S/PV.2552 Security Council

I should like further to inform members of the Council that I have received a letter dated 28 August from the representative of Yemen which reads as follows:

I should like to inform members of the Council I have received letters from the representatives of Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Fakhoury (Lebanon) and Mr. Blum (Israel) took places at the Council table; Mr. Abulhassan (Kuwait) and Mr. El- Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. . 2. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I should like to inform members of the Council that “I have the honour to request that I be allowed to participate in the Security Council’s consideration of the item entitled ‘The situation in the Middle East’, in accordance with the provisions of rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.” It was so decided. “I have the honour, in my capacity as Chairman of the Group of Arab States, to request that the Security Council extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Clovis Maksoud, Permanent Observer for the League of Arab States to the United Nations, in connection with the Council’s consideration of the item entitled ‘The situation in the Middle East’.” [S/Z6722.] 5. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Council agrees to grant that request. It was so decided.

The Council is meeting today in response to the request contained in the letter dated 24 August 1984 from the representative of Lebanon to the President of the Council [S/26713]. 7. The first speaker is the representative of Lebanon, on whom I now call. 9. May I also express to your predecessor, Mrs. Jeane Kirkpatrick, representative of the United States, our thanks and appreciation for her leadership of the Council during July. 10. Once again Lebanon has had recourse to the Council, which remains the haven of small countries that believe in the principles of the United Nations. Lebanon has always been devoted to the principles and provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and has always respected the decisions of its organs. We have come before the Council today on behalf of the people of Lebanon and the inhabitants in the south, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district, numbering more than 800,000, who suffer from Israel’s occupation and unjust arbitrary practices. We have come also on behalf of the whole world, a world that is jealous of the rights of peoples and responsible for its values. We have come to appeal to the Council on behalf of these tortured souls. We have come invoking the right. and the justice that are enshrined in the principles of the Charter. We have come to appeal to the Council to help Lebanon and its people to overcome their sufferings and to lighten their burden. 11. If it is not Lebanon’s right to describe the human tragedy to which its sons are being subjected, whose right is it? If it is not the duty of the Council to deal with this issue in defence of the rights and destiny of peoples, what then is the duty of the Council? That is why we are lodging a complaint with regard to the practices of the Israeli authorities in our country, and we hope that all the members of the Council will fully understand the depth of this tragedy and shoulder the responsibilities inherent in their membership of the Council. 12. We have come to the Council not to create any confrontation, not for rhetorical or sterile discussions, but to seek an end to certain practices and redress of the painful situation today confronting our people-and in my statement today I shall give proof of these facts. 13. Southern Lebanon is suffocating because of illegitimate practices and inhuman behaviour. Its population lives in a constant state of terror: Israeli tanks, weapons and guns are always pointed at them; normal life in their region, which has become a paralysed part of our homeland, has been interrupted; the daily storming of towns and villages; the laying siege to homes and private and official institutions; the indiscriminate detention and arrest of children and the elderly, women and religious leaders, some of whom are taken hostage; the closing of roads between peaceful villages; the closing down of shops; the imposition of curfews; the destruction of crops and orchards and 14. As though the occupying authorities with their vindictive nature were not satisfied with those acts against a peaceable people, they have resorted to separating the south, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district, completely isolating them from the motherland. The occupation of the south, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district is a blatant violation of article 42 of the Regulations annexed to The Hague Convention IV of 1907.2 In effect, those regions are being materially and militarily subjected to Israeli rule; therefore, the people and properties in those regions are entitled to protection from the excesses of Israeli occupation, in accordance with the provisions of the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention-to which both Lebanon and Israel acceded unconditionally. 15. Israel is daily giving proof of its blatant denial of all rights and its defiance of international public opinion, however, by its arbitrary practices against the people of the occupied regions. 16. On 5 and 6 June 1982, the Council adopted resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), in the latter of which it demanded Israel’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Lebanese territory. Had Israel implemented those two resolutions, we would not now be suffering from its unjust practices and arbitrary measures; we would not now be here in the Council to expose Israel’s breaches of international agreements. 17. The international community rejects those practices; it opposed Israel’s continued defiance of intemational norms and instruments adopted by the civilized world. Furthermore, no people can agree to submit to such arbitrary measures, particularly since the intemational community has undertaken a commitment which is enshrined in many conventions and treaties to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to protect all rights and to prohibit the threat or use of force. . 18. On this occasion, I should like the Council to take note that Lebanon considers the Israeli presence on its territory outright occupation to which the provisions of international conventions are applicable, in particular, the fourth Geneva Convention. I request the Council to require Israel to respect the provisions of that Convention. 19. I do not wish today to bore the members of the Council with a list of the arbitrary practices undertaken. daily by Israel against the civilians in the south, the western ,I3ekaa and the Rashaya district, which are the 25. For the third time in two months, the village of Maaraka was the object of a suffocating military siege by the occupying forces, a siege which continued for 15 days, during which the water supplies were cut off and food supplies were interrupted. A curfew was imposed on the inhabitants; most of the young and old people in the village were detained and subjected to various types of torture. Their only crime was their allegiance to their legitimate authorities. The occupation forces have also clashed with men of religion and defiled places of worship. The imams of four villages were detained. Those forces also took the son of a fifth imam hostage because the imam himself could not be found. The Mosque was raided in each of those villages. Such activity is prohibited by article 46 of The Hague Regulations of 1907 as well as article 27 of the fourth Geneva Convention. 20. In their endeavours to humiliate the people of the occupied territories and thus subjugate them to their will, the Israeli occupation forces have resorted to detaining and imprisoning countless thousands of people, interfering with their freedom and detaining them in the many prisons those forces have established for the purpose. According to available statistics, the Israeli occupation forces have been detaining an average of 368 individuals every month and have not spared the aged, minors, women, soldiers, state employees, students, teachers, religious people, journalists, mayors or chiefs of districts. 