S/PV.2323 Security Council

In accordance with decisions taken at the 2322nd meeting, I invite the representative of Israel and the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to take places at the Council table. I invite the representatives of Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Kuwait, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Morocco, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Yemen and Yugoslavia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the CounciI chamber. I invite the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization to take the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber,

I should like to inform the members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, the German Democl-dtic Republic, India, the Libynn Arab Jamahiriya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan 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 with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure.

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

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to address the Council under your eminent and distinguished leadership. We salute you as a refined and tactful diplomat hailing from the Soviet Union, a friendly country whose support for the just Arab cause has been both consistent and firm. We are bound together in our common struggle for genuine peace and progress. To YOUI predecessor, Mr. Otunnu, I pay a special tribute fol his outstanding performance last month. Thanks to his prudence and wisdom, we now have a new Secretary- General, Mr. Javier PCrez de CuCllar, to whom I am happy to extend a warm welcome and sincere wishes for a successful tenure of office. 5. The Council has before it an unequivocal case. In many ways it is faced with a challenge and a severe test-a challenge to its authority and a test of its credibility. 6. On 14 December 1981, the Israeli Government committed yet another act of aggression. In a swift move, it annexed the occupied Syrian Golan Heights by imposing there its laws, jurisdiction and administration. Three days later the Security Council unani- 7. On 29 December, Israel addressed a note to the Secretary-General seeking to justify its annexation of the Golan Heights on the grounds that, infer rrlirr, “Syria has regarded itself as being in a state of war with Israel” [S//4821, ptrrcl. 31 and that Israeli legislation in the Golan Heights sought to normalize the situation in the area. As to the demand of the Council that Israel should rescind forthwith its illegal decision, the letter only expressed regret that the Council should have adopted a resolution that ignored the background of the situation. 8. What arrogance and what contempt for the Security Council and the international community at large. First, Israel illegally annexed the Golan Heights; then it refused to abide by the unanimous decision of the Council that Israel rescind its annexationist legislation. To add insult to injury, Israel offered baseless arguments which, if taken seriously, would be tantamount to justifying the Israeli annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Not only that, but since Israel is technically in a state of war with the Arab countries, it can claim to have a right to annex any Arab territory in order to normalize the situation in the area. 9. It is obvious that the Israeli arguments are frivo- .lous. They should be dismissed as legal absurdities intended to rebuff the Council and undermine its authority. Israel acted like a bandit who, having committed armed robbery and snatched his victim’s wallet, laid claim to it because the lawful owner could not retrieve it in time. In the United States such a bandit would be brought to justice, but in the Council the bandit is let loose, because the United States will shield the bandit. That is the significance of the United States promise to the Israeli Ambassador in Washington, a promise to stop the Council from taking any punitive action against Israel under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, 10. In fact, Israel behaves as if it had a veto powel; over the United States veto power in the Security Council, Israel knows only too well that it cannot withstand international military, economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed by the Council. But it is also aware that the United States will never allow such sanctions to be imposed. The United States not only is committed to safeguarding Israeli security, as defined by Israel, but is bound to defend Israel’s policies and even to put up with the political whims of its leaders. Little wonder that Israel pays little respect to this body. 12. Apart from the usurpation of Palestine and the colonization of its people, the continuing aggression against Lebanon and Syria and the threat lsl-ael poses to other Arab countries, Israel is assigned a new strategic role: to keep the Middle East in a state of tension and turmoil. Such a situation would enable the United States and its allies to increase their military presence in the Arabian Gulf and around the vital oil fields under the pretext of defending them. It is interesting to note the correlation between the sharp increase in Israeli acts of terrorism and aggression last year and the build-up of United States naval power in the Arabian Gulf. 13. The brutal Israeli raid on Beirut and the bombardment of the Iraqi nuclear installation were immediately followed by American military manoeuvres and WBI games in the Middle East. The Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights might be a harbinger of more American military involvement in our region. 