S/PV.2245 Security Council

It is my privilege and very pleasant duty to pay a tribute, on behalf of all the members of the Council, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, General Carlos Romulo, for his services as President of the Council for the month of July. Ever since he led his country’s delegation to the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco in 1945, General Romulo has been a dedicated advocate of the Organization and has placed his enthusiasm and diplomatic skill at its disposal over the years, as President of the General Assembly at its fourth session, in 1949, and as President of the Security Council in January and December 1957. It was indeed gratifying for all of us to have this esteemed and distinguished world statesman bring his wisdom and long experience once again to the service of the Council. We enjoyed our informal contacts with him, appreciated his willingness to share his recollections of earlier years in the Organization, and were gratified that under his distinguished leadership the Council was able to recommend to the General Assembly the admission of Zimbabwe to membership of the United Nations, thus bringing to a close one of the long-standing and intractable issues that had preoccupied this and other organs for many years. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Nuik (Pakistan) and Mr. Blum (lsruel) took places at the Council table and Mr. Ourabah (Algeria), Mr. Al- Safiar (Bahrain), Mr. Kessely (Chad), Mr. Ashtal (Democratic Yemen), Mr. Furah Dirir (Djibouti), Mr. Abdei Meguid (Egypt), Mr. Blain (Gambiu). Mr. Fofana (Guinea), Mr. Cubral (Guinea-Bissau), Mr. Suryokusumo (Indonesiu), Mr. Motahari (Iran), Mr. Al-Ali (fray), Mr. Nuseibeh (Jordan), Mr. Bishara (Kuwait), Mr. TuPni (Lebanon), Mr. Burwin (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr. Halim (Malaysia), Mr. Zaki (Mald/ves), Mr. Samass4kou (Mali), Mr. Taya (Mauritania), Mr. Lahluu (Morocco), Mr. Al-Said (Oman), Mr. Jamal (Qatar), Mr. Zuwawi (Saudi Arabia), Mr. Kane (Senegal), Mr. Adan (Somalia), Mr. Abdalla (Sudan), Mr. Mansouri (Syrian Arab Republic),- Mr. Kirca (Turkey), Mr. Al-Tajir (United Arab Emirates), Mr. OuPdraugo (Upper Volta) and Mr. Alaini (Yemen) took the places reserved fur them at the side of the Council chamber. ” 2. I am sure that our good friend Ambassador Yango will convey to General Romulo our feelings of deep appreciation and our very best’ wishes for his continued good health and fruitful work. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 1 August 1980 from the Acting Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/14084)

I should like to inform the members of the Council that I have received letters from . the representatiires of Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia; Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the Upper Volta and Yemen, in which 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 conformity tiith the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. “I have the honour to request that the Security Council extend an invitation to the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the Council’s consideration of the item entitled ‘The situation in the Middle East’, in accordance with the Council’s usual practice.** 5. The proposal by the representative of Tunisia is not made pursuant to rule 37 or rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure, but, if approved by the ‘Council, the invitation to participate in the debate would confer on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) the same rights of participation as those conferred on a Member State when it was invited to participate under rule 37. 6. Does any member of the Council wish to speak on the proposal by the representative of Tunisia? 7. Mr. vanden HEUVEL (United States of America): The United States delegation has repeatedly made clear its view that it is inappropriate for the Security Council to invite the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the debate in terms that some seek to interpret as conferring the same tights of participation as if it were a Member State. For that reason, we shall vote against the proposal.

If no other member of the Council wishes to speak at this stage I shall take it that the Council is ready to vote on the proposal by Tunisia. A vote wws tukn by shos of hum/s. In fuvour: Bangladesh, China, German Democratic Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, Niger, Philippines, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Zambia Aguinst: United States of America Abstuininng: France, Norway, Portugal. United -Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland At the invitution qf the President, Mr. Tcrzi (Pulcwinc Libcruticm Orgunizution) took u pluw ut the Council table. ‘9. The PRESIDENT: The Council is meeting today in response to the letter dated I August from the representative of Pakistan to the President of the Security Council (S/14084). 10. 1 should like to draw the attention of the members of the Council, to the following documents: S/14090, Il. The first speaker is the representative of Pakistan, the current Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. I call upon him.