21. Last July, those same authorities detained 480 individuals whose only crime was that they were inhabitants of the occupied territories. Special forces of the occupying authorities in the south often resort to the assassination of party officials and eminent religious figures as well as average citizens. The occupying forces often clash with employees of the Lebanese State and army personnel. Those forces have prevented members of the internal security forces from carrying their hand weapons on official missions. They have blindfolded and detained a number of soldiers of the Lebanese army and the internal security forces at crossing points; they also detain the relatives of wanted individuals and keep them as hostages until their sons surrender to the occupying forces. Such activities are a clear violation of article 34 of the fourth Geneva Convention. 26. As proof of the occupying forces’ defiance of international instruments and norms, on 2 August an ambulance attendant of the Lebanese Red Cross was detained at the Batir-Jezzin check-point while he and a colleague were carrying a wounded man to the hospital in a car belonging to the Red Cross. Such action is in clear violation of paragraph 1 of article 20 of the fourth Geneva Convention. 27. I shall not go into the actions undertaken by Israel against the international forces in the south, such as disrupting their activities, since those practices are well known and the Council no doubt has received reports sent by the commanders of the international forces in southern Lebanon. 28. The occupying forces apportion the thousands of detainees to five subsidiary centres and one main prison in the township of Ansar. These centres lack adequate sanitary conditions, health services and protection against the weather: a violation of article 85 of the aforementioned Geneva Convention. 22. What is more, the occupying authorities often resort to inhuman reprisals-including various types of physical and psychological torture-against the detainees, practices which again are in violation of articles 27 and 32 of the fourth Geneva Convention and article 46 of Regulations annexed to The Hague Convention of 1907. 29. The Israeli authorities have persisted in their refusal to provide a list of the names of prisoners to the appropriate authorities, in contravention of articles 43 and 136 of the fourth Geneva Convention. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) made a sustained effort in Lebanon to obtain permission to send a representative to visit detainees in the places of’ detention at Tyre, Nabatiyeh, Marjayoun and Sidon, pursuant to articles 142 and 143 of that Convention. The Israeli authorities declined to give such permission; they did not allow the Red Cross representative to visit or communicate with the detainees until their release, or until their arrival at the detention point of Ansar and the end of the Israeli authorities’ investigation. Such investigations usually takes several weeks. 23. On 13 June this year, an Israeli patrol raided a house in the village of Kafr Melki. When the patrol did not find the individual it was seeking, it let police dogs loose against the women of the household, three of whom were taken to hospital in critical condition. Such practice is prohibited by article 3 (I) (c) of the fourth Geneva Convention. 24. The latest brainchild of the Israeli occupation authorities with respect to repression and torture of the local inhabitants was manifested in their action in the village of Kafr Shuba, where they raided the houses of three detainees, sealing the doors and windows with cement-at the expense of the owners of the homes, of course. Such action is prohibited by article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention which provides that no in- 30. The arrests and detentions undertaken by the occupation authorities have been accompanied by ter- 31. As for arbitrary practices against properties, the occupying authorities often resort to reprisals against Lebanese citizens in the occupied territories, including the burning of crops, the disruption of the harvesting of grains, the uprooting and consequent destruction of citrus trees and the destruction of orchard fences, all in contravention of article 53 of the fourth Geneva Convention, which clearly prohibits such acts. The area of orchards destroyed by the Israeli forces in southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa have an estimated value of more than 15,000 dunums. Press correspondents as well as agencies have noted that Israeli barriers on the Awali River disrupt the transport of citrus fruits to Beirut. Furthermore, millions of oranges and lemons rot on the trees because the expense of carrying such fruit to Beirut has become exorbitant, and because at least five days are needed-if permission is granted for transport-for this fruit to reach the capital, which is only 45 kilometres away. This is in contravention of the substance of article 53 of the aforementioned Geneva Convention. 32. When the occupying authorities raid the houses of wanted individuals, they resort to smashing down doors, and in many cases Israeli patrols have stolen jewelry, electrical equipment and household appliances which they stumble upon when searching houses; they have also confiscated a number of cars belonging to wanted individuals or their relatives. 33. Moreover, the occupation forces have not confined themselves to the plunder of movable and immovable property; they have also destroyed an ancient Greco-Roman temple in the city of Tyre, and their patrols continually plunder historical ruins, in clear contravention of article 56 of The Hague Regulations of 1907 and The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, of 14 May 1954.3 34. In Sidon, the capital of the south, the occupation authorities have occupied the Government palace. The Governor and Government officials were evicted and the building was then confiscated, as were all the official archives, in flagrant violation of The Hague Regulations of 1907. 35. As for those practices aimed at isolating the south, it should be noted that southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district are connected to the rest of the nation by two main roads and a number of secondary roads. A few months ago Israel cut off all secondary roads leading to southern cities and villages, as well as cities and villages in the western Bekaa and 36. The authorities close that road to all cars in both directions every Saturday, and whenever. they seek revenge upon the inhabitants of the occupied territories. Hardly a week goes by without that road being closed; it is the only access between the south and the rest of Lebanon. This road has been cut off up to 18 days a month. The occupying authorities have recently decided to close the road indefinitely, although it is the only link between the south and the north. They went even beyond that retaliatory action and made a decision to prevent tourist vehicles from crossing from the south to the north, and vice versa. Travellers are forced to cross over to the other side on foot and to rent another vehicle to ensure that they will arrive at their destination in the south. Foreign diplomats have not been excepted. On 22 August, the British newspaper The Times described these practices as being the climax of previous actions undertaken by the Israeli authorities to strengthen their stranglehold and to cut off the , south from Beirut. 37. To date, vehicles at the Batir-Jezzin check-point have had to wait a number of hours, for permission to cross, and this lengthy waiting period has led to some tragic incidents for the passengers. For example, one citizen died while waiting for his turn to cross the Batir- Jezzin check-point. A new-born infant died at the Iraeli check-point at Gaza-Jubb Jannin in the western Bekaa. A woman gave birth on the road while waiting to cross over at the Israeli check-point at Batir. 38. In order to strengthen the siege against the south and isolate it completely from other regions of Lebanon, the Israeli authorities have cut all telecommunications and postal communication and very rarely are such services restored. Israel has forbidden newspapers printed in the capital to be circulated in the occupied territories. It has also jammed other media, including audio-visual. 39. As for the movement of individuals from and to the south, it is subject to prior permission from the occupation forces. However, the occupation forces-have reduced the number of such permits from a few hundred daily to 30, obtainable at the occupation authorities’ headquarters in the village of Kafr Falous in the south, and the Israeli military administrator of the Sidon region, Captain Albert, declared that “citizens from outside the south must try to obtain Israeli passes from the Lebanese Government”. 