fields and .take them by violence; and houses and take them away: 93. We have listened to the representative of Tel Aviv and heard him say: *‘Jerusalem is a city which should be approached with veneration and respect, with reverence and serenity” Iparu. 32 above]. Since when do the Zionists consider Jerusalem with serenity and reverence? Those who dropped bombs on Jerusalem in 1947 and 1948, those who planted mines and explosives in the streets of the Old City of Jerusalem have no reverence for Jerusalem. They are murderers. Those who blew up the civilian secretariat of the Mandate’s administration, killing more than 100 civilians, are criminals and they have no reverence for the City. 94. I quote again: “[there is] an attempt to divert attention away from such uncomfortable topics as Afghanistan” Iparu. 35 above]. The Security Council has been considering the acts of aggression, the atrocities committed by the Zionists for decades now, long before the question of Afghanistan came up. But of course, the United States and its lackey, the State of Israel, are happy with the obsession with Afghanistan because this obsession enables the United States to avoid taking any action to stop its agent in the Middle East from committing those crimes and atrocities against the people of the Middle East. If anybody is making any use of the problem of Afghanistan, it is the United States and Israel. 95. Now I quote again: “Since modem population statistics first became available in the early nineteenth century, those statistics have consistently shown the existence of an uninterrupted Jewish majority among the City’s residents”. Ipara. 37 above.] But what does this mean? Let us have a look at the statistics as of 31 December 1946 concerning the population in Palestine. There were 1,845,560 Palestinians, of whom there were 608,230 of the Jewish faith. So if statistics mean anything and the rights of the majority of inhabitants mean anything, then one would say that Palestine does not in any way belong to those of the Jewish faith. But let us examine the question of Jerusalem. In the district of Jerusalem there were 395,320 Palestinians of whom 102,820 were of Jewish faith. But if one has to confine oneself to a small area and say that in that area there are a certain number of members of a certain faith and so claim title to that area, then I really do not know what the criterion should be. This is another distortion of fact; or one could say that they are really misconstruing it in a fallacious way. 97. But it so happens that the racists. who still think in militarist terms; and who try to impose their diktat on the international community, come here and make a statement and expect the rest of the world to accept it. But then the rest of the world does not accept their diktat. Then, some reference is made to the Camp David accords. Now, what is this? The Camp David framework was rejected in the General Assembly and was considered invalid. Anything based on an approach which is not valid has no validity whatsoever. Notwithstanding what may have been agreed as far as the future of the Palestinian people is concerned, the General Assembly and the Palestinian people have said that the Camp ,David accords have no validity whatsoever. 98. Reference was also made to an Israeli law, article 1 of which provides that the Holy Places shall be protected. But this is a departure from the Zionist doctrine that considers the beautiful dreamer of Nazareth as a man who came to sow the seeds of hatred. Do you really think any Christian would believe that those Zionists who consider Christ as a breeder of hate would consider the Christian shrine as something sacred and holy? 99. It was also stated that: “since 1967, Jerusalem has once again become a city open and accessible to all” Iparu. 48 above]. The question, however, is not one of accessibility. The question is one of the fate of the worshippers and of the believers there. What do you do with the believers in the City? 100. Now, L’Osservutore Romuno of today’s date has a beautiful article, from which I quote: “No less than the monuments and Holy Places, the situation of these communities cannot fail to be a matter of concern for all.” And L’Osservatore Roman0 is referring to the religious communities of Jerusalem and the international community, so it is not only the question of the buildings. T.he buildings mean nothing if they do not have worshippers. They could be museums. As a matter of fact, His Holiness the Pope had mentioned that he was really concerned lest the places of worship in Jerusalem should eventually become museums for lack of worshippers. This is what we are interested in. We are interested in the fate of people -the human element-not just in the buildings. 101. The Council has on several occasions affirmed that all the actions taken by the occupying Power to change the characteristics of the City were invalid. The Council is called upon to take adequate measures The meeting rose at 12.45 pm. ’ United Nations, Trcwy Suk~, vol. 75. ’ See Offlciui Records of the Gcncwd Assembly. Fifth Emcvgcwcy Spwkl S~~ssicm. Plenmy Mwtings. 3 United Nations, Trwty S&cs, vol. 75. No. 973. p, 287. I 4 Micah 3: 9-10. S Micah 2: 1-3. . . ‘_. ~~41 ,,aYl a\~+ & J,,.d i.$ b,+s,$li;uI~~+l .rlWl.\r;~~~~~~~~r~~s~zYl~ls~~J~;k, . d& j d dJx~+ $ &t + ;*iJ1 r.y’ : J” *;rl ,\ tllfm4~~~I8~&lk at~~Hl~ft~B~dR~;~IOIR#L illh+iB~B1B~iQfl!~~~~R~~~~~H~~~ 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 LE!5 PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Lcs publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans la librairies et les agences d&sitaires du monde entier. Informezvous aupr&s de votre Libraire ou adressez-vous B : Nations Unies, Section des vmtes. New York ou GentvC. KAIC IIOJIY’IHTh H3AAHHl’I OPI’AHH3AI&WH OWhE~HHEHHhIX HAII[UR H3naHHn Opraxmaum4 06ae~xHem4bIx Haus@ YO)I(RO nynmrb 8 KHHKCHBIX Mara- 3sixax u arenTcTBax ~0 8cex paRoxax rnpa. HaBOAHTe cnpasrta 06 u3ztaHnRx n BarneM Km%Kom Yaramae Km nKtnKIe no anpecy : OpraHHJauHR 06%enUHeHAbIX HauH% CeKUHI! no npo~amce HaXaHHR, HbKdfOpK Km )KeHeEa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publieaciones de las Naciones Unidas est&n en venta en librerlas y casas diribuidoras en todas pattes de1 mundo. Consulte a w brero o dirljase a: Nadones Unidas. Secci6n de Vmtas. Nueva York o Ginebra. VC.- . Lhho in United Nations, New York 003txI 83-61462-October 1987-2.050