14. Should we then expect the United States to vote for a draft resolution that would impose sanctions on Israel, within the purview of Article 41 of the Charter? The answer is obvious: no such draft resolution will pass, and Israel will not rescind its decision on the Golan Heights unless it is forced to do so. The Arab world will once again have to face the Israeli challenge, and the Arab friends of the United States will have to reassess their relations with it. 15. In my capacity as Chairman of the Group of Arab States for this month, let me declare that all the Arab States, without exception, stand firmly in support of Syria, as well as its demand that the Security Council apply sanctions to Israel in order to force it to rescind its decision to annex the Golan Heights. 16. The YRESIDENT (intoprefation jhtn Russit/n): The next speaker is the representative of Sri Lanka. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Allow me to extend to you, Sir, my delegation’s congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the 18. May I also express our appreciation of the services of your predecessor, Mr. Olara Otunnu of Uganda, who presided over the Council’s deliberations in December. I need hardly say more than that what he was able to accomplish has been widely acclaimed. 19. I would also extend to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Pirez de Cuillar, who has just assumed his duties, our felicitations and warmest good wishes fol success in the tasks that lie ahead, When he was called to assume the burdens of his office, the Organization and its Member States had already recognized his worth and his labours, both on behalf of’ his country and in the service of the Organization itself, 20. The Council meets as a sequel to its resolution 497 (1981) which it adopted following the Syrian Arab Republic’s complaint over Israel’s decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Golan Heights [S/1479/]. With an unusual demonstration of unanimity in an area which is the frequent subject of deliberation both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, the Council, in that resolution, categorically demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, rescind forthwith its decision to annex the Golan Heights and decided that Israel’s decision was null and void and without international legal effect. 21. The adoption of resolution 497 (1981) was acclaimed as evidence that the Council had made an unambiguous decision to call a halt to the continuing Israeli aggrandizement through its occupation of neighbouring territories by force. My delegation refrained from coming before the Council when it was considering that resolution because we had expressed our views quite clearly when we co-sponsored GenFral Assembly resolution 36/226 B, which was overwhelmingly adopted on 16 December. 22. The Council is now meeting again, in pursuance of paragraph 4 of resolution 497 (1981), to considel taking appropriate measures in the event of Israel’s non-compliance with the Council resolution. That noncompliance was heralded by a vituperative outburst by the Israeli leadership directed at Israel’s allies and friends, among others. It has now been conveyed in the note addressed on 29 December from the representative of Israel to the Secretary-General [S//482/, pa,rr. 31 and repeated in his statement to the Council yesterday [2322nd jneeting]. Israel’s reply is a recital of a garnished record of 30 years in the history of the Middle East problem, including a holier-than-thou reference to Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Charter, which speaks of fulfilling in good faith the obligations assumed by Members in accordance with the Charter, 24. Let me briefly recount the Jerusalem story. First,, there was the holding of a military parade. The Security Council adopted resolution 250 (1968) ignored by Israel. It then adopted resolution 25 1 (1968), deploring the holding of the parade. Then came resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969) and 298 (1971), all of which either censured or deplored Israel’s legislative and administrative measures and declared or confirmed them as invalid, Israel just went ahead regardless. The Security Council and the international community notwithstanding, Israel functions from a Jerusalem which it has proclaimed as its undivided and eternal capital. 25. At least in resolution 497 (1981), the Council decided that in the event of non-compliance it would consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter. In General Assembly resolution 36/226 B, the Security Council was requested to invoke the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter, which provides a range of remedies. It is now for the Council, which is aware of the outcome of previous resolutions addressed to Israel in similar situations, to determine how best it could compel a defaulting and defiant Member State to heed the authority of the Council. A conclusion that is limited to deploring or condemning Israel will have the predictable result of Israel’s again profiting from its policy of presenting a,fi/it cwotnpli. My delegation would like to share the expectation of the several members who have spoken before us that at least on this occasion the Council will discharge its r&ponsibilities and ensure compliance with its own decisions so that its authority will not be casually dismissed.