46. As for Israeli practices in the south concerning water, they can be summarized as follows. 47. First of all, let us look at the facts: The Ministry of the Interior of Lebanon has information that the engineering branch of the Israeli Defence Ministry under Colonel Shawool,has for the past 15 days been digging a tunnel 3 kilometres long from the Lebanese-Israeli border near the township of Kafr Kila to the township of Deir Mimas at the Valley of Deir Mimas, which is the part of the Litani River nearest to Israeli territory. The source supplying this information to the Ministry of the Interior added that this tunnel can absorb all the water of the Litani River, and it seemed that all the fuss made about the Wazzani was only an attempt to divert public opinion from the main tunnel I have mentioned. 41. In this context our doubts are strengthened by what happened last June when the Israeli occupation authorities summoned the Mayor of the Al-Adeissa township and informed him that its inhabitants had to either obtain Israeli identity cards or leave the area. The occupation authorities have also harassed State employees by preventing them from reaching their places of employment. Last June they forbade secondary school students from sitting for their final graduation examinations, after first having attempted to obstruct the holding of those examinations by forbidding the international forces in the south from bringing official examination papers to the schools. 48. The Governor in the south added that the Israeli forces had started to fence off a number of private and public properties up to the Wazzani and that metal posts had been placed alongside the roads constructed by the Israeli authorities. A bridge had been built over the river and a lZkilometre-long road constructed from the western part of the Wazzani to the Syrian township of Ghajar. That road has been asphalted and barbed wire placed alongside it and the population is allowed nowhere near it; what is more, fishermen can no longer fish in the Wazzani River. The barbed wire runs inside Lebanese territory for about three to five kilometres. The line is one-kilometre long, and the fenced-in territory is about 5,000 dunums. 42. The climax of these arbitrary measures was reached last week when the two Governors of the south were prohibited from assisting at the official meeting held in the Presidential Palace to discuss the situation in the occupied territories and the social, sanitary and housing services that may be provided to the citizens. This is a clear contravention of article 43 of the Regulations annexed to The Hague Convention of 1907. 43. Furthermore, asphalt was not allowed to be transported to the south either by land or by sea. Road maintenance has been halted and this has severely hampered land transportation in the area. The occupation authorities prevented fuel oil from reaching the refinery in Zahrani and thereafter the Al-Jiyeh generating plant, as well as denied employees of the plant access to their place of employment--all in an attempt to inflict harm on the Lebanese economy and deprive the inhabitants of electricity. 49. Those fencing activities and the digging of ditches for new posts have stopped now; the judiciary Lebanese police has informed the Governor in the south, however, that there are many ditches ready to receive new metal posts, that Israel will not abandon its ambitions over Lebanese waters and that 80 per cent of the work to that end has been completed. 44. As for the situation in the south, in the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district 40 villages are isolated by Israel every month. Israel’s activities of siege and isolation continue daily and vary between one and fifteen days, during which time all roads leading to a particular village are closed. All this is accompanied by raids on homes in the village and the collective detention of its inhabitants-again in contravention of article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention. 45. Israel does not stop at these arbitrary measures aimed at besieging the occupied territories, because from time to time it closes the two ports of Sidon and Tyre, the only two harbours in the south. No ships, fishing or transport of goods or persons are allowed; nor is any contingency aid allowed to reach the south. The Israeli occupation authorities have on more than one occasion prevented the unloading of wheat for the people in the south, again in contravention of article 59 of the fourth Geneva Convention. These arbitrary meas- 50. Our suspicions and fears about Israel’s undertaking water-diverting activities have been confirmed for the following reasons. 51. First, since July Israel has prevented patrols of the international emergency forces in the south from reaching the work sites so as to prevent the gathering of any proof. As reported by press agencies, the official spokesman of the international forces in Beirut said on 15 August that Israel had fenced in two parts of the Hasbani River. 52. Secondly, on the same date, Agence France- Presse reported that Tahall, the Israeli Government water engineering firm, “decided to exploit the unused portion of the fuel pipeline which runs through the Golan Heights for a length of 50 kilometres for transporting water”. , 54. Despite all that information reported in the press inside and outside Lebanon-which strengthens our suspicions-we are still awaiting the results of the investigations by officers of the international forces in the south. In the light of those investigations, we request the Council to stress anew our established inalienable right to our own waters and provide sufficient guarantees so that Israel will no longer even think of seizing our waters. I believe that.it is not too much to ask of the Council to take time to consider the suffering of our peoples in the occupied territories. 55. The information I have given provides painful examples of Israeli practices in the occupied Lebanese territories. The danger of these practices and the resulting pain and damage will not be altered by any denial or justification. As I said before, the aim of this complaint is not to engage in discussions, rhetoric or useless talk. What Lebanon seeks is for the Council to do the following: first, to implement its resolutions on complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory to the internationally recognized borders, immediate cessation of Israeli practices against the inhabitants of the south, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district, and respect for their legitimate right to live in peace, security and dignity; secondly, to compel Israel immediately to lift its siege of the occupied territories; thirdly, to insist on the necessity for Israel to respect the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the norms of international law, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other international conventions and The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907; and fourthly, to stress Lebanon’s inalienable right to its waters, so that Israel will no longer even think of seizing those waters. 56. The Council is urged to accede to those Lebanese requests. We ask the Council to maintain peace and security in the Middle East and the world, that being its primary responsibility.

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