Mr. President, on behalf of the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, I wish to extend our warm felicitations to you on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of August. It is a special pleasure for me personally to address the Council under your presidency because of your long association with my own country. We deeply admire your outstanding qualities as a diplomat and the dedication with which you have sewed the cause of promoting relations between our two countries. We have full trust in your wisdom and skill, which will surely guide the important work of the Council during this month. 13. I also avail myself of this opportunity to pay our tribute to your predecessor, a founding father of the United Nations, General Romulo, the Foreign Minister of the Philippin.es, whose presence in person at the head of the Council last month reminded us of the solemn commitment of all nations, embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, to uphold the cause of peace and justice in the world. 14. This is the ninth time since last March that the Council has met to consider the grave situation resulting from the Israeli policy of creeping annexation of occupied Palestine and systematic repression against its Palestinian inhabitants. As international pressure has increased on Israel to terminate its aggression and occupation of the Paiestinian and other Arabterritories, Israel has intensified its efforts to 15. Responding to the explosive situation created by these fanatical actions of Israel, the Council has adopted several resolutions condemning Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories. Those resolutions have declared that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including the Holy City of Jerusalem, have no legal validity. They constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949’ as well as a serious obstruction to the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. So far, Israel has contemptuously rejected the decisions of the Council and is ruthlessly pursuing its policies of aggression and expansionism. 16. The introduction of a bill in the Knesset last May declaring the Holy City of Jerusalem Israel’s “permanent capital” stirred the deepest emotions and indignation throughout the Islamic world. Accordingly, the Eleventh Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, held last May at Islamabad, called for the convening of an urgent meeting of the Council to consider the dangerous situation arising from this Israeli move to consolidate its illegal annexation of the Holy City of Jerusalem. 17. At the request of Pakistan, made on behalf of the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Council met from 24 to 30 June and, at its concluding session of 30 June, adopted resolution 476 (1980) by 14 votes to none, with the United States abstaining. 18. In that resolution, the Council once again strongly deplored the continued refusal of Israel to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Council and of the General Assembly. It reconfirmed that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by the occupying Power which purport to alter the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded. The Council further urgently called upon Israel “to desist forthwith from persisting. in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”. It also reaffirmed the overriding necessity of ending the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including the Holy City of Jerusalem, its determination, in the event of non- 19. Resolution 476 (1980) had clearly warned Israel that its actions were illegal and that it must desist forthwith from carrying out its policy of the annexation of Al-Quds Al-Sharif and the mutilation of the unique, historical and spiritual personality of the Holy .’ City. That resolution was, however, instantly denounced by the Israeli authorities, who once again demonstrated their characteristic intransigence and utter disregard for the sentiments and the will of the international community and the voices of peace and justice. Indeed, in a calculated act of defiance of the call of the Council, Israel went ahead and, wittlin one month of the adoption of the resolution, enacted as a so-called basic law the bill proclaiming the Holy City of Jerusalem the “capital of Israel*‘. 20. The adoption of that so-called basic law by the Israeli Parliament is a grave affront to international morality and the universally recognized norms of international behaviour. It is a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention’ and several resolutions of the United Nations which call for the preservation of the specific status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, the latest being resolution 476 (1980), of last June, to which I have already referred. 21. This outrageous and provocative Israeli action’ has evoked world-wide reaction and strong condemnation by the international community. Even the United States, which abstained in the voting on resolution 476 (1980), has recognized the inadmissibility of the Israeli law and described it as unilateral action aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem. The Israeli proclamation also flies in the face of the clear position of the Western countries on the status of the Holy City, only recently enunciated in the Venice declaration, to the effect that they would not “accept any unilateral initiative designed to change the status of Jerusalem” [S/14009 of 20 June 1980, para. 81. 22. The objective of the present meeting is not to convey expressions of concern and indignation over Israel’s illegal action; nor are we here to debate the specific character and status of ‘the Holy City of Jerusalem. The irrefutable historical facts regarding the character and status of the Holy City are evident. They have been recapitulated in the Council on several occasions. The deep concern of the international community, particularly that of the Islamic world, over the Israeli moves to annex and Judaize the Holy City, and the implications of such moves for intemational peace and security, have also been fully highlighted in the past-particularly at the June meetings of the Council and during the seventh special emergency session of the General Assembly convened last month. The specific purpose of today’s meeting is to remind the Council of its obligation in terms of its 23. The Council is, therefore, solemnly bound to act-and act firmly-in order to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980). Enactment of the basic law by Israel which declared the Holy City its capital made it imperative for the Council to meet urgently in order to respond to the challenge posed by this latest Israeli act of aggression in total defiance of the Council’s verdict. In requesting this meeting, the member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have only reminded the Council of this paramount responsibility. 24. The Council must fully address itself to Israeli defiance and intransigence and carry out its obligation to protect the unique religious significance, the historical character and the specific status of the Holy City of Jerusalem. The Holy City cannot be allowed to become the spoils of war or a victim of Zionist aggression. On behalf of the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, let me reaffirm in clear terms that the status of the Holy City is not negotiable. We categorically reject any assertion that the status of the Holy City is yet to be settled. The Holy City is under occupation, which is inadmissible under international law and that occupation must be terminated. Al-Quds Al-Sharif must be returned to Arab sovereignty. 25. The Council must take effective measures, in terms of its own decision and the Charter, in order to secure full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980). It must exercise its authority and power to demonstrate that it cannot tolerate violation of its verdict. Complacency in this regard will amount to a betrayal of the purposes and principles of the Charter. 26. The Council must strongly condemn Israel for its refusal to comply with the Council’s resolutions, especially with its resolution 476 (1980). The Council should reconfirm that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character of the Holy City of Jerusalem -in particular the recent “basic law” declaring the Holy City Israel’s capital-are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith. The Council must call upon all States to refuse to accord any recognition to the “basic law” and not to deal with any Israeli institutions or authorities established in the Holy City. It should also call upon those States which have established diplomatic representation in Jerusalem to withdraw such representations from the Holy City. 27. The practical ways and means prescribed by the Charter to deal with non-compliance with the decisions 28. The Islamic nations cannot ask for less. The cynicism with which Israel has carried out its expansionist policy in Palestine and strengthened its stranglehold over Al-Quds Al-Sharif, in contemptuous defiance of the Security Council, compels us to demand that the firmest measures be taken under the Charter. We make this call because of our respect for the rule of law in international relations, our commitment to the Charter, our concern for a just and lasting peace and our deep reverence for Al-Quds Al-Sharif. 29. The time has come when condemnation and censure alone will not induce Israel to desist from its present aggression and expansionism. Strict imposition of the sanctions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter., including interruption of economic and military relations with Israel, is imperative to impress upon Israel the overriding necessity of bringing to an end its prolonged occupation of the Palestinian and Arab territories, including the Holy City of Jerusalem. 30. The Council’s failure to act firmly has encouraged Israel to persist in its illegal actions with impunity. It is now contemplating definitive annexation of other parts of the occupied Arab territories as it did with the Holy City ofJerusalem. According to the latest reports, fanatics in the Israeli Parliament have started clamouring for the annexation of the Golan Heights, 31. Emboldened in its expansionist designs, Israel has been carrying out relentless aggression against Palestinians in southern Lebanon, violating the territorial integrity of Lebanon at will and in blatant defiance of all considerations of international law and morality. The brutal Israeli assaults against Palestinians in southern Lebanon, the latest of which came only yesterday, are being carried out as a deliberate and systematic policy of the Israeli Government. These criminal acts of aggression deserve the strongest condemnation by the international community. 32. It is time clearly to foresee the dangers inherent , in Israel’s persistent aggression and its defiance of ; international law and covenants. Israeli actions are ’ destroying the last hope for a just and peaceful settle- “all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council’*. The General Assembly, meeting in emergency special session one month later, adopted resolution ES-7/2, in which it demanded “that Israel should fully comply with all United Nations resolutions relevant to the historic character of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular Security Council resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980”. 33. Firm and decisive action by the Council would bring home to Israel the fact that it can no longer flout the verdict of the international community or present the world with another&it accompli, and that it must respect the decisions of the United Nations, to which it owes its very existence. The imposition of sanctions would serve as a timely warning to Israel against its policies of aggression and occupation. Finally, such an action by the Council would also reinforce the faith of the international community in the effectiveness and ability of the United Nations with regard to the maintenance and strengthening of international peace and security. 38. The decision of the Israeli authorities to sanction by a basic law the annexation, pure and simple, of Jerusalem confronts the Council with a situation which it had duly foreseen and with regard to which it had clearly asserted its determination to ensure full implementation of its previous decisions, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter. 39. The member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference had also foreseen this situation. They have therefore stood firm, since the Council had in its turn echoed their legitimate concern, in their joint decision to invite the Council to take note of the refusal of Israel to abide by international legality, to condemn it and to invite the Member States of the United Nations to apply against it the measures stip ulated in the Charter.

Mr. President, I should first of all like to welcome your assumption of the presidency of the Council, to convey to you our congratulations, and to reiterate how much we admire the courage and impartiality demonstrated by your delegation in the implementation of the Council resolutions concerning the Middle East. You have consistently been Portugal’s spokesman in the important and frequent debates on matters of concern to us as an African, Arab and Islamic country, and you have demonstrated on every occasion your devotion to the progress of our deliberations and to the success of our debates. I must also pay a tribute to your dedication and to your ability to impart to the office of the presidency a sense of lofty responsibility and a desire for effectiveness. 40. Indeed, we consider that no one can with impunity shirk his essential obligations regarding international peace and security. The deliberate and overt violation of international law and of the fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 by Israel cannot be cloaked with the slightest appearance of legality, and we have not heard anywhere, not in the camp of its very few allies and certainly not in the camp of its victims, the slightest justification for this uncommonly clear-cut act of violation. We similarly consider that the Council cannot shrink before this fundamental act of responsibility with regard to a matter which falls fully within its competence and which, except in the case of the Israeli authorities, elicits only the general repudiation of offtcials throughout the world. 35. Similarly, I should like to pay a tribute to your predecessor, General Carlos Romulo, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, for the ease and the great experience with which he guided the proceedings of the Council last month. 36. Through its Chairman, Mr. Agha Shahi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, the Organization of the Islamic Conference had placed the question of Jerusalem before the Council as early as last May. From 24 to 30 June, the Council devoted to that question a wide-ranging and responsible debate. It sealed its deliberations with the adoption of a resolution which binds the Council and which binds all Member States. We therefore consider that there is no need to renew the debate: we must merely draw the proper lesson from it and live up to our obligation to fulfil our own commitments. 41. We are well aware of the extreme seriousness of the situation in Jerusalem. As a result, our debate is characterized by the far-reaching nature of the decisions that we are called upon to adopt, by its audience, and by the great hope that the Islamic community throughout the world-if indeed not all believersplaces in it. We are particularly alive to the collective determination of the Council firmly to rebuff any hegemony designed to change, either today or tomor- 42. Forty years ago, when Europe, brutally buffeted by an act of unjustified annexation, finally yielded to intimidation, candidly believing that it was safeguarding peace, it was doing nothing other than paving the way to its own misfortune and to what soon would be the collapse of world order. 43. In these extreme situations, a clear and firm response is the only healthy attitude; and so, our perspicacity, as well as our understanding of order and law, are being put to the test. 44. That is why we considered ourselves in duty bound to put before the Council the draft resolution contained in document S/14106, in the hope of making known our profound concern, our determination and our desire to reach firm and meaningful decisions. However, in order to ensure the widest possible support for that text, the sponsors will not press for an immediate vote on it.

The next speaker is the representative of Israel. on whom I now call.

