S/PV.2458 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken at previous meetings on this item [2401st, 2412th to 2414th, ,2438th and 2457th meetings], I invite the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, the German De~mocratic Republic, Greece, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Qatar, Senegal, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Yugoslavia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber; I invite .the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to take a place at the Council table. 2. The situation in the occupied Arab territories: Letter dated 5 November 1982 from the Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/1548 1); Letter dated 9 November 1982 from the Permanent Representative of Niger to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/15483); Letter dated 8 February 1983 from the Charge d’affaires a. i. of the Permanent Mission of Jordan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/15599); Letter dated 13 May 1983 from the Permanent Representative of Qatar to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/15764); Letter dated 27 July 1983 from the Permanent Representative of Democratic Yemen to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/15890). At the invitation of the President, Mr. Zarif(Afghanistan), Mr. Sahnoun (Algeria), Mr. Roa Kouri (Cuba), Mr. AI- Ashtal (Democratic Yemen), Mr. Khalil (Egypt), Mr. Ott (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Dountas (Greece), Mr. Krishnan (India), Mr. Rajaie-Khorassani (Islamic Republic of Iran), Mr. Abulhassan (Kuwait), Mr. Fakhoury (Lebanon), Mr. Zainal Abidin (Malaysia), Mr. Traore (Mali). Mr. Mrani Zentar (Morocco), Mr. Oumarou (Niger), Mr, Jamal (Qatar), Mr. Sarre (Senegao, Mr. El-Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Kirqa (Turkey), Mr. Al-Qasimi (United Arab Emirates), Mr. SaIIam (Yemen) and Mr. Golob (Yugoshrvia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber; Mr. Terzi (Palestine Liberation Organization) took a place at the Council table. The meeting was called to order at 11.55 a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted The situation in the occupied Arab territories: Letter dated 5 November 1982 from the Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/15481); Letter dated 9 November 1982 from the Permanent Representative of Niger to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/15483);

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

The Egyptian delegation, Sir, is pleased to see China presiding over the Council. The friendship between Egypt and 4. I am pleased also to convey to your predecessor, the representative of Zimbabwe, our congratulations on a job well done as President of the Council during the month of June. 5. The Council is meeting again today to resume consideration of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, a situation that has deteriorated owing to Israel’s policy and the conduct of the occupation authorities in those territories. We are confident that the Council, by virture of the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter of the United Nations, will not disregard the plight of the Palestinian people living under the yoke of Israeli occupation, especially in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This occupation is coupled with a far more serious phenomenon that has often been declared by the international community as violating international norms and jeopardizing opportunities for peace; to put it more correctly, it is the Israeli policy-planned, signed and sealed-to build settiements, displace the Arab inhabitants, deport them from their lands and homes and replace them with new settlers. 6. The Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza is, as is known, that of an occupying Power in Palestinian territories, an occupation that came about as the result of a military invasion followed by an illegal occupation, in 1967. It is a situation that falls under the terms of Council resolution 242 (1967), which emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. It also fails legally under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,’ regulating occupation situations. However, Israel rejects both. It refuses to withdraw from the territories and obstructs any action conducive to progress towards a genuine settlement of the Palestinian question, a settlement which to be viable must be just, must be arrived at by peaceful means and must restore to the Palestinian people all their legitimate rights. 7. Not only is Israel not content with rejecting implementation of, or adherence to, the rules of the Geneva Convention, but it also persists in carrying out its arbitrary policy in the Palestinian territories, as follows: first, by annexing new territories to Israel, as in the case of Arab Jerusalem; secondly, by colonizing other territories and illegally establishing new settlements; thirdly, by displacing the Arab inhabitants overtly by repressive measures,- arbitrary actions and constraints imposed by the occupation authorities which, ultimately, compel the Arab inhabitants to leave, or through terrorism carried out by armed groups of settlers with impunity and without compunction, such as those who opened fire indiscriminately against the students of the Islamic University 8. The policy of building settlements in the occupied Arab territories is parallel with trampling on the rights of the Arab inhabitants of those territories, including their human rights, at a time when Israel is constantly paying lip-service to human rights in the East and the West. 9. The sowing of seeds of malice, through these measures and acts, and the renewal of attacks against defenceless civilians are mainly the result of Israel’s persistence in occupying Arab territories and its adherence to the policy of establishing settlements, applying that policy to the Arab inhabitants, who have no recourse but to exercise their natural right to defend what remains of their property, territory and homeland. 