The next speaker is Mr. Clovis Maksoud, Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, to whom the Council extended an invitation under rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure at the 2322nd meeting. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 28. Perhaps the term “non-compliance“ inadequately describes the contemptuous and arrogant nature of Israel’s rejection of Council resolution 497 (1981). 29. I wonder what this augurs for the future of the United Nations. Still, Israel’s non-compliance should not be allowed to determine the mood of the future and the credibility of the Organization. On the contrary, it is perhaps a timely reminder for all of us who are in one way or another engaged in the constructive work of the Organization to renew our commitment to its ideals and objectives by ensuring the implementation of its resolutions, the applicability of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the reinforcement of its moral, political and diplomatic authority. 30. Sir, it is from this standpoint that we view yotu presidency with high expectations. The maturity you have constantly exhibited in your diplomatic performance, the friendliness you have demonstrated and the soundness of your judgement reflect not only the traditional wisdom that is abundant in the history of your great country but also a keen awareness of the responsibilities that all of us-particularly the super- Powers-have towards peace, progress and justice. I should also like to say how much the League of Arab States and the Arab Member States appreciate the sustained understanding and support your country, the Soviet Union, has given to Arab causes-support which has been functional and consistent. 3 1. I wish to point out, too, that the former President of the Council, Mr. Otunnu, has proved a new theory: that youth and statesmanship are not necessarily contradictions in terms. 32. The Council is meeting for the first time this year as the new Secretary-General, Mr, PCrez de Cu&llar, assumes his duties, which entail articulating the world’s conscience, besides eliciting and expressing world consensus. It is clear that our people have a stake in the growing capacity of the SecretarT/-General to succeed in those ennobling endeavours, 33. The report of the Secretary-General submitted to the Council on 31 December 1981 in document S/14821 speaks for itself. It is not a detailed analysis of obvious non-compliance by Israel with the provisions Of Council resolution 497 (1981). The Israeli response is allowed in effect to constitute the report, and judgement has therefore been deferred to this 35. To begin with, the response is wholly extraneous to what the Council, in resolution 497 (1981), asked Israel to do. The Council declared Israel’s imposition of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Golan Heights to be “null and void”. The Council demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind its decision forthwith. The Israeli answer is a brazen and categoric refusal to comply. On the contrary, Israel, as the report clearly shows, sought to justify the so-called Golan Heights Law. Not only did Israel seek to deflect attention from the core issue which led the Council to adopt its resolution 497 (1981), but it also sought to ignore the resolution, re.ject its demand and refuse its admonition. All this obviously constitutes non-compliance in its most glaring manifestation. 36. It is needless to point out that Israel instantly upon the adoption of resolution 497 (1981) informed the world of its determination not to comply, and it did so in the most emphatic terms, when Mr. Begin “lectured” United States Ambassador Lewis in the most insulting language to be recorded in the annals of modern diplomacy, thus reminding the world that the Hitlerite vocabulary is yet with us-and I shall return to this aspect later. 37. In view of Israel’s non-compliance, the Council’s anticipation of the Israeli response was wise, logical and justified. Paragraph 4 of resolution 497 (1981) states: “the Council would meet urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” 38. The need to take appropriate measures follows naturally when a determination of non-compliance is ascertained. The issue is: What constitutes “appro- . priate measures”? What defines the measures is inevitably the nature, extent and level of non-compliance. In this case, Israel’s non-compliance is unmistakable, total and categoric. Hence the extent is sweeping, the level of rejection is the highest and its nature is one of utter contempt, defiance and a clear intent to pursue the implementation of that which the Council has decided to be null and void. Inasmuch as this description is considered by the world community as objective and conclusive, there is no way of 39. Even if one is to make an analysis of the content of Israel’s response as included in the Secretary- General’s report, one finds that the audacity with which Israel distorts facts, falsifies history, asserts proven lies is unbelievable. The Israeli policy in this field is again reminiscent of Goebbels’ big-lie doctrine: when you want to obscure the truth, repeat the big lie. Israel has repeated the big lie concerning the Golan Heights prior to its 1967 aggression so often that the lie is no longer even challenged. 43. Israel attempts to justify its annexation of Syrian territory by claiming that Syria has repeatedly rejected Israeli offers to negotiate peace. The question here is: What sort of peace and negotiations, in what conditions? Under duress, coercion and occupation. Is it not obvious that ever since its creation Israel’s every action and policy has been aimed at undermining peace and preventing negotiations? 40. I should like to refer briefly to the truth about the Golan Heights, as has been done previously by my colleague, the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic [ibid.], and its role prior to the 1967 war. Israel alleges that before that war Syrian guns frequently shelled “without provocation” Israeli farm settlements in the Hula plains below [ihid., pcrrvr. 