Mr. President, at the outset, let me present my compliments to you on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of August. We well recall the exemplary skill, wisdom and propriety with which you conducted the business of the Council in May of last year. It gives us special pleasure to see you, the representative of a country with which mine has the most cordial of relations, in the presidency for a second time in the course of Portugal’s membership in the Council, and we know that you will exihibit once again the outstanding qualities which have gained you the esteem of us all. 47. I should also like to take this opportunity of paying my respects to last month’s President of the Council, General Romulo, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, one of the founding fathers of the Organization, who has contributed so much over the years to the work of the United Nations. 48. All of us know that the whole United Nations system has been mobilized in an unremitting war against my country, particularly since the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Since the beginning of this year, the time and attention of the Council have been virtually monopolized by the Arab enemies of peace in the Middle East and their supporters beyond the region. 49. The fixation of Israel’s enemies about my country is clearly evidenced also in the fact that of the 60 meetings held by the Council since the beginning of this year, 34 have been devoted to one or another 50. Just three weeks ago, a bogus “emergency” special session of the General Assembly was concluded. And today this debate has been initiated by countries which, for the most part, have long associated themselves with the Arab war effort against Israel and which do not hesitate to fan the flames of political incitement and religious prejudice as part of their bellicose design. We have no illusions as to what their true objectives are in initiating the present debate, which fits into that broader design. 51. Israel’s position on Jerusalem was set out in great detail in my statement to the Council on 30 June [224isr meeting]. Nothing has happened since that date which has changed the status of Jerusalem, or Israel’s position thereon. Jerusalem has always been, as it is today, the capital 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. Over that period it has been, as it is today, the seat of the President of Israel, the Knesset, the Government and the Supreme Court. 52. The law adopted by the Knesset on 30 July. merely reaffirms that position. Beyond that, it also underlines once again Israel’s awareness of the signiticance of Jerusalem to Christians and Moslems, as well as to Jews. As early as 27 June 1967, immediately after the reunification of Jerusalem, the Knesset adopted the Law on the Protection of the Holy Places safeguarding those places and guaranteeing unrestricted access to them to members of all faiths. The law adopted last month assures yet again due consideration to the concerns of all religions in Jerusalem and to the sentiments of their adherents. I must reiterate “due consideration to the concerns of all” -1 repeat, “all”--“ religions in Jerusalem”. 53. This open and universalistic approach stands in stark contrast to the attempts by Arab and other States to blur not only the Jewish bond with the City but also the Christian connections with it. It. also. stands in stark contrast to the situation which prevailed under the Jordanian occupation of a part of the City, between 1948 and 1967. Thus, complete freedom of access to and worship at the shrines sacred to the adherents of all faiths has been guaranteed and maintained by Israel in a manner unprecedented in the history of the City. Regardless of the false and empty allegations made in the Council, the millions of Moslem. and 54. Much has been said in recent weeks about the Knesset law which merely reaffirms the situation that has prevailed in Jerusalem for a long time and which now serves as the ostensible pretext for this debate today and for the resolution which will be ritualistically adopted in its wake. At the same time, nothing has been said-or is likely to be said here-about the concerted attempts that have been made in recent years by our Arab enemies and by their supporters to abuse Jerusalem-and its sanctity-with a view to escalating tension in our region. These attempts, which have included undisguised threats against and coercion of a number of countries, have intensified since the signing of the Camp David accords, and in particular since the conclusion of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. Even the Security Council has been repeatedly seized upon and manipulated to this end. One of the blatant instances of this manipulation is the reprehensible resolution 465 (1980), which contributed significantly towards escalating tension in this matter-as was indeed its sponsors’ intention from the outset. 55. In this connection, one cannot lose sight of the declaration and decision by the Egyptian People’s Assembly of 1 April and of 1 July, respectively, which regrettably followed the pattern of Security Council resolutions aimed by their sponsors at undermining the peace process in the Middle East. 56. Anyone who disregards these grave developments does a great disservice both to the cause of truth and to the cause of peace in the Middle East. 57. Israel has repeatedly given expression to its awareness of the significance of Jerusalem to other religions and their sentiments. By the same token, equal awareness should be displayed by all of the incontrovertible and indisputable fact that, although throughout the centuries Jerusalem has known many rulers, it has been the capital city for only one people -that is, the Jewish people. No amount of gainsaying, distortion and biased and one-sided resolutions can alter that undeniable historical fact; nor can they alter another basic fact, namely, that ever since modem statistics became available some 150 years ago they have consistently shown the existence of an uninterrupted Jewish majority among the residents of Jerusalem. 58. Some clearly have a vested interest in ignoring these facts, because their ignoble and nefarious purpose has been and remains to whip up a religious frenzy in everything that surrounds Jerusalem. 59. Jerusalem should be approached, in every sense, with veneration and respect, with reverence and 60. Experience has shown that no balanced and fair approach can be expected in the contentious, acrimonious atmosphere characterizing all United Nations deliberations on any aspect of the Arab-Israel conflict. Today’s proceedings again bear out that regrettable fact. , 61. For its part, Israel will not allow Jerusalem to become another Berlin, with all that implies not only for the welfare of its citizens but also for intemational peace and security. Israel will continue to work for the peace and well-being of its capital, Jerusalem, and of all its residents, as well as for the preservation of the special place which Jerusalem holds in the hearts of people of diverse faiths around the globe.