10. Their legitimate protests are called a “rebellion”, and we see mayors dismissed and municipal councils dissolved with a stroke of the pen. They are described as “agitators” who deserve nothing from the occupation authorities other than deportation, expulsion, displacement, curtailment of their livelihood, imprisonment or even worse. We have heard certain officials in Israel describe the treacherous, armed ravaging of the Islamic University of Al-Khalil as a terrorist act. However, we also hear certain statements ascribed to official Israeli sources to the effect that the arms in the hands of groups of Israeli settlers are legitimate and legal. 11. Egypt considers Israel directly responsible for the act of aggression against the Islamic University of Al- Khalil. Since it is the occupying Power, it is responsible for acts of aggression against the security and safety of the Palestinian people in the occupied. territories of Gaza and the West Bank. We declare from this rostrum that all States should alert Israel to this fact. 12. I shall not be revealing a secret here if I draw attention to the fact that Cairo newspapers published in the last two days contained ample references to an urgent message sent on 27 July to Mr. Shultz, United States Secretary of State, by Mr. Kamal Hassan Aii, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt, in which the latter indicated to Mr. Shultz Egypt’s point of view concerning the attack against Al- Khaiil University. Mr. Kamal Hassan Ali called upon the United States to assume its responsibilities within the framework of its role in the peace process in the Middle East. 18. The Council cannot and should not remain indifferent to such illegal acts, which are systematically perpetrated by the Israeli aggressors on Arab soil. 14. The crux of the problem of the Middle East has been and will always be the question of Palestine. It is obvious that Israel is attempting to evade the question of Palestine by masking it behind other priorities and questions in order to try to distract attention from the oppressive measures it is carrying out and its attempts to change the characteristics of the Palestinian entity in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, falsely thinking that that will make the Palestinians finaily submit to its authority. The holding of power will not lead to the establishment of the peace which the international community so much desires, and it will not change the reality of Palestinian existence and the question of the Palestinian people. The exercise of domination and power and the oppression of defenceless civilians cannot be called peace. How many actions have been committed in the name of peace? Throughout history crimes have been committed in the name of liberty. 19. The policies of the Israeli occupier have frequently been properly evaluated in a number of Council resolutions. In connection with the item we are considering today, we should in particular be mindful of the fact that, in resolution 465 (1980), the Council declared that the measures being taken by Israel to alter the physical character, demographic composition and institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, have no legal validity. At that time, the Council called upon Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and, in particular, to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories. 20. What was Israel’s response to those fair and, let us be quite frank, clearly minimal demands? It was the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, further aggressive sorties against neighbouring Arab States and a vast and bloody invasion in Lebanon. It responded by constructing dozens of new settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where it continues methodically to carry out plans to locate thousands of new settlers. Finally, Israel responded with an abrupt escalation of mass terror and repression against the population of the occupied territories. 15. The deteriorating situation in the occupied territories requires explicit and decisive action by the Council. The international community should hold Israel completely responsible. It should be questioned about its acts by the international community, which sees its principles, he basis of its conduct, and its laws flouted and trampled upon. The Council has already pronounced itself on the illegality of the policy of building settlements in the occupied territories and has determined 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 Jerusalem, are null and void and a barrier to peace [resolution 465 (1980)]. 21. It must be perfectly obvious that the Israeli ruling clique is pursuing an increasingly dangerous and more irresponsible policy. By relying on brute military force, Israel is impudently throwing down the gauntlet to the international community. 16. We call today on all the members of the Council without exception to take a decisive position vis-d-vik the settlement policies and practices in the occupied Arab territories so that the Council can assume its responsibilities at this difficult stage. The Council must take a.position on a situation that never ceases to worsen for the Arab population. 22. All these are well-known facts. But it is even more important to understand why Israel can, in fact, behave in this manner. There is one reason: it is relying on the support of poweful protectors and partners overseas. In this context, the policies of Washington are year by year and day by day becoming more and more clearly pro- Israel in orientation. New facts attesting to this are constantly coming to our attention, facts that were until quite recently kept secret.