Although the month of August is almost over, Sir, permit me at the outset to pay my respects to you on your accession to the presidency of the Council for this month. May I also take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the representative of the United States for the exemplary manner in which she carried out the functions of the presidency last month. 59. We have just heard the statement of the representative of Lebanon. He brought us happy tidings. Apparently north of the Awali River peace and harmony 60. For some time we have been witnessing a further deterioration, if such is still possible, of the already shaky security situation in Lebanon arising out of the ongoing internecine warfare in that country, in particular in and around Beirut and in the north. 61; The following brief and by no means exhaustive chronology of events highlights the inability of the Karame Government to bring under control the situation in the country. 62. According to The Los Angeles Times of 4 July 1984, “The security plan for Beirut has been under negotiation for months, while hundreds of people-most of them civilians-were being killed by militia artillery on both sides of the city.” 63. According to The New York Times of 6 July, “Fighting continues for the fourth day with 36 people killed in clashes between militia forces siding with or opposing Syrian troops in Tripoli.” 64. The New York Times of 9 July reported: “Opening of new Beirut crossings is thwarted by kin of missing . . . The total number of persons seized by militias over the last few years is in the thousands . . . The blackout surrounding this problem indicates that many of those kidnapped may have met a fatal end.” 65. According to The Washington Post of 22 July, “Three days of vicious lighting in Khoura. Ex-President Franjieh, a Christian Maronite leader, apparently was trying to expand the territory he commands at the expense of Inaan Raad, a Greek Orthodox, who heads the National Syrian Socialist Party and whose strength lies in the Khoura district on the edges of Franjieh’s traditional fiefdom . . .” An anonymous Lebanese political analyst comments on Syria’s intervention in this latest flare-up: “ ‘Make no mistake about it, the real Government of Lebanon sits in Damascus these days, not in Beirut.’ ” 66. The New York Daily News of 27 July reported: “Death toll rises in the north from fighting for fourth straight day between fundamentalist Islamic group and ‘pink panthers’. Twenty-five killed and 100 wounded.” 78. According to Reuters on 24 August, 68. The Nenj York Times of 29 July said: “Shi’ite Moslems sack Saudi consulate as armed Lebanese police watched without intervening. The chanted slogans included, “At your command, Khomeini’, and ‘We’ll show you, House of Saud’ . . . In another incident, gunmen fired two rocket-propelled grenades at the British embassy in Beirut last night.” “Rival leftist militias battle in Beirut. Three people killed and six wounded.” 69. Reuters reported on 2 August: “Seventy-eight people killed in month of July in Tripoli.” 79. The New York Times of 26 August reported: 70. The New York Times of 4 August said: “Fighting outside Beirut and in the northern port of Tripoli attested to the Lebanese Government’s ineffectiveness in extending its authority beyond Beirut and in getting the country’s many factions to replace fratricide with co-operation. In Tripoli, 105 people were estimated to have died last week as fighting erupted again between Sunni Muslim fundamentalists, who control most of the city, and Syrian-backed Alawite Muslims. Since the start of 1984, more than 500 people are believed to have been killed in fighting in the city.” “Fighting in Tripoli continues. Total of 5 dead, 21 wounded.” 71. The Washington Post of 5 August reported: “In Tripoli . . . overnight battles kill five more.” 72. According to The New York Times of 6 August, “Emergency cabinet meeting cancelled”-that is, the Lebanese cabinet-“ because of internal dissension. In addition to the usual Christian-Muslim differences, a Berri/Jumblatt rift is occurring over where on the Damascus highway would soldiers operate and whether they would replace the garrison at Suq al-Gharb or be deployed in Druze villages.” 80. On 22 August, Beirut Radio stated in its domestic service: “From 11 o’clock this morning shells have been falling on various sectors of Tripoli, killing 80 and wounding 250. Heavy property damage has resulted from the artillery barrage. The recurrent fighting is the result of the breakdown of the cease-fire between the pro-Syrian Knights of Islam and the Democratic Arab and the Islamic Union militias. Hospitals are already overflowing with the wounded from previous incidents. The firefighters are unable to extinguish the many conflagrations in the different sectors of Tripoli. Shops have completely closed down. 73. The Associated Press said on 16 August: “Syrian army takes control of Baalbek in Lebanon from Iranian revolutionary guards and radical Muslim militia, in an effort to shore up support for Shia leader Berri.” 74. The New York Times of 19 August reported: “Shells hit grounds of presidential palace in heavy fighting between Christian and Druze forces . . . Third consecutive day that fighting takes place.” “In Beirut, Druze leaders have not been able to arrive at Baabdeh, the Presidential Palace, for the meeting of the Cabinet, due to their inability to cross streets blocked by relatives of the kidnap victims. The Government has been unable to carry out any action with regard to this problem. The Cabinet held a closed meeting under the chairmanship of the President in the Presidential Palace which was damaged in the course of fighting in the second week of August.” 75. The New York Times of 21 August said: “Heavy fighting breaks out overnight in Tripoli between Sunni Muslims and Syrian-backed militiamen -30 killed, 25 wounded.” 76. According to The Washington Post of 23 August, “Fighting continues for third straight day in Tripoli. One hundred people killed since Monday and many more wounded . . . Indeed, the President of Lebanon himself asked at the meeting of his Government on 22 August, according to the domestic service of Beirut Radio: “How will we be able to send the Army to the south when we have not been able to send it to Ash- Shuwayfat and Khaldeh? How can we restore civil “Clashes continue between Lebanese army and Christian militia on one side, and Druze fighters on the other, near Suq al-Gharb.” Those are the questions raised by President Amin Gemayel. For some reason the distinguished representative of Lebanon has ignored them here today in his statement. 81. Ironically but characteristically, though not surprisingly , this meeting of the Council has been called to discuss not these very pertinent questions raised by President Gemayel but instead the situation in southern Lebanon where the overall situation-including security-is far better than in any other part of that war-torn country. 82. The present debate on Lebanon in the Council, as so many that have preceded it, has a surrealistic quality not unknown in the annals of the modem Middle East. 83. The Lebanese Government, whose house is literally on fire-in its capital city Beirut, in the city of Tripoli and elsewhere-is totally under the political and military domination of its “fraternal” neighbour, Syria. The Karame Government is now turning to the Council to talk of problems in the south of Lebanon, an area which for many years was virtually under the rule of a terrorist organization that reduced to a nightmare the life of Lebanese citizens there. During all those years the Lebanese Government had in effect written off the south. It is certainly worth.mentioning in this connection the role of the Cairo agreement of 3 November 1969, which sanctioned the terrorist takeover of the south, thus attesting to the Lebanese Government’s very peculiar concern for the lives and security of the inhabitants in the south of its country. 84. It is of course evident, not only to members of the Council but also outside it, that the Lebanese Govemment has initiated the present move in the Council under heavy constraints emanating from its lack of independence. Its purpose seems to be to divert attention from the disasters overtaking the north, the centre of Lebanon and Beirut. The domestic service of Beirut Radio could not have been more explicit on this point. On 13 August is stated: “Prime Minister Karame today received Hammad as-Sid, personal envoy of the League of Arab States Secretary-General. A&id was told: Lebanon has requested that a propaganda campaign be launched abroad regarding the south. What moves have been made in this respect? He answered: Your information Ministry knows that the League of Arab States has sent several hundreds of thousands of dollars to ,Lebanon to help launch this campaign.” We are confronted here today with one of the manifestations of that propaganda campaign. 86. There is and there can be no comparison whatsoever between the frightful chaos prevailing to the north of the Awali river and the security situation that obtains in the area to the south of it. It will be recalled that when Israel withdrew its forces beyond the Awali river last summer, that redeployment of the Israel Defence Forces was matched by a corresponding Syrian advance into other areas of Lebanon, directly or through Syria’s proxies. The situation in the north of Lebanon, in Beirut and. in the southern approaches to the capital can be best desc’ribed as tragic. The areas in question are controlled by Syrian-supported militias and proxies. The terrorists also are slinking back into Beirut. The area of Lebanon to the north of the Awali is racked by civil strife and bloodshed, as evidenced by the following facts: 87. First, the area of Tripoli is afield of battle between proand anti-Syrian militias and is subjected to the repeated violent and brutal interventions of the Syrian army and the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] terrorists of the Abou-Moussa colouring, who support their Syrian godfather. Over 500 have been killed in Tripoli since the beginning of this year and thousands were wounded. Many are fleeing the city. For the umpteenth time the cease-fire has been broken again only some days ago and severe fighting resumed. 