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

It is a source of great pleasure for me to congratulate you, Mr. President, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. You represent a country with which Egypt has friendly and close relations. We are confident that under your wise and able leadership, the deliberations of the Council will reach a fmitful conclusion. 64. The Council is meeting for the second time in just a few weeks to consider the serious situation arising from the Israeli moves to alter the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem by consolidating its annexation. Only last June the Council considered the legislative steps initiated in the Knesset with the aim of changing the status of Jerusalem. The Council, in its resolution 476 (1980), strongly deplored such Israeli policies. Furthermore, it reconfirmed that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity. Yet Israel continued its provocative policies and its violation of the rules of international law and United Nations resolutions by passing a so-called law proclaiming the annexation of Arab Jerusalem and declaring Jerusalem the permanent capital of Israel. 65. That Israeli attitude constitutes complete disregard for the sentiments of 800 million Moslems and 66. Egypt strongly condemns such a move and considers it null and void. It is yet another serious obstacle to peace, deliberately created by Israel at this crucial juncture in the history of the Middle East. The latest measures taken by Israel have stirred the deepest emotions and indignation throughout the Moslem world. The so-called law declaring Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital has added a new dimension to Israel’s expansionist policies and its continued illegal occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territory, including Jerusalem. 70. Israel’s response to that injunction was to persist in its refusal to recognize the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, to continue to disregard the sanctity of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and thus withdraw to the preJune 1967 border, and to ignore the United Nations resolutions co:ceming Jerusalem. The response of Israel was, once again, another irresponsible act in complete defiance of the international community, in utter disregard of the United Nations resolutions and in flagrant violation of the rules of international law. 67. For days speaker after speaker addressed the General Assembly at its seventh emergency special session, on the question of Palestine. We listened to one delegation after the other declaring its universal support for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. It was a clear demonstration of the intemational consensus that a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established unless Israel withdraws from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and unless the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are attained. 68. I should like to bring to the attention of the members of the Council what the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Egypt said on 25 July, during the seventh emergency special session. He stated, inter alia, that “If the recent news reports concerning the motion in the Knesset to enact legislation that would make Jerusalem the capital of Israel have any credibility, I declare in solemn and clear terms that the Egyptian Government will consider any such action as an infringement of the rights of the Palestinian people and a flagrant violation of international law and international legitimacy. Such Israeli action should therefore warrant a firm stand on the part of the international community.“* The Minister continued: ‘1 . . . on behalf of the Government of Egypt, from this rostrum I call upon the Government of Israel to desist from all actions aimed at altering the status of Jerusalem. That policy cannot but undermine and damage the opportunities for attaining peace. If further pursued, it will have a negative effect on the present endeavours for peace.“* 69. In its resolution ES-7/2, the General Assembly called upon Israel to withdraw completely and unconditionally from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. It further demanded that Israel should fully 71. In this connection, it is pertinent to recall that resolutions 22S3 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V), adopted by the General Assembly in July 1967, declared ail measures taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem to be invalid and called upon Israel to rescind those measures and to desist forthwith from taking any action which would alter the status of the Holy City. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 298 (1971) and 446 (1979) have unequivocally affirmed the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by military conquest and declared totally invalid all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties, the transfer of population and any legislation aimed at the incorporation of its Arab section. In almost all of those resolutions the Council has condemned or censured Israel for its refusal to comply with the Council’s decisions. In its resolution 465 (1980), adopted unanimously, the Council determined that “all measures taken by Israel to change the . . . composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity. and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrar.t violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction’ to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”. Those resolutions have decisively and repeatedly affirmed in clear and categorical terms the illegality of all Israeli attempts-past, present and even futureto annex Arab Jerusalem. 72. The position of Egypt in this regard is a matter of record; It was amply defined at the last emergency special sessionof the General Assembly in the aforementioned statement of Egypt’s Minister of State for 73. Egypt stresses the special importance it attaches to the solution of the question of Jerusalem in such a way as to preserve the legal, historical and spiritual rights of all Arabs, all Moslems and all Christians in the Holy City in order to create conditions for coexistence among the adherents of the three monotheistic faiths. 74. Israel’s attitude requires a firm stand on the part of the international community. Israel’s fanatical claims are a transparent disguise for a stand bred by introversion and ethnocentrism and a denial of the rights of man. The Islamic and Christian shrines in the Holy City are eloquent testimony to centuries of religious tolerance and of undeniable Islamic and Christian rights. Arab sovereignty in East Jerusalem should be restored. 75. The stand of the international community in this regard should be based on the following elements: first, non-recognition of all unilateral Israeli measures in Jerusalem-legitimacy can never be conferred on such illegal measures; secondly, reaffirmation that those measures are null and void and violate the principles of international law and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter; thirdly., all States should be urged not to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. 76. In this regard we wish to pay a tribute to the wise decision of the Governments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Uruguay to move their embassies from Jerusalem to Tel-Aviv. We call upon all States that maintain their embassies in Jerusalem to do likewise. 77. Notwithstanding the overwhelming sentiment of the world community in favour of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, Israel continues in its policy of creating obstacles on the road to peace. It persists in its armed attacks against Lebanon; it persists in its provocative. policy of building illegal settlements in the occupied Arab territories; it has illegally deported 78. Egypt considers that the adoption of t.he bill on Jerusalem by the Knesset is contrary to the spirit of the Camp David accords and the peace process, and it has no alternative but to delay the autonomy talks until this new obstacle has been removed. Israel stands fully responsible for this delay in the peace process and any other negative results of this new illegal measure. We strongly appeal to the Israeli people to stand firm for peace and against those fanatics who want to plunge the whole region into another catastrophe. Those fanatics, in their myopic view, may think that they have scored a point, but it is a very shortlived success. This action is inopportune, provocative and self-defeating. The supporters of this action will be held responsible for the serious consequences resulting from it, and those who have been dragged along behind, whether willingly or unwillingly, will be equally responsible. 79. The people of Israel will ultimately suffer from any breakdown of the peace process, that process which Egypt initiated and which it has followed diligently, assuming tremendous risks and facing hostile reactions of which we are all aware. Genuine security for Israel, in my opinion, means living in peace with its neighbours, first and foremost, the Palestinian people. To bring about such a situation, Israel must rid itself of its exclusivist attitude-an attitude vividly manifested in Israel’s claim to Jerusalem. Israel cannot afford to ignore the legitimate rights ‘_ of Arabs in Jerusalem. On the contrary, it must respect such rights and reconcile itself to the fact that Jerusalem is not, and will never be, Israel’s exclusive domain. 80. So may I reiterate our appeal to the Palestinian Arab people and the people of Israel to engage in an intensive dialogue with a view to bringing about mutual recognition and acceptance and the enjoyment of peace, prosperity and security: 81. The representative of Israel referred today to the resolutions adopted by the Egyptian People’s Assembly in April and July concerning Jerusalem. Those resolutions, which I happen to have with me, declare, inter alia, that Jerusalem is an integral part of the West Bank, which was militarily occupied by Israel on 5 June 1967, and rea.fIirm the necessity of respecting and restoring historical and legal rights in the City. I should like to reiterate Egypt’s position in this regard, since the Israeli representative has raised the point. 83. Secondly, the resolution of the People’s Assembly is based upon the universally accepted principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, which constitutes one of the basic principles of the contemporary international system, the Charter of the United Nations and resolution 242 (1967). 84. Thirdly, the resolution of the People’s Assembly, in its categorical rejection of all Israeli measures aimed at altering the status of Jerusalem, stands in full conformity with international agreements-and, in particular, with the fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all occupied Arab territories of which Jerusalem is part. 85. Fourthly, the resolution of the People’s Assembly echoes the universal consensus which rejects and condemns the illegal Israeli measures in occupied Arab territory and considers them null and void. 86. The policy of imposing fairs accomplis against the will of the whole world cannot lead to peace. Peace can be achieved only on the basis of legality and justice. Israel must try to rise to the level of the historic peace initiative that was carried out by President Sadat for the achievement of justice, prosperity and stability in the Middle East.

It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution in document S/14113. I shall now call on those members of the Council who wish to make statements Gefore the voting.

Mr. President, my delegation wishes to extend most cordial congratulations to you, the representative of a country with which the German Democratic Republic maintains fruitful relations of peaceful coexistence, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of August. We are convinced that your diplomatic skill, the rich experience you have gathered and your untiring endeavours in advocating the solution of international conflicts by peaceful means will ensure the successful discharge of the task currently before the Council. 89. The members of the Council. considered it an honour to do their work in the month of July under the proven presidency of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philirrninfta; General Carlos Romulo. We should like to ask Ambassador Yango to transmit our thanks and our appreciation to all members of the Philippine delegation. 90. Today’s is the thirty-fourth meeting of the Council this year that has been convened in order to discuss 91. Only a few weeks ago, the General Assembly had to deal with this policy at its seventh emergency special session. By its decisions, this session made an important and constructive contribution to the implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and to bringing about a comprehensive and just solution to the Middle East issue. In addition to this, these decisions are the clear answer of the overwhelming majority of Member States to Camp David and to the policy of separate deals. 92. At the same time, while we were concentrating our efforts on defusing the dangerous hotbed of tension in the Middle East, the Israeli Parliament decided upon the annexation of the eastern part of Jerusalem. Another dangerous step in its policy of aggression: such was Israel’s answer to the overwhelming vote of the United Nations. With the recent barbarous raids into Lebanon, this policy of aggression has reached another culminating point. 93. The reasons for Israel’s constant disregard for the decisions adopted by the Council are well known. In this context, quite a number of speakers at the seventh emergency special session referred.particularly to the responsibility which rests upon those who, here in the Council, have up to now prevented the adoption of more stringent measures against Tel Aviv. 94, Israel intends to establish furtherfairs accomplis as regards. the city of Jerusalem and to perpetuate the annexation of land which it began in 1967. 95. My delegation shares the serious concern expressed by a number of delegations which describe Israel’s negation of resolution 476 (1980) as another action designed to torpedo the-efforts aimed at bringing about a comprehensive, just and durable peace solution. 96. Those who railroaded through the Israeli Parliament the law by which Jerusalem is declared the capital of Israel obviously feel encouraged to take such intensified -aggressive action because their imperialist patrons and those who finance them in numerous parts of the world have pursued a policv of confrontation. 97. It is high time to counter the peace-threatening policy pursued by Israel’s ruling circles with effective measures to be taken by the Council in order to force the aggressor to-implement the decisions of the United Nations. How.right, as it turns out, were those States 98. For this reason. my delegation supported the draft resolution submitted by the group of Islamic States and contained in document S114106. My delegation deems that this important point, namely coercive measures, should have been included in the draft resolution now before us. Unfortunately this is not the case, Therefore we consider the draft resolution submitted in document S/ 14 I I3 to be merely the minimum of what the Council should do in this situation and we shall vote in favour of it because the Islamic States regard this text as a further step towards urging Israel to comply with United Nations decisions. 105 Eight times in these five months, draft resolutions on the Middle East have come before us. For its part, the United States has joined in the debate and the voting. We have done that because we respect this institution. and we honour those who have laboured hard for a positive approach. But eight times those draft resolutions have failed the critical tests: those of reason, of balance, of accounting for the concerns of both sides, of genuinely serving the objective of peace. 99. The United Nations, with all its authority. has made it eloquently clear that a just and durable peace settlement in the Middle East cannot be achieved if the- United Nations decisions urging Israel’s withdrawal from the territories illegally taken and occupied in 1967 are not respected and implemented and if it is not possible to bring about a just solution of the problem of Palestine on the basis of the implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to establish a State of its own. The United Nations has to apply all its weight to force Israel and its allies to give up their resistance to a just and durable settlement in the Middle East. Only then will all peoples and States of that region be able to live together in peace and security. 106. The draft resolution before us today is illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic lexts on Middle East issues. It fails to serve the goal of all faiths that took upon Jerusalem as holy. We must share a common vision of that ancient city’s future-an undivided Jerusalem. with free access to the Holy Places for people of all faiths. 107. But how can that vision be realized? Certainly it cannot be realized by unilateral actions, nor by narrow resolutions ,in this forum. Rather the question of Jerusalem must be addressed in the context of negotiations for a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East peace.