The question of the situation in the occupied Arab territories, like other aspects of the situation in the Middle East, has become a permanent feature of the Council’s agenda. One fifth of all the meetings of the Council have been devoted to these matters. That is quite natural. Every day brings reports from the Middle East about fresh atrocities and crimes committed by the Israeli authorities in the Arab territories 23. It is now an established fact that when Israel’s Prime Minister Begin made his first visit to Washington in July 1977-precisely six years ago-he secured from President Carter. the following promise, namely, that President Carter would no longer publicly refer to Israel’s withdrawing to the boundaries of 1967 “with slight modifications**. And, in fact, since that time the 24. It is now an established fact that when, in March 1978, Begin once again had talks in Washington with the President of the United States, the President gave the following account of his understanding of Israel’s position to that country’s Prime Minister, namely, according to the President’s summary, that, fust, Israel was not willing to retreat either politically or militarily from any part of the West Bank and, secondly, that Israel was unwilling to cease the construction of new settlements or to restrict the expansion of existing ones. For his part, Begin told the United States President that that was a rather negative way of expressing the Israeli position, but that he did not in fact deny the correctness of this understanding. Thus, only five years ago the United States had a very clear idea of what Israel wanted in the West Bank. Nevertheless, it continued-and it still continues-to support Tel Aviv. 25. It is another established fact that, in September 1978, Begin told the Americans that he found the language of Council resolution 242 (1967) unacceptable when it referred to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. According to what Begin said to Carter, the 1967 war gave Israel the right to alter the boundaries. Begin told the United States President that for that reason Israel would under no circumstances agree to any document that included such language. As we know,. that language was in fact entirely deleted by the United States from the Camp David agreements. 26, This, therefore, is the reason for the growing arrogance of Israel. The United States gives in to every new demand Israel makes, at the expense of the Arabs. A further step in this direction is, the stated position of the 27. There can be no shadow of a doubt that responsibility for the present tragedy in the Middle East and the further aggravation of the situation in that part of the world is borne equally by Israel and the United States. 28. As for the Soviet Union, its position is briefly as follows: the Soviet Union has unswervingly supported and will continue to support the just cause of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples and their valiant struggle for their inalienable legal rights. The Soviet Union firmly holds that a genuine solution to the Palestinian question and other problems of the Middle East can be achieved only as part of a comprehensive settlement on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions. Only honest efforts, only collective efforts with the participation of all parties concerned, including, of course, the PLO as the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, can bring about a just and-for that reason-a durable peace in the Middle East. 29. We-are convinced of the rightness of our position. The future will prove it to be correct. The meeting rose at 12.30 p.m. NOTE ’ ’ United Nations, Treugv Series, vol. 75, No. 973. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations. Sales Section. New York or Geneva. COMMENT’ SE PROCURfi LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIOSS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les apences d&x~sitaires du monde entier. Informez-vous auplps de votre libraire ou adressez-vous B : Nations Unies. Section des ventes. New York ou Geneve. KAK IlOJIYYMTb’ M3LIAHWR OPI-AHM3A!.lMM OE%E~MHEHHbIX HAilMti M3namra Opratrrt3aumt O6aemweHnbtx HauHR MOXWO ~yns~b n ntmabix 5tara3miax H aretiwzraax 80 acex paRottax hmpa. Haaonnre cnpaaKa 06 ii3natutnx n aatuext Kum~tio~t Mara3HHe trntt nHtuHre no anpecy: Opratftt3auHn 06beRnHeHHbtX Hauttn. CeKulln no nponaxre sr3nanuB. HbK)-HopK umi IKetreaa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIOhi DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estan en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas panes del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas. Seccidn de Ventas. Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Litho in United Nations, New York 00300 00300 - - 90-60205-July 1991-2,050 90-60205-July 1991-2,050