88. Secondly, the area south of Tripoli is in the throes of a struggle led by Franjieh against his opponents. Franjieh is, as we all know, supported by the Syrians. In all of the areas to the north of Tripoli as well as in the north-east and east, full control is in Syrian hands. 89. Thirdly, President Gemayel controls the East Beirut salient and the shoreline up to the Matan sector, south of the port of Junieh. 90. Fourthly, in West Beirut the Shia militia are lighting the Sunni Nasserist Mourabitoun and the Druze, the latter blocking the coastal highway down to Damour. The presence of the Muslim sixth brigade of the Lebanese army in West Beirut is utterly irrelevant. 92. Sixthly, the coastal highway from Beirut to the Awali has been blocked by the Shiites, the Druze and the Christians since February of this year. 97. Israel’s position with regard to Lebanon is and has been clear. It has been stated and reafftrmed on numerous occasions by the Government of Israel, in the Council and elsewhere. Israel wishes to see Lebanon free and independent, and exercising its full territorial sovereignty over all of its territory. Israel has no territorial ambitions whatsoever in Lebanon. Israel desires to live in peace with Lebanon and to maintain good-neighbourly relations with Lebanon. Israel wishes to see the whole of Lebanon entirely free from any foreign domination, with peace and calm returning to all its troubled people and land. 93. Seventhly, the Shouf and Aley sectors are blocked off by the Druze, in contravention of the security agreement with the Government of Lebanon. Recently, fighting has again broken out between the Druze and the army of Lebanon, including in the Suq al-Gharb area. 94. So much for the situation north of the Awali. I must express my admiration to the representative of Lebanon for his ability to pass over in silence all these events when addressing himself to the situation in his country. 98. The Israel-Lebanese Agreement of 17 May 1983, which was approved by both the Lebanese and the Israel parliaments, solemnly reaffirmed those basic principles. The opening paragraph of article 1 of that Agreement states: 95. By contrast, to the south of the Awali, Israel has made great efforts to ease the normal life of the inhabitants in the areas under its control, which had been a PLO state within a State up until June 1982. There can be no better evidence of the fact that the civilian population is aware of Israel’s efforts than the massive return of the Lebanese civilian population to the area under Israel control, even before the end of the fighting in August 1982. These civilians had been forced to abandon their houses and property as a result of the chaos caused by PLO depredations, abetted by the Arab Governments since the late 1960s. A second massive wave of returnees came to the Israel-controlled area as a result of the severe fighting to the south of Beirut in February of this year. Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon is only of a provisional nature. That is why it has been Israel’s policy all along to leave the day-to-day administration of the area, wherever and whenever possible, in the hands of the Lebanese civilian authorities, while maintaining the security in the area pending its withdrawal. The ICRC is aware of the fact that Israel has been applying the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,’ in the area of Lebanon under its control, and Israel’s conduct in southern Lebanon meets the requirements of that Convention as well as of other relevant rules of international law aimed at protecting the civilian population. “The parties agree and undertake to respect the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of each other. They consider the existing international boundary between Lebanon and Israel inviolable.” The Agreement provided, inter alia, for the withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces from Lebanon. Israel has not changed its position. Israel desires to withdraw its forces from Lebanon in spite of the unjustified unilateral renunciation of the aforementioned Agreement by the Government of Lebanon. We all know that the Lebanese Government went back on its signature under heavy pressure from Syria, whose goal is to continue its subjugation of Lebanon politically, militarily and economically. Israel will indeed withdraw its forces from Lebanon as soon as adequate provisions have been made for ensuring Lebanese sovereignty in the south and for the security of Israel’s northern border from attack and harassment from Lebanese territory. Unfortunately, the situation that prevails in Lebanon today indicates the total inability of the Lebanese Govemment to assert its sovereignty over its territory, and the chronology of recent events read out by me earlier clearly points to the fact that the Lebanese Government is far from being the master of its own house even in its capital city, let alone -in those areas that are totally dominated by Syria, as, for instance, in Tripoli. 96. There is thus not the slightest justification for the Lebanese complaint that has brought about this meeting of the Council. The reason for the Lebanese initiative that resuited in today’s Council meeting is amply clear to all seated around this table. It is the combined effect of both Syrian pressure and domestic Lebanese politics and constraints. It is a diversionary exercise of the highest degree. How else, may I ask, does one account for the curious phen menon that the current Prime Minister of Lebanon, B native of Tripoli, should have disregarded the very real plight of his home town and of his immediate constituents and, instead, should 99. It is a fact that the feuding, the bloodshed and the civil war that are still plaguing the areas of Lebanon to thynorth of the Awali are inspired and engendered by ,the warring factions and outside Powers which seek to prove their influence and dominance by encouraging terrorism also in the south. This terrorism and chaos have been contained by the Israel Defence Forces. But their threat and the need to combat them obviously entail a certain amount of hardship for the civilian population. 9. 101. In his statement the representative of Lebanon made a series of utterly false and totally unfounded allegations against my country. I could refute at length each and every one of those allegations. However, I shall confine myself to some of the most blatant of those falsehoods so that members of the Council can judge for themselves what credibility, if any, attaches to those allegations in their entirety. 102. One of those false allegations related to what the representative of Lebanon termed arbitrary detentions of civilians in the area under Israel control. Let me present the true facts to the Council. 103. In order to prevent the spreading of malignant terror against the local population and the Israel Defence Forces, it is necessary from time to time to detain terrorist suspects or proven criminals, or both. That is being done with the full knowledge of the ICRC, which is being kept informed by the Israel Defence Forces of the identity of all the detainees. I invite the representative of Lebanon, as well as members of the Council, to.compare this situation with that in other parts of Lebanon where people simply disappear. In the south, there are no such disappearances. This is a direct result of the time and effort the Israel Defence Forces invest towards the prevention of kidnappings by assisting both the local police force and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in this regard. 