1 wish to acknowledge with 108. That is the position of my Government. But it is more. The status of Jerusalem cannot simply be declared; it must be agreed to by the parties. That is a pwctical reality. It will remain so. despite this draft resolution or a hundred more like it. great pleasure the presence among us of the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Edmund Muskie, to whom I extend a very warm welcome and on whom I now call.

‘First of all, Mr. President, I should like to thank you for that warm welcome; 1 had hoped that I might escape with anonymity this afternoon. Secondly. I should. like to offer my congratulations to you upon your assumption of the duties of President. Your reputation as a skilled parliamentarian, capable of carrying these heavy responsibilities, was known to mc before I entered this chamber. I am delighted to be here. 109. We have encouraged all parties to refrain from unilateral actions which seek to change the character or status of Jerusalem. in line with this position we will not vote against the draft resolution as presently written. 110. So that there can be no mistake, let me note that we will continue firmly and forcefully to resist any attempt to impose sanctions against Israel under Chapter VII of the Charter. That step is contained in a draft resolution presented here but not to be voted upon ISf14106). We are unalterably opposed to it. We will vote against any such draft resolution. 102. I come here today out of my deep respect for the United Nations and all it has represented for 35 years. It is a force for peace and reason in the world. It is a. forum whe~re nations may air their differences and seek out the common ground. We should all be grateful that this, institution has worked so well. on so many issues. in its relatively short span of time. 1 I I. But if we do not vote against the draft resolu- ’ tion before us. neither can we find cause to support it, for it is still fundamentally flawed. It fails even to reafftrm resolution 242 (1967) as the basis for a comprehensive peace. Israel, for example, is to be censured, yet there is no censure, indeed no mention at all,‘of violence against Israel or of efforts that undermine Israel’s legitimate security needs. Further, the Council calls upon those States that have established 103. Therefore, I also come here today with a feeling of sorrow, for I believe that in its work on the Middle East over the past five months the United Nations has been the focus of attempts not to advance the cause of peace, but to restrain it, contrary to the ideals and purposes-of this institution. 112. On these specific grounds, we shall abstain in the vote on the draft resolution. 113. And on broader grounds, we ask that the United Nations return to first principles in addressing the Middle East. Let us resist useless pronouncements and resume the practical search for results-on Jerusalem, and on all other issues. 114. There are few problems in the world today as much in need of resolution-and of patient, constructive effort to achieve it. Four cruel wars in 30 yearsand the peril and suffering that remain-underscore the urgency of this task. And it is underscored again by recent fighting in Lebanon, renewing the violent cycle. 1 IS. For all those 30 years there was no peace. Plans were tried and abandoned. Partial solutions came apart. Modest, stabilizing steps were the very most to be achieved-and they were all too fragile. 116. Then in November 1977, President Sadat of Egypt took the courageous step of going to Jetusalem-in an inspired act of statesmanship to break the deadlock. With equal statesmanship the Israeli Govemment responded. At Camp David the next September, for 13 days President Sadat, Prime Minister Begin and President Carter joined to create a framework for peace in the Middle East. Thus was born the first real chance to bring the goals of resolution 242 (1967) into being. Then, following President Carter’s trip to the Middle East in February 1979, peace between Israel and Egypt-the first real peace-was achieved. 117. Even .so, it was only a beginning. Camp .David was designed not just for a limited settlement between Israel and one of its neighbours, but as a framework for a truly comprehensive and final peace among all parties to the conflict. 118. A year ago last May, the second stage of the Camp David process began-negotiations between Egypt and Israel, with the United States as full partner, to provide full autonomy for the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. This is to be a transitional arrangement of five years. Not later than the third year after the start of that period, negotiations to settle the final status of the territories would begin. 119. This may be an imperfect process. But let me remind members of this: it is also the first time the twin issues of Palestinian rights and Israeli security -issues at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict-have 120. My Government has stated many times in the past, and I will restate it again today, that we are absolutely and firmly committed to the success of the process begun at Camp David and its ultimate goal of a just and lasting peace throughout the region. There is no issue on which President Carter has spent.m.ore time and effort than this great cause. And that will continue to be the case until the job is done. 121. This is difftcult and painstaking work. But it is precisely the kind of effoG that inspEed the creation of the United Nations. It is precisely the work to which the United Nations should now rededicate itself. We desire to work closely with the Islamic States in order that their legitimate goals set out in resolution 242 (1967) may be attained in peace and honour. 122. It is vital that a pohtical climate be preserved within which the hard work of peace can succeed. That is why we have urged all the parties not to take unilateral steps that could prejudice the outcome of the negotiations. That is why we have counsehed patience, and sought wider support for our efforts. And it is why events here in the last several months have been so profoundly disturbing. We do not expect everyone to support the Camp David process. We do, however, seek an end to efforts that work in the contrary direction-not just to undermine the Camp David process, but to disrupt the search for peace itself; 123; Let me therefore repeat our belief that this constant recourse to debates and resolutions that are not germane to the peace process-and are even harmful to it-should stop. Elsewhere, in South-West Asia and in South-East Asia, warfare is a present reality. The aggressor nations make no effort to find peace. Yet the Council is continually drawn to the Middle East, where authentic work for peace is under way. j 124. The United States will not be deterred from this historic enterprise. Indeed, 1 should like to reiterate our firm determination to finish what has been so well begun. At Camp David, as a result of statesmanship and courage, the two parties, with the help of the United. States, designed a frame~work for a comprehensive peace. They agreed to start with a treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel. This was a goal which many thought to be utterly ‘unattainable but which was achieved through negotiation and on the basis of resolution 242 (1967). 125. As a further step towards a comprehensive peace&e parties agreed to launch serious negotiations aimed at providing autonomy for the Palestiman inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.for a transitional 126. We intend to persevere in this effort regardless of all distractions, diversions and difftculties.

I shall now put to the vote tne draft resolution contained in document S/l41 13. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Bangladesh, China, France, German Democratic Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, Niger, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Tunisia, Union. of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Zambia Against: None Abstaining: United States of America 134. That was precisely the kind of decision that was expected of the Council by the international community and, first and foremost, by the Palestinian people, the Arab and many other Muslim countries. And if such a decision has not in fact emerged today, if the Council has proved unable to take decisive steps, then we must state quite unambiguously who bears the full weight of political responsibility for that. Responsibility for the fact that the Council was unable to take an effective decision aimed at curbing the aggressor lies quite definitely and above all with the United States of America. The draft resolution was adopted by 14 votes to none, with I abstention (resolution 478 (I 980)).