1&l]. 44. Israel has not even defined its borders. It keeps expanding in every direction and hints broadly that its appetite may require even more territory that it has already seized. And it has carried out its nefarious designs against its neighbour secure in the knowledge that it en.joys unlimited support and protection from its ally the United States. Yet we have recently witnessed the gratitude Israel feels for that support and protection in the form of Begin’s astonishing and insulting diatribe against the United States because it dared to show its displeasure at his reckless behaviour and policies. 41. What is the reality? Israel claimed sovereignty over the entire demilitarized zone designated by the 1949 Armistice Agreement.’ Not only Syria, but also the United Nations and particularly the United States rejected Israel’s claim to that zone and held that Israel had no right to fortify it with military personnel and equipment. In summarizing the situation, General Burns, the former head of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), wrote: 45. Begin complained that the United States had taken punitive measures against Israel for its bombing of Iraq’s peaceful nuclear installations-an act of pure aggression against a target hundreds of miles away from Israel. He moaned that the United States had admonished him for destroying the centre of Beirut, the Lebanese capital, and killing hundreds of innocent civilians, among them many children. He raged against the suspension by the United States of the so-called strategic co-operation agreement with Israel in the wake of his annexation of the Syrian Arab territory of the Golan Heights. And he warned that Israel was not to be treated by the United States as either a “vassal State” or a “banana republic” [,sc~c prrra. II &wfJ~. ,‘:Briefly stripped, so far as possible, of technicallties, the question at issue may be put thus: The Israelis claimed sovereignty over the . . . zone. They then proceeded, as opportunity offered, to encroach on the specific restrictions, and so eventually to free themselves, on various pretexts, from all of them , , . The Israelis in fact exercised almost complete control over the major portion of the . . . zone through their frontier police . . . This was directly contrary to article V of the General Armistice Agreement and the ‘authoritative interpretation’ of it . . .” How reminiscent of the procedures constantly followed by Israel in the West Bank and other places. 46. What is it, one should ask, that makes the United States so paralysed in the face of Israel’s diplomatic, political and intellectual terrorism? Why does a super- Power seem at times so helpless to curb the intransigence, lawlessness, recklessness and aggression of an obvious dependant? 42. Furthermore, Major General van Horn of Sweden, also a former UNTSO Chief of Staff, concluded: 48, The United States fails in its clear responsibility towards the maintenance of world Peace and 3ecurity when it pampers an aggressive Israel, an expanding Israel, an annexationist Israel. It abdicates its duty i,s ii major Power when it succumbs to obvious I\r;leli bliickmail and insults; and it detracts from its htilture in the eyes of the world when it Permits Israel not onlY to defy the international community but also to ignore. with untold harmful consequences, Americ;;** own national interests and global responsibilities. 41). The history of the United States proves conclusively that it has hardly ever accepted from others even ii fraction of the abuse that Begin heaped on the 1Jnittxj States Government and its leaders in his outhurat$. We are astonished that instead of engaging in firm diplomatic retaliation, the United States appears trilumatized hy Israel’s brazen assault and even eager to plitcitte the aggressor. 50. We welcomed the United States action in suspending its strategic co-operation accord with Israel. WC considered it a punitive step, but hoped that it would not be a terminal one: that other, more effective mea~urcs, more inhibiting measures, more deterrent measures would be taken when Israel refused to comply with Security Council and United States admonitions and demands. Moreover, the United Stiltejjoined last month with the other members ofthe %Xurity Council in laying the groundwork for “appro.. pri:ite measures” to be taken against Israel in case of non-compliance. 51. The time for such measures has arrived, since I$rilel hits utterly refused to rescind its effective annexation of the Syrian Arab territory of the Golan Heights. The United States and other members of the (.‘ouncil now face the task of defining the means to cumpcl Israel to comply. 21. Jjut hOW can any measure be “appropriate” and thcrcforc. effective when the United States signals td the world that it intends to prevent the imposition of banctil)nS against its pampered prodgi-a sort of Prc‘-t‘Illph% diplvmatic strike’? 53. Jt i* no exaggeration to say that in Once again shielding Israel from the consequences of its illegal actions, the United States risks creating an atmosphere Of international anarchy. It is sanctioning, in effect, the historically condemned practice ofacquiring territory by force. In other words, by protecting Israel 55. It is imperative that the international commttnity should come to consider Israel’s behnviour ;I major threat to peace in the Middle East. Thut is ;I fact that no Israeli lies can obscure any more. We in the League of Arab States and in the Arab worl<l fervently hope that the members of the Council clearly see, as we do, that their duty-in fact the only courst’ left open-is to impose the sanctions that would make Israel understand that the world’s putiencc with if\ depredations has run out. 56. The PRESIDENT firrtL’r’pt.Pttrtic)t?Ji.l)tll Ntrssiurr): The next speaker is the representative of Bangladesh. I invite him to take a place at the Council tnble and to make his statement.