104. Speaking of kidnappings, that, of course, is another phantom allegation recently made by the Lebanese authorities. The Israel Defence Forces are certainly not involved in this heinous crime, which has, regrettably, evolved into a common practice throughout Lebanon. We would do well to remember the 3,000 victims of abduction and kidnappings in the many battles in Beirut and its environs, of which, apparently, only a few dozen survived. The Israel Defence Forces are investing much time and effort towards preventing these tragic events in southern Lebanon and are assisting the local police in this direction in conjunc- 105. We heard in the statement of the representative of Lebanon another false allegation concerning, so we are told, widespread searches in the villages of the south. There is absolutely no truth to those malicious accusations, spread by the Arab propaganda machine, which is trying in vain to hide or minimize the slaughter and the depredations that go on in other parts of Lebanon. 106. Let me emphatically state here that there are no arbitrary measures of any kind taken against any village whatsoever. Sporadically and only upon strong and reliable information indicating planned terrorist activity against local inhabitants or the Israel Defence Forces, searches and ad hoc security measures of a limited nature are undertaken to prevent outbreaks of violence. Those measures are meant to assure the security in the south, which, regrettably, is so glaringly absent elsewhere in Lebanon. 107. We heard accusations with regard to the alleged mistreatment of local Government offtcials in the southern part of Lebanon. Let me tell the members of the Council that, contrary to the accusations of the representative of Lebanon, Israel has done a great deal to assist and co-operate with the local Lebanese administration. Since 1982, the Israel Defence Forces have permitted the return of local administrators and enabled judges, police, teachers, doctors and electricity and water utility workers to work and operate in a manner that is beneficial to the local population. And this after many years during which they had not been able to do so when the area was dominated by the terrorist PLO, a period about which, as I have already indicated, the representative of Lebanon has strangely remained silent in his statement. 108. There are many cases in which the Israel Defence Forces have supplied building materials for the purpose of constructing and renovating the infrastructures of the cities of southern Lebanon. The Israel Defence Forces are not only engaged in the protection of life and property in southern Lebanon, but also greatly contribute to the renovation of past destruction and to the advancement of daily life after so many years of criminal negligence. One ought to remember that in the past two years the only area in Lebanon that was not troubled by civil strife and daily clashes has been southern Lebanon. 109. In this connection, let me refer also to two other falsehoods contained in the statement of the representative of Lebanon. One is regarding the alleged plundering by Israel of archaeological sites in southern Lebanon. This allegation, too, is untrue; the truth is different. From 1982 onwards the Israel Defence Forces have taken measures to renew the work of local officials in charge of archaeological sites and have also supplied technical assistance to them. A delegation of 110. The representative of Lebanon has also revived the canard already spread by his Government regarding the alleged denial by Israel of high school students in the south to enter their final examinations. When he circulated a letter to that effect on 30 July [S/16682], I replied in a letter dated 7 August [S/26691]. As I pointed out, that allegation, too, is untrue, and may I quote from my letter: “the Government of Israel has no intention whatsoever to interfere with the matriculation examinations of the students in southern Lebanon or to obstruct them in any manner.” The rest of the answer can be found in the letter. 111. We have also heard in the statement of the representative of Lebanon a repetition of the falsehood regarding the alleged blocking of movement by Israel to and from the south. What is the truth? The heavy fighting in Beirut and its suburbs since February has resulted also in the blocking of the Beirut-Sidon road by the Druze and the Christian militia. It is this development which has been impeding the passage to southern Lebanon from the north. Every effort has been made by the Israel Defence Forces to ensure open and free passage of the Beirut-Sidon road, but the various Lebanese militias have repeatedly prevented the reopening of the road, thus causing unnecessary suffering to the Lebanese population. 112. Let me also recall in this connection that the terrorist action in November 1983 directed against Israel Defence Forces headquarters in Tyre resulted in dozens of soldiers.and local residents being killed, and as a result the Awali bridge had to be temporarily closed at the time to help apprehend the perpetrators. It was reopened shortly thereafter. 113. In view ofthe closure of the Beirut&don road by the various Lebanese militias, as a result of the fighting between them, the Israel Defence Forces opened up an alternative route in Batir-A-Shouf. This crossing had to be shut down in mid-August for a period of three days, in order to construct the new inspection terminal which would provide greater security against the passage of arms and drugs into the south. An additional crossing exists in Jubb Jannin, located in the Bekaa, which is being used for commercial purposes as well. 114. In all, overland communications between the north and south cannot but be affected by the precarious security of and the incessant fighting in Lebanon. It has been Israel’s aim to maintain security south of the Awali, and also to assure the normal flow of traffic. The Israel Defence Forces have been trying very hard to minimize the difficulties in so far as possible, and will also continue to do so in the future. 116. May I just add, for the sake of the record, that there is as much truth to the Lebanese calumny with regard to the Litani as there is with regard to the Wazzani. 117. No State, including Lebanon, can be absolved from its duty to prevent its territory from being used for terrorist attacks against other States. This duty is based on general international law. It is certainly not open to a State to invoke in its favour benefits deriving from certain principles and’rules of international law, unless it is at the same time prepared and able to abide by the concomitant duties. 118. If Lebanon is either unable or unwilling-and for purposes of international responsibility the distinction is immaterial-to prevent its territory from being used as a base of operations for terrorist activities against another State, it must be prepared to expect that State to take appropriate self-defence measures to protect itself and its citizens. 119. In this connection it is also pertinent to mention article 4 of the Israel-Lebanese Agreement of 17 May 1983. Paragraph 1 of that article provides “The Territory of each Party will not be used as a base for hostile or terrorist activity against the other Party, its territory or its people”. Paragraph 2 goes on: “Each Party will prevent the existence or organization of irregular forces, armed bands, organizations, bases, offices or infrastructure, the aims and purposes of which include incursions or any act of terrorism into the territory of the other Party or any other activity aimed at threatening or endangering the security of the other Party and safety of its people. To this end all agreements and arrangements enabling the presence and functioning on the ter- 120. Clearly, the Lebanese Government, which put its signature on the Agreement of 17 May, also recognized these fundamental duties incumbent on a State under international law. However, as already mentioned, the Agreement in question, although subsequently approved by the Lebanese Parliament by an overwhelming majority, was not permitted to enter into force because of the political blackmail and blatant abuse by Syria of Lebanon, its Government, its Parliament and its people. 121. In conclusion, let me say very briefly that, contrary to Syria, which is the only real occupying Power in Lebanon and has no intention of withdrawing from Lebanon, Israel has every intention of doing so, but Israel will not sit by and permit anyone to incite, arm and direct terrorists to mount attacks on Israel and on its soldiers in Lebanon. While peace with all of its neighbours, including Lebanon, remains Israel’s objective, Israel is prepared to negotiate with the Govemment of Lebanon with a view to reaching at this stage appropriate mutual security arrangements in the south. In the mean time and pending the conclusion of such mutual security arrangements, Israel will continue to protect its interests to the best of its ability.