I shall now call on those members of the Council who have asked to be allowed to speak following the vote. ;29. Mr. TROYANOVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): First of all, I should like to welcome you, Sir, the representative of Portugal, to the presidency of the Council, which you will be occupying this month. It is our hope, Mr. President, that your activities in this important and responsible post during the month of August will promote the effective work of the Council. 130. On behalf of the delegation of the Soviet Union, I should also like to express our sincere gratitude to General Romulo, an eminent statesman and diplomat of the Republic of the Philippines, for the successful way in which he guided the activities of the Council last month. 131. The delegation of the Soviet Union voted in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/14113. We did so because of our solidarity with the .Arab and other Islamic countries which felt it essential that the Council should take at least minimal action in connection with the new provocative action of the Israeli occupiers, in this particular case with regard to Jerusalem. Although the resolution that we have adopted contains some positive features, we should like to make it abundantly clear that it is, nevertheless, far from being adequate. Thus, the resolution does not envisage the adoption of measures against Israel commensurate, first, with the seriousness of the question we have been discussing today, or, secondly, with the consequences that stem from the provocative actions of Israel and which are so dangerous for peace. 133. Quite apart from anything else, Israel has grossly violated the most recent resolution of the Council on this issue, resolution 476 (1980), which clearly warned Israel not to take any steps which would affect the status of Jerusalem. At that time the Security Council stated, in its resolution, that if Israel undertook any such actions the Council would consider practical ways and means of exerting pressure on Israel in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter. 135. For many years now, Washington has been giving Israel various kinds of political, economic, financial and military assistance, thus encouraging it to continue its policy of expansion and aggression against the Arab States. In the Security Council, the United States by the use or threat of the veto has constantly blocked the adoption of decisions confirming the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, resolutions which might have influenced Israel and forced it to heed the voice of reason. Actually, that was a point made today by the representative of Pakistan. 136. Washington worked hand in glove with Israel at the recent emergency special session of the General Assembly, when it voted against the Assembly’s resolutions. 137. At the same time, the representatives of the United States continue their rhetorical exercise of claiming that they have an impartial attitude towards a Middle East settlement, and they still try to don the garb of peace-makers and friends of the Arab and Islamic world. In fact, however, the essence of the Middle East policy of the United States has been revealed in its attempts to substitute for a genuine, just and comprehensive solution of the Middle East 138. Like many other States, the Soviet Union has emphasized from the very outset that the separate deal between Israel and Egypt, concluded under the sponsorship of the United States, would not lead to a strengthening of peace in the Middle East but, rather, would lead to a further destabilization of the situation in &hat part of the world, and thus it constitutes a departure from the ways and means that, through collective efforts by all the parties concerned, might have led to genuine peace in the Middle East. At one time there were some who attempted to question that assertion, but now, after only a very short time has elapsed, there is hardly anyone who would be bold enough to deny the obvious truth that under cover of the Camp David collusion-rejected outright by the Palestinians and practically all the Arab and many other non-aligned countries-Israel has proceeded to consolidate its annexation and to carry out its plans to create a so-called greater Israel. Indeed, it was precisely because Israel was emboldened by that collusion that it proceeded to proclaim Jerusalem as its capital. 139. The authors of the separate deals promised the advent of a new era of peace and co-operation in the Middle East. In fact, however, what we are witnessing is an era of further expansion on the part of Israel. In those circumstances, peace has not come to the Middle East-nor, indeed, could it come, for the main problems besetting that part of the world remain unsolved: the withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967; the guaranteeing of the legitimate national rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including their right to selfdetermination and the creation of their own State; the guaranteed exercise by all States in the area of their right to a secure existence and development. 140. The Soviet delegation would like to reaffirm that support for the struggle of the Arab peoples for the complete elimination of the consequences of Israeli aggression is its unalterable policy. Thus, we have consistently favoured and shall continue to favour a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East and the establishment in that area of a genuinely just and lasting peace.

May I first congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of August. The closeness of our relations with your Government and your delegation, and with you personally, strengthens our confidence that the business of the Council will be dealt with efficiently and objectively under your guidance. I therefore expected the skilful, patient and good-humoured manner in which you have conducted the negotiations on the item before us 142. Successive British Governments have taken the view since the 1967 conflict that Israeli rights in East Jerusalem do not extend beyond those of an occupying Power pending an agreed solution on the City’s future. My Government shares the international concern at Israel’s attempts to determine Jerusalem’s status unilaterally rather than through a negotiated settlement. They are unacceptable. 143. When the Council met two months ago on the subject of Jerusalem, my delegation voted in favour of resolution 476 (1980), which among other things calledupon Israel to “desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem*‘. In our statement in that debate [224isr meering], we urged Israel to eschew further actions which could only serve to stoke the fires of resentment and make even more difficult the search for a comprehensive settlement of the conflict in the Middle East. It was therefore with deep regret and concern that we learned on 31 July of the enactment by the Knesset of the law which among other things declares that a complete and united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. My delegation considers this to be a highly provocative act. We have never accepted Israeli measures purporting to change the status of East Jerusalem unilaterally and have made it quite clear that we do not regard the recent Knesset law as valid or as changing the situation in law in any way whatsoever. Israel should be left in no doubt of the international community’s condemnation of its action, or of the fact that in the eyes of the world Jerusalem’s status remains unchanged. 144. We remain convinced that the only road to lasting peace is through a negotiated settlement. We, with our-partners in the European Community, strongly desire to see progress towards a comprehensive settlement. The Venice declaration [S/14009] and Mr. Gaston Thorn’s mission are clear demonstrations of our concern and our commitment to progress. We shall pursue these efforts with vigour. 145. My delegation therefore voted in favour of the draft resolution in document S/l41 13, and we are glad it has been adopted. We consider it an appropriate response by the Council to the Israeli legislation on Jerusalem.

Mr. President, I should like, first, to say how happy we are to see that the President of the Council during this busy month ofAugust is a diplomat whose wide experience and judgement are so well known-indeed, he has just given us another striking example of those qualities-and who represents a country, Portugal, with which France has long-standing friendly. relations.

The next speaker is the representative of Jordan. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 148. Two months ago, the Council had already met as a result of various statements by the highest authorities of Israel announcing the forthcoming vote on a law designed to change the status of Jerusalem. On that occasion 12241st meeting], my delegation emphasized that any unilateral measure concerning Jerusalem -legislative or otherwise-would be illegal. We warned against the taking of any “decision” by Israel that would be unacceptable to the international community. Like almost all the other members of the Council, my delegation voted in favour of resolution 476 (1980), which called on Israel to respect international law and desist from taking any further arbitrary measure concerning Jerusalem. We all know, regrettably, what happened. Far from heeding this appeal, the Israeli Parliament, on 30 July, adopted a basic law which claims to make Jerusalem the reunified capital of the State of Israel.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity of speaking before the Council this month to express my most sincere congratulations to you, Ambassador Futscher Pereira of friendly Portugal, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council, to which you bring your wisdom, statesmanship and dedication. Your versatility, patience and prudence have been severely tested over the past three weeks and you have emerged with flying colours. 155. It is also my privilege most highly to pay a tribute and to offer our warm congratulations to an elder statesman--one of the founding fathers of the United Nations-General Carios Romulo, of the friendly Philippines, on his presidency of the Council during the month of July. It was fitting that his presidency should have coincided with the Council’s decision to admit Zimbabwe to the family of nations. That certainly was a fulfilment of one of his most cherished visions. 149. That is a unilateral measure that is clearly contrary to international law. In this connection, I should like to recall that France has always considered that all legislative or other measures adopted by the Israeli authorities to absorb the part of Jerusalem that has been occupied since 1967 are contrary to the rules of international law according to which the occupying Power must preserve the demographic, economic and cultural character-of occupied areas. 156. I wish to express my Government’s deep appreciation to the friendly Governments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Uruguay for acting so promptly in support of international law and United Nations resolutions by withdrawing their embassies from Jerusalem. That is a reaffirmation of their faith in the Charter and in legality. It is our earnest hope that the other countries will likewise withdraw their embassies from Jerusalem, because we are confident that their adherence to international law is equally staunch. 150. Therefore France believes that the law passed by the Israeli Parliament can in no way modify the status of Jerusalem, and we consider that law to be null and void. It was along those lines that the heads of State and Government of the nine countries of the European Community expressed themselves on 13 June last in Venice. 157. The allegation of the representative of Israel that resolution 465 (1980), condemning the relentless devouring of the occupied territories, is reprehensible and has triggered the debate in the Council is an insult to the intelligence of the international community. Does the representative of Israel expect the world community to watch, arms folded, the annihilation of our people in the occupied territories, in that large prison-to the extent of 35 per cent? What would remain of land and people to come to peace with, if their very existence should cease over the next few years? 151. Under the circumstances, it is understandable that the Council should have denounced the policy pursued by Israel in yet clearer terms than it did in June last. That is also the reason why my deiegation voted in favour of the draft resolution submitted to the Council, which essentially refuses to recognize the law passed by the Israeli Parliament. 152. The decision adopted recently by the Israeli Parliament can only contribute to increased tension and to the creation of new difficulties at a time when, more than ever before, the need is felt for negotiating a global settlement of the Middle East conflict that is just and lasting. Aware of the need for a global settiement, the Nine have asked Mr. Gaston Thorn to conduct on their behalf an exploratory mission with all the-parties concerned. Only through dialogue and con- 158. As for the name Yerushaiayim, I should like to remind the representative of Israel that that name was used by the Jebusites, the founders of Jerusalem, and was “cloned” by the Israelite tribes. 159. I do not intend to engage in any substantive discussion of an issue of such universal and colossal magnitude as the fate and status of Jerusalem and its people. For the fate of Jerusalem and its status are 160. The latest Israeli action, which has climaxed its aggression, is far too serious to permit the luxury of verbal exercises in futility. It is unmitigated aggression, and it can only be dealt with as such. 161. Suffice it here to recall what HerzI stated at the first Zionist Congress, in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897: “If we attained Jerusalem one day and I were still alive and able, I should destroy everything not sacred to the Jews, and demolish all the centuries-old sites.” Those were his words. He did not have to remain alive, for his dreams and his obsession with destruction have been implemented, and they will continue to be implemented in full measure by his followers.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization, on whom I now call. 162. The King-Crane Commission, acting for United States President Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations, expressed its judgement and affirmed its considered conviction that the Jews were not only the least qualified to be the guardians of the Holy Places but that they regarded such a task as abhorrent. Those are not my words, please understand that; they are words excerpted from the Commission’s report3 After all, are not we Christians and Muslims and other creeds abhorrent gentiles? 163. Mr. President, with your permission I wish to distribute to the members of the Council a small booklet that portrays in brief certain aspects of the Zionists’ fiendish misdeeds and designs against Holy Jerusalem, which has literally been emasculated, transformed and obliterated. 164. I feel in duty bound to reiterate that no one should miscalculate our eternal determination to undo, in God’s good time, what is a crime against civilization and humanity. No cause in all the millennia of history has summoned and galvanized the totality of our resolve as has the fate of Jerusalem. It was always the capital of Palestine, without being &led the capital of Palestine. It was far more important than the capital of a province or a greater conglomerate. 165. Nor has any other cause demanded and willingly been granted the ultimate sacrifice, regardless of cost. Let the Israelis, who are at present intoxicated and deranged by a transient advantage in the mechanical paradigm, understand that it is the spirit, aroused by monumental injustice, which can once again restore a balance of human sanity and legality in relations amongst nations. 167. Action by the Council is the only avenue left to avert an otherwise inevitable catastrophe which none of us, I am sure, would wish to happen to the City of Peace, or to the region, as it would spill over and pose a grave threat to international peace and security. 168. I hope that today’s substantially watered-down resolution will serve as yet another signal that aggression, injustice and defiance can never go unredeemed, for they tear to shreds the very fabric on which the United Nations was founded as the guardian of peace, security, justice and legality in the world.