At the outset, Sir. let me express felicitations on your assumption of the office of President of the Council for the current month. We are confident that the deliberations of the Council will be successfully steered under your ublc and effective guidance. 58. I should also like to take this opportunity to convey my profound appreciation to Mr. Otunnu of Uganda for his innovative and far-sighted leadership in solving some of the most crucial problems facing the Council and the United Nations during the month of December. 59. It gives us immense satisfaction to express our warmest greetings and heartfelt congratulations to Mr. Javier PCrez de CuCllar on his election as Secretary-General. His experience in diplomacy and his active involvement in complex negotiations on international crisis situations lend him a unique position to head the world body. We wish him success in his new responsibility. 60. The Council is again seized of a crisis threatening international peace and security arising out of Israeli aggression on Arab territories. The annexation of the Golan Heights by an act of the Israeli Parliament in utter Violation of international law and the GenkVa Conventions of 1949, is yet another example of the callous disregard with which Israel has treated international opinion. 62. Bangladesh has strongly condemned this move by Israel as an act of unwarranted provocation and a blatant violation of all international laws, canons and conventions. The concern and anxiety felt by Bangladesh about this serious development hav.e been emphatically demonstrated by its President and Minister for Foreign Affairs and they apprehend that this aggressive and illegal act on the part of Israel is bound further to aggravate and complicate the already explosive situation in the Middle East and thus cause a serious threat to regional and global security. 63. The flagrant defiance by Israel of the norms of conduct of international relations and its disregard fol the relevant decisions of the United Nations make it crystal clear that Israel is still wedded to a policy of aggression, belligerency and provocation towards its neighbours. With such an expansionist policy, how can Israel have the world believe that it is inclined to a peaceful settlement of disputes with its neighbours‘? 64. Bangladesh has always unequivocally condemned all acts of annexation of territories by force. In the case of the Golan Heights, Israel not only has illegally occupied Syrian territory by force of arms but also has sought to legitimize, consolidate and perpetuate the fruits of aggression. This deserves to be condemned. Bangladesh joins all the peace-loving countries of the world in expressing unreserved consternation at the continuing bellicose conduct of Israel. 65. This move, coming as it did shortly after the announcement of the eight-point peace proposal by Prince Fahd, has further diminished the prospects fo1 a peaceful, comprehensive and lasting solution of the Middle East problem. Bangladesh has always stood fol the peaceful and negotiated settlement of problems. In the Middle East, the search for peace has been seriously thwarted by the aggressive and thoughtless act of Israel in deciding to legitimize the illegal occupation of Syrian territory in the Golan Heights. Israel will have to bear the full responsibility for endangering international peace and security by this act of belligerency and aggression. 66. Bangladesh fully supports Council resolution 497 (1981) declaring the Israeli decision to impose its laws in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as null and void in international law. We also join the mem- 67. Bangladesh has always favoured the settlement of the Middle East problem in conformity with the relevant United Nations resolutions and the principles of the Charter. We reaffirm our belief that there can be no comprehensive, lasting and just peace in the Middle East without adherence to the recognized principles of international law and the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. Appropriate action must be taken to ensure that Israel desists from extending its laws to the illegally occupied Syrian Golan Heights and refrains from creating further provocations in the area. We demand that the Council condemn this aggressive conduct by Israel and, if necessary, impose mandatory sanctions to compel Israel to rescind its decision to extend the operation of its laws to the occupied areas of the Syrian Golan Heights. The Council should also fully discuss and examine the various economic and political measures that can be adopted with a view to the immediate withdrawal of Israel from all illegally occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and the restoration to the Palestinians of their inalienable rights+, including their right to a State of their own. 68. The PRESIDENT (intr/*prPtLltion jk)m Russiun): The next speaker is the representative of Cuba. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, I wish to thank you and the members of the Council for allowing me to speak at I this meeting on “The situation in the occupied Arab territories” and to express our pleasure at seeing you presiding over the work of the Council this month. Your recognized talent and diplomatic skill, togethet with the unswerving position of principle of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which you so worthily represent, guarantee in advance the just conduct of the debate which we are resuming today on the Israeli decision to annex part of the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic in the Golan Heights. 