It is a pleasure for me to congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the Council for the month of August. I am both gratified and honoured to see you guiding our work as we consider the serious complaint before us. 123. I also take this opportunity to express our deep gratitude for the effective way in which Mrs. Jeane Kirkpatrick discharged the functions of President of the Council last month. 124. Obviously I shall be confining my remarks to the present agenda item, the letter from the representative of Lebanon, in which he requests the Council to consider all practices and measures taken by the Israeli occupying authorities in southern Lebanon, the westem Bekaa and the Rashaya district. 125. After suffering destruction and dismemberment during the civil war, Lebanon is trying, as part of a national consensus, to reunify itself by drawing up a national security programme to be carried out in stages. Yet, the Lebanese Government has been facing the arbitrary actions of the Israeli occupation forces in southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa, the purpose of which is to perpetuate a divided Lebanon stricken with internal strife. 126. The policy initiated by Israel in Lebanon in March 1978 has failed to gain its so-called ends. Neither the policy of deterrence and abortive actions nor the policy “Peace for Galilee” has brought peace to Galilee 127. Israel has also blockaded villages, damaging harvests, and has carried out raids on hospitals and schools. Israel has also arrested hundreds of persons, even children, taking them as hostages to force the surrender of their parents and detaining them in camps at Ansar or in Israel itself. Even religious people have been detained and humiliated by Israel. 128. After the detailed and documented statement of the representative of Lebanon, I need hardly expand, at this late hour, on the description of the acts visited by Israel upon the civilian population of Lebanon. There has been a whole series of flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a challenge to all the principles of our civilization and the norms of international law. 129. I think other persons might also have been struck by what the representative of Lebanon said. He stated that frequently the occupation authorities have prevented the ICRC from carrying out inquiries into certain specific cases. 130. In the light of that unhappy background, we cannot but demand an immediate investigation of those practices, so that the Council and international public opinion can be informed of the gravity of those Israeli acts that have taken the form of violations of human rights and be aware of the obligations incumbent upon Israel as the occupying force in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa. In the light of the occupation and use of force by the Israeli authorities, a fierce national resistance has naturally resulted; the people have the legitimate moral and political right to struggle to remove the occupation forces from all the national territories. 131. In a work published recently, the Israeli authors themselves have described the war waged by Israel in Lebanon in June 1982 as a “war ofdeception”-which, incidentally, is the title of the book: War ofDeception. 132. If Israel believes that it has besieged southern Lebanon and the Palestinians in Lebanon, the fact is that it has fallen into its own trap. To force a military solution or one dictated by Israel’s security concerns in southern Lebanon is futile. Israel’s leaders and citizens have been tom between the desire to withdraw from 133. Israel must fully realize that neither a military solution nor protecting its security will make it possible to achieve a modus vivendi with the Lebanese or the Palestinians. The outcome for Israel must necessarily be a peaceful political solution-Israel’s unconditional withdrawal behind the internationally recognized frontiers. That is what is stated in the book to which I have referred. That is what the Isareli authors of the book themselves have said. It is not an invention of ours. 134. The peace-loving forces which are fighting against Israel within Israel-including the “Peace Now”, “Parents Against Silence” and “There Is a Limit’* Movements-refuse to support the occupation, the settlements policy and the policy of terrorism. The persistence of Israeli actions in southern Lebanon and Israel’s continued occupation of Lebanon make devoid of any sense talk of future peace and security in Lebanon. By the same token, the unabated building of settlements and spread of settlers in other occupied Arab territories reverse all known scales of value be-, tween legitimate rights and illegal claims. 135. It is now more than five years since Israel first invaded Lebanon in March 1978, and the invasion of southern Lebanon is entering the third year, having begun in June 1982. The continuing acts of aggression and occupation by Israel in southern Lebanon show that they are not isolated incidents but that they must be regarded as part of a far-reaching plan to annex the occupied territories of Gaza and the Golan Heights. 136. We hope that the Council at this decisive stage will adopt all steps that will make it possible to meet the Lebanese demands listed in detail by the representative of Lebanon at the end of his statement: first and foremost, to compel Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,’ and cease all its practices in the Lebanese territory it controls; to condemn the occupation by Israel of Lebanon which is designed to isolate the southern part of that country and disrupt its unity and independence; and to implement Council resolutions demanding that Israel withdraw forthwith and unconditionally from all the occupied territories to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon.

The next speaker is the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 138. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Syrian Arab Republic) [interpretutionfrom Arabic]: I have already had the honour of congratulating you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month, when the subject of new racist measures by the Pretoria regime was brought before the Council. At that time the Coun- 139. In response to a request from the Government of Lebanon, the Council is once again looking into the practices of expansionist Zionist colonialism in southem Lebanon. We have great hopes that the Council, under your wise leadership, will rise to meet its responsibilities vis-d-vis Lebanon and the Lebanese people, stemming from the Charter of the United Nations and the Council’s own resolutions, in particular resolution 509 (1982), demanding Israel’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon. 140. What is now taking place in the occupied Lebanese territories confirms once again that the Israeli occupation authorities did not undertake their insane attack against Lebanon to ensure what was deceptively called “Peace for Galilee”; rather the aim of that attack was to implement a plan laid down at the beginning of this century by international Zionism, in co-operation with the forces of colonialism. This was many years before Israel was founded. In December 1919, Chaim Weizmann wrote a letter to Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Great Britain, which appears in the Jewish Observer and Middle East Review, volume II, of November 1973. It included the “demands” ofintemational Zionism in Palestine, Lebanon, eastern Jordan and Syria. In the eighth paragraph of the list of demands in that letter we read: “For these reasons we consider it essential that the northern frontier of Palestine should include the valley of the Litani, for a-distance of about 25 miles above the bend, and the western and southern slopes of Mount Hermon, in order to ensure control of the headwaters of the Jordan and to permit reafforestation of this region.“* 141. These claims were accompanied by maps which included the prepared expansionist plan to engulf not only the whole of Palestine but areas beyond its borders. These maps were documented in the book Backdrop to Tragedy: the Struggle for Palestine, by William R. Polk, David N. Stamler and Edmund Asfour (Boston, Beacon Press, 1957). It is clear from studying those maps that southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights and eastern Jordan along the Hijaz Railway to the Dead Sea all came under the plan for the creation of the Zionist expansionist State. As soon as the Zionist theories were translated into actions by Israel’s colonialist violence in 1948, Tel Aviv began to expand to the north, the south and the east. As for expansion northwards, implemen- * Quoted in English by the speaker; 142. The second stage in this long chronological chain of violence plotted by the Zionist movement that took place in 1954 against the independence, unity and sovereignty of Lebanon was effectively implemented in 1982 because the “appropriate conditions” Sharett, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel and later its Prime Minister, spoke of were actually ripe at the end of the 1970s as a result of the defeatist Camp David conspiracy, which disrupted the strategic balance in the Middle East as a whole. 