At the outset, Sir, I wish to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency. We can be certain, judgingby past experience, that the deliberations and proceedings here will lead us to a fruitfu1 result. At this moment I recall with great honour the moments I spent in the company of Chairman Yasser Arafat in his meeting withthe President of Portugal last November in Lisbon. I can never forget the warm welcome shownto the delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization by the Portuguese authorities and people. Nor shah I forget, and I shall always consider with great respect, Portugal’s role in the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979). 171. General Romulo’s presidency of the-Council was of very deep and profound significance to us. It came at a time when we thought the world needed to be reminded of the fundamental principles that were laid down by the founding fathers. 172. The Council has unanimously adopted a resohrtion now which, in our opinion, has some positive aspects: it determines that the Israeli atrocities --although they are called “iegislative and administrative measures and actions”-are null and void, and demands that they be rescinded forthwith. The resoiution aIso affirms a positive aspect: that the actions by Israel constitute a serious obstruction to.the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Moreover; the resolution decided not to recognize the “basic law” and called on all Member States to accept that decision. We would have liked to have the words of the Charter used: “to accept and carry out”; but to accept this decision was satisfactory. We shall await 15 November to read. the 173. Of course, we are aware that the General Assembly, at the iast. emergency special session, voted overwhelmingly, with only seven dissenters, to demand that Israel fully comply with resolution 476 (1980), which it had not done. However, on the other hand, we are greatly concerned and apprehensive that the Council-has:failed in a major aspect: in resolution 476 (1980) the Council reaffied its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, to secure the full implementation of that resolution, in the event of noncompliance by Israel. In this case;it was not non-compliance but, rather, defiance, a refusal to comply. 179. Then he spoke about peace and about the disruption of peace through these Council proceedings. What peace is he talking about when billions of dollars are being poured into the Middle East in the form of bombs and aeroplanes and artillery? Only last night this was manifested in a very, very atrocious way in southern Lebanon. And why? Because those at the receiving end of all these billions wanted to take a “pre-emptive action”. This is another of the crimes which are perhaps not merely being encouraged but engineered by the United States to keep the situation in the Middle East burning and very, very hot. 174. We are really concerned about the credibility of the United Nations. We will maintain our faith in this Organization. If the atrocities by the Tel Aviv junta are meant to disillusion people about the usefulness, efficacy and productivity of the Organization, they are mistaken, because the world still pays great respect and credence to this institution, 180. The Secretary of State has decided that these proceedings of the Council are an attempt to restrain the efforts for peace and that there is no alternative to Camp David. But does he not realize that Camp David itself was a malicious alternative to the comprehensive approach for peace? Just look at the timing of the Camp David accords: they were announced exactly when the General Assembly had decided that a peace conference should be convened in which all parties to the conflict, including the PLO, should get together within then framework of the United Nations under the co-chairmanship of the Soviet Union and the United States in order to achieve peace in the Middle East. That was the comprehensive approach to bringing peace. The alternative was the Camp David approach. Did it really bring peace to the area? We do not see it. We, the people who live there, who come from there, who have our roots there, we do not see, any signs of peace. 175. We have heard some pontification this afternoon. I am sure the American. administration is grateful to us for convening this session, because we afforded its spokesman a platform for his electioneering campaign. But at the outset I would like to say that for an incumbent tobe elected again, he must be born again in the principles of the Charter and in the values of the founding fathers. Whether be uses the United Nations, the Security Council or whatever, it is improper to misuse this chamber and offend the dignity of the Council. 176. The Secretary of State. of the United States said that the conflict is between the issues of the rights of the Palestinians and the security of Israel. There is no consideration, whether of security or anything else, that can justify the nullification of the rights of an individual or of a people. So there is no conflict there between rights and security. Rights are not to be trampled upon under the guise of security. Otherwise fascism will dominate. 181. Then he reiterated that within five years there will be full autonomy for the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gala. In five years there will be no inhabitants of the West Bank and C&a; there will be more settlements, more usurpers, more thieves. That is what will be there in five years. 177. That pontification is abhorrent. The Secretary of State had made an earlier statement in U.S. News and World Report in which he tended to say that this action taken by Israel on Jerusalem could not finally settle the status of Jerusalem because, he thought, according to that interview, that IsraeI should be allowed to do whatever it wants, but through the process of negotiations they would reach agreement and that agreement would then decide the future of Jerusalem. ‘, 182. He speaks only of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. But what about the fate of the other two million Palestinians who are denied the right to be in their homes? For the United States maybe this means nothing, but for us it is everything. 183. Then he said that he would abstain in the voting. I am sure that there has been no foul-up in the communications system between the President and his 178. The Sec.retary of State said that the futufe of the City is not declared: it has to be agreediupon be- 184. What more should we expect to hear than what Teddy Kollek announced on television on Sunday night? He said, “I am an occupier; in principle we are an occupation force”. Who else can say what their position or status in the area is if that is what Teddy KoIIek says? But-and this is a big but-he spoke of benign occupation and of how much he could offer those people. Well, foreign occupation cannot be benign, because it is malignant. It is against the rights of the occupied; it tramples upon and violates those rights. 185. At one point it was announced that the enactment of the law by the Knesset in Tel Aviv was an act of folly. It was not an act of folly; it was a maliciously designed move to nullify even the Washington pact. Do we need to be reminded that the Munich pact was nullified by Hitler’s troops moving into PoIand? Pacts are signed, but the aggressor, the racist, the militarist adventurer uses those pacts for his next move. Hitler did it and the Zionists are doing it now. This is an explanation for the fact that immediately after Camp David there was an invasion of Lebanon. We come to the Council to consider the question of Jerusalem and there is another invasion of Lebanon. Fortunately these invasions were repulsed. 186. This is the Zionist doctrine and the Zionist modus operundi in the form of military and racist aggression and expansionism; it is an exclusivist aim. We have to believe that we are human beings. We are not Aryans, not Semites: we are humans, We are not Jews, we are not Christians: we are. human beings. This is how we should behave and what we should believe in. This is why we come to the United Nations. 187. This act of defiance of the Council was only an excuse to disrupt the stability in the area. Because racists--the Nazis, the Zionists-cannot survive in an atmosphere of peace. 188. The prophet Micah said, “They build up Zion with blood and Jerusalem with iniquity*‘. These words of the Bible, of a prophet, are important for us to read every now and then. They are a forewarning to the Zionists: they cannot build up their State with blood and usurp Jerusalem with iniquity and expect peace. 189. The Secretary of State announced in the Council that his country will never permit sanctions against Israel. My God, is this not a defiance? Is this not flouting the Charter’itseIf? Is he telling us here that the Charter can go to hell because we have elections tomorrow? If he wants to pontificate about the principles of the United Nations he cannot come and tell us now that he will never permit sanctions, Let him wait for the proper moment and then decide whether he will really abide by the Charter or not. But he cannot keep telling us, “The Charter is a wonderful 190; We have a number of concerns, Our concern is not only legislation. Our concern is the fate of the worshippers, the people of Jerusalem. There are about. 60$00 Christians and Moslems in Jerusalem. What will their fate be now? They have had their roots there fat ages. L’Osservatore Romano of 30 June said: “No less than the monuments and Holy Places, the situation of these communities cannot fail to be a matter of concern for all.” His Holiness the Pope is also-and primarily--concerned about the fate of the worshippers and the people of Jerusalem. For the sanctuaries and shrines are meaningless-they are museums-if theyhave no worshippers. This should be the primary concern of the Council: the, future and the fate of the people. 191. But let me quote from the 1 July issue of’the newspaper Ma’ariv, which is, I believe, a Hebrewlanguage paper published in Tel Aviv: “The Catholic Patriarchate in East Jerusalem has sent a dossier on the condition of the. Christian communities in [Jerusalem] and in the towns of Ramallah, Bethlehem, Beit Jallah and Beit Sahour to the Vatican. The authors of.the dossier express the-opinion that the Israeli regime is persistently and in a variety of ways trying to reduce the Christian population of the region. “The study reveals that 3,000 young people under thirty were forced or pressured to leave their towns and to emigrate to other countries within the last two years. Another part of the study deals with the seizure of land near Bethlehem, Beit Sahour and Beit Jallah. It is claimed that the seizure uf that land for the purpose of establishing Jewish housing estates on it is creating a situation in which. Arab owners are encouraged to sell their land to Jews. Thus, the youngsters’ ambitions are frustrate3 and they tend to conclude that thereis no future for them in their own towns.” 192. Let us see about the fate of the Jews in Jerusalem. Rabbi Uri Blau, who isthe head of Neturei Katia of the.United States, a Hassidic .Jewish sect which has had-its ,roots in..Jerusalem, I believe, since time immemorial, musthave addressed a letter to youi Mr. President, of which I have ti copy. Maybe I am not, supposed.tosay this, but I did get a copy andlshould like to read out two ,paragraphs. One paragraph states: “The recent declaration by the Zionist regime regarding. the status of Jerusalem is a.: grave step away, from peace, and towards further violence and Another paragraph states: “The Zionist State has usurped without any justification the holy name of Israel. Torah true Jews wish to iive in peace and harmonyswith their neighbours and with the community of nations and deplore the policies carried out by those who misuse the name of Israel.” 193. I fully agree with them. We Palestinians want to live in peace on an equal basis, with the same equal rights and equal responstbilities. That is why our distant aim is to establish and live in a democratic State-all of us-without discrimination. It will not be Judenrein, it will not be a Judenreich, it will not be a Judensruar. It will be a country in which human beings live. 194. The PLO, at the meeting of its National Council, had considered the approach adopted by the General Assembly for a comprehensive peace to be a constructive approach, conducive to peace. It did hail the joint statement made on 1 October 1977 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Secretary of State of the United States of America in their capacities as Co- Chairmen of the Peace Conference on the Middle East, but the Camp David accords and the Camp David approach were maliciously aimed at torpedoing those attempts at a comprehensive settlement conducive to peace in the area. 195. Finally, I wish to register our gratitude to the Governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and Uruguay for having at long last decided that their missions should not be in Jerusalem and that they should not flout the decisions and the consensus of the international community. We trust that, in accordance with the resolution just adopted, the other embassies in Jerusalem will also move out.