70. I wish also to reaffirm my delegation’s gratitude to Mr. Olara Otunnu of Uganda for his outstanding work as President of the Council last month. 71. Barely three weeks ago, on I6 December 1981, speaking here in the Council on the same question [2.3/7th meeting], I pointed to the recurrence of the acts of aggression perpetrated by the Zionist rkgime of Israel against a number of Member States and the inability of the United Nations to curb its illegal conduct, which is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Charter, as a result of the collusion of a permanent member of the Security Council with the rapacious, 73. On 17 December 1981, the Council unanimously . adopted resolution 497 (l981), in which, in paragraph 1, the Council decided that “the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect”, and consequently, in paragraph 2, it demanded that “Israel, the occupying . Power, should rescind forthwith its decision”. 74. The Israeli reply, sent to the Secretary-General in a note of 29 December 1981, is an insolent rebuff of the Council and the international community. The quintessential aggressor in the Middle East, the occupier of a territory that is an inalienable part of the Syrian Arab Republic, is now calling the victim to account and blaming it for its own unlawful acts, completely disregarding the decisions of the United Nations which are, moreover, perfectly clear and unequivocal. The representative of the Zionist r&im,e has cynically argued that the Israeli legislation in question in no way diminishes the rights of what he has called the local population [SIJC S//4821, pc~rrr. 31. 75. .The Government of Israel, violating all the norms of law and the Charter of the United Nations, has stripped the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, expelling them from their homeland and occupying their property and land. It has militarily seized and today still holds other Arab territories, including the Syrian Gotan Heights. It has carried out the forced colonization of those territories, and daily violates the rights of the Arab citizens, It has annexed the city of’ Jerusalem, wishing to make it its capital, It pursues an expansionist, annexationist policy that has repeatedly been condemned by the General Assembly and the Council. It engages in aggression and tel.rorism and it is even shameful enough to claim that its unlawl ful actions are aimed at protecting the rights of the local population of the Syrian Golan Heights. 76. We must conclude that, as in Alit in WOI~CI‘ I~nd, when the Israeli representative speaks of respect what he really means is trampling underfoot the rights of the Syrian people, just as he attributes to others Israel’s own expansionist, annexationist designs, 77. But we have not come to this meeting of the Council to hear the fables of the representative of Israel regarding the wonders of Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights. We have, rather, come to reiterate the demands contained in resolution 497 (1981) and the recommendations of the General Assembly re- 78. The Group of Non-Aligned Countries, over which it is my honour to preside, met the day before yesterday here at Headquarters and issued the following communiquC [S//482Y, mission, I will read: ~IWMC.~] which, with your per- “The plenary meeting of non-aligned countries held in New York on 5 January 1982, having listened to the statement made by the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic and bearing in mind the reports of the Secretary-General of 2 I December [S/148&~] and of 3 1 December l98f [S/1482/3, expressed its deepest concern and indignation at Israel’s defiance of Security Council resolution 497 (198 1) and General Assembly resolution 361226 B. “The plenary meeting further condemned the action taken by Israel on I4 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as an unequivocal act of aggression under the provisions of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations as well as General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) and, accordingly, expressed its firm conviction that the international community should immediately apply the necessary sanctions in conformity with Article 41 of the Charter. “In this regard, the non-aligned countries called on the Security Council to take appropriate measures under Chapter VII of the Charter to oblige Israel to restore all Syrian occupied territories to the full sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic. “The plenary meeting reaffirmed the solidarity of the movement of non-aligned countries with and support for the Government and people of the Syrian Arab Republic and called upon all members to participate actively in the forthcoming session of the Security Council which will examine the situation in the occupied Arab territories.” 79. Those, then, are our considerations and OUI demands. We hope that the Council will be able to act jointly, in accordance with the dictates of justice and law and in keeping with the will of the majority of Members of the Organization and the mandate of the Charter.