The representative of Israel has asked to speak. I now call on him.

In my statement earlier, in what passed for the reasoned deliberations of the Council, I observed that the atmosphere of utter bias against Israel prevailing at the United Nations is not compatible with the balanced. and reasoned approach required in any discussion of the Council. The outcome of this-perfunctory debate fully proves my point. 198. The resolution adopted.here today is again-and not unexpectedlyone-sided, unbalanced, biased, hostile, tainted and fundamentally flawed. It reflects once again the well-known obsession and. fixation that many States-in this Organization have consistently displayed in their approach towards my country. It comes in the wake of a tong series of prejudiced and 199. In this connection, it is certainly regrettable that the representative of Egypt should have seen fit to use this occasion for the purpose of making a series of assertions and aspersions that were not only extraneous to the subject matter ostensibly before us, but also contained unsubstantiated and empty charges against my country in an attempt to justify various actions by Egypt that are not compatible with the Ietter and spirit of the Camp David framework accord. The representative of Egypt knows full well the motives of the initiators of this debate. He also knows that the cause of peace in the Middle East can only be promoted elsewhere, in accordance with the provisions of the Camp David framework accord for peace in the Middle East, which to date has proved the only viable approach to peace in our region. 200. Israel fully adheres to that framework and is carrying out faithfully its obligations under it. Israel trusts that Egypt will wish equally to do so and carry out its obligations in good faith. 201. The Council can no doubt adopt whatever resolutions it likes and for whatever reasons it chooses. The fact remains that such resolutions cannot and, will not further the cause of peace, nor are they calculated to further that cause. But whatever their purpose, they cannot and will not alter the fundamental reality that united Jerusalem has been and will remain the capital of Israel.

The representative of Egypt has asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

The representative of Israel has referred to parts of the statement that I delivered a short while ago. 204. First of all, let me say that we are respecting the Camp David agreement, but what has been done by Israel is, in our opinion, a violation of it. I think he should be the last to talk about respect for the Camp David agreement. His country is continuing to build illegal settlements in the occupied territories, to enact legislation to ‘annex Arab Jerusalem, and to expel elected offtcials. We shall continue to maintain our respect for the agreement that we have signed and Egypt will always stand for international legitimacy. 205: It is from that position that I have made the attitude of my Government crystal clear, and I hope 206. Let me also explain very clearly that no one, no Government or country, should be under the illusion that Egypt’s national interests differ from those of the Arab people and the Moslem nation. I say loud and clear: they are one and the same. As it .?XM done in war, in peace Egypt wili fulfil its historical task of The meeting rose at 7.05 p.m. NOTES 1 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, p. 287. * O#kia/ Records of :he General Assembly. Seventh Emergency Speciat Sewton, 8th meeting. s Papers RehNing to the Foreign Relations of the united Stares. 7he Parts Peace Cortf4rence 1919, vol. X11, Washington, United States Government Printin Office. 1947. .-. :. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may bc obtained from bookstores and diitriiutors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations. Sales Scction. New York or Gcnwa. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Lcs publications dcs Nations Units sent en vcnte dans lcs librairks ct ks apnccs d&ositaifcs du mondc cntier. Informcz-vous oupr&s dc votrc librairc ou drcsscz-vous A: Nations Units. Section dcs venta. New York ou Gcnhs. KAK HOXYPHTh HiiAAHHZI OP~‘AHH3Al~HH OIl%EJIHHEHHSdX HANHR &iWI4RHR 0pr4W434UrlH ~‘be~UXeRRblX H4"xk YOXISO ICyflHTb 4 8UlRI((llbIX Y4l-4- JHXIX H 4FCXTCt44X no BCCX paftoxax Papa. Hano~uTe CnpsaKK 06 H3Jt4lfIIIX B namex KIIIWCROY ~araswte REX nsftuflre no r~pecy:Opranws4qH4 06aexHnerrHbrx HasuR.Cenuun nonpo~~e~3~4~UR.Hb~)-Rop~~n~)Kexena. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE WS NACIONES UNIDAS LX publiicioncs dc las Nacioncs Unidas estin en vcnta en bircrlas y casas diitribuidoms en todat parks dcl mundo. Consu!tc a su Ebrcro o dirtjase a: Nacioncs Unidas,Sccci6n dc Vcntas. Nueva York o Gincbra. Litho in United Nations, New York oom 8341462-september 1986-2.050