143. On 27 February 1954, Ben-Gurion, who had by then stepped down from power, wrote an extensive letter to Sharett setting forth his plans and those of his two colleagues Lavon and Dayan. I am quoting from a book entitled Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, by Livia Rokach. The following is taken from the letter Ben-Gurion sent to Sharett: “The creation of a Christian State is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant. In normal times this would be almost impossible, first and foremost because of the lack of initiative and courage of the Christians. But at times of confusion, or revolution or civil war, things take on another aspect, and even the weak declares himself to be a hero. Perhaps (there is never any certainty in politics) now is the time to bring about the creation of a Christian State in our neighbourhood. Without our initiative and our vigorous aid this will not be done.“* I would repeat that: back. Did not Mr. Begin state at the beginning of the war that it would bring 40 years of peace to the “Without . . . our vigorous aid this will not be done. country? But while in 1956 Ben-Gurion had come up It seems to me that this is the central duty, or at least against the refusal of Guy Moliet, Christian Pineau one of the central duties, of our foreign policy. This and Bourgbs-Maunoury to endorse his plans, in 1982 means that time, energy and means ought to be inthe Israeli leaders managed to win the support of the vested in it and that we must act in all possible ways United States, in the person of Secretary of State to bring about a radical change in Lebanon.“* Alexander Haig.“** 146. The brutal Israeli practices against the inhabi- 144. The plot contained in that letter achieves the tants of occupied southern Lebanon are due not only to demand I have mentioned, that is, the destruction of the the conflict between the occupying forces and the inunity of Lebanon and the setting up of a sectarian habitants; they go beyond this relationship, because regime through the creation of puppet mini-States. In they stem from a firm Israeli policy which has been and Sharett’s reply, he said conditions were not yet approcontinues to be practised in the West Bank, Gaza and priate in 1954. Allow me to quote from his reply to Benthe Golan Heights and which is based essentially on Gurion: creating hardship for the inhabitants to the point where they are forced to emigrate. The emigrants are then “A permanent assumption of mine is that if someprevented from returning. In Lebanon this policy aims times there is some reason to interfere from the outto sow religious discord among inhabitants of every village. * Quoted in English by the speaker. ** Quoted in French by the speaker. -inside Lebanon, that is. “It is impossible to inject life into a dead body. As far as I know, in Lebanon today there exists no movement aiming at transforming the country into a Christian State governed by the Maronite community. “This is not surprising. The transformation of Lebanon into a Christian State as a result of an outside initiative is unfeasible today. . . . I do not exclude the possibility of accomplishing this goal in the wake of a wave of shocks that will sweep the Middle East . . . will destroy the present constellations and will form others. But in the present Lebanon, with its present territorial and demographic dimensions and its international relations, no serious initiative of the kind is imaginable.“* 145. Certainly, members of the Council who read these well-known letters will draw their own conclusions about the significance of these Israeli plans. Yakov Sharett, the son of Moshe Sharett, in Le Monde Diplomatique of December 1983, wrote: “The time for the achievement of these ambitions was in June 1982 and not in 1978 at the time of the ‘Litani campaign’, which was limited from the beginning-both from the territorial point of view and in its objectives. The State of Israel was then dominated by a ‘revolutionary’ troika par excellence-Begin- Sharon-Eytan-convinced of the political need for the ‘iron fist’ and whom no obstacle could hold 148. We conclude from the Lebanese complaint that Israel in its expansionist ambitions has, since the beginning of the occupation, been creating the appropriate conditions to swallow up the south. The cuttingoff of the occupied south from the rest of Lebanon, the linking of its economy to the Israeli economy by turning it into a market for Israeli products to the advantage of Israel, the harnessing of public and private utilities to serve Israel, the destruction of agriculture on which the south lives-as well as the rest of Lebanon-all these acts are mere preparations to “Judaize” a part of the Lebanese homeland and eliminate it economically, culturally and socially. The recruitment of a handful of traitors and mercenaries such as Lahad is but an attempt to deceive by claiming that there are those who support Israel in the south. Nevertheless, the Lebanese people-of which we are a part because we are both Arab peoples-through its awareness and attachment to its land, values and country and using all means at its disposal has aborted this Fascist method through its heroic struggle against the aggression. 152. The theft of Lebanese water began specifically with the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in 1978, and has been continuing on a large scale since the occupation of June 1982. Many Arab sources confirm this, but I shall refer here only to United States sources. An article published in the spring issue of Foreign Policy, by John K. Cooley, an American journalist who is well known as an expert on Middle Eastern affairs, describes the crucial importance to Israeli policy of Arab waters in the following terms: 149. If here we are concentrating on Israel’s ambitions in southern Lebanon it is because we know full well what the Zionist practices and expansionist thinking are: Israel is attempting to lay its hands on Arab water; it runs after it to suck it as a leech sucks human blood. The importance of Arab water in expansionist Israeli policy provides the main momentum for annexing land. Whatever we put before the Council concerning our experience of Israeli practices and plots to steal Arab water would still leave much unsaid. However, we wish to warn here, as we have done before, of this attempt to threaten the Arabs and of the results of the expansionist policy of Israel, a country of imported foreigners. Israel has laid its hands on most of the sources of the Jordan river and its tributaries in Lebanon and in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. It Mr. Cooley goes on, mentioning the importance of the Litani River to life in Lebanon. 150. Today Israel is diverting the waters of the Litani from Lebanon to Israel for the same abhorrent ends. The ambitions of Israel and the Zionists with respect to the waters in the north of Palestine are the same as those adopted by Balfour, the British Minister for Foreign Affairs, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. In Paris Balfour also met Judge Brandeis, a member of the United States Supreme Court, who was at the same time the Chairman of the so-called Provisional Committee for General Zionist Affairs in the United States. The great professor of international law at Harvard University, Felix Frankfurter, also participated in that meeting. He was then an adviser to United States President Wilson at the Peace Conference. The three agreed on the need for the “promised national homeland for the Jews” and on the importance of that entity laying its hands on the waters north of Palestine beyond the limits of the joint French and British Mandate over the Territory. 151. It is sufficient to cite British Foreign Policy 1919- 1939, first series, volume 4, published by Woodward and Butler, pages 1,276 to 1,278. Anyone who cares to consult that volume will learn of the magnitude of the plots to disrupt the geographical, political and economic unity of the region. “Since Phoenician times, Lebanon’s coastal towns and plantations have relied on water from the short, fast-flowing rivers that cut through the Lebanon mountains. The largest is the Awali, where in September 1983 Israel redeployed invasion troops from the Shuf Mountains south of Beirut and established a new defensive line, touching off in the process the fierce mountain war that drew the American military into its first fire fights since Veitnam. Lebanon also contains the headwaters of the Orontes, which rises in the upper Bekaa Valley and is so vital to Syrian agriculture and industry.“* * Quoted in English by the speaker. 153. As for control by the Israeli occupation forces of water for drinking and for the generation of electricity for Beirut and for the towns and villages of the Lebanese coast, booley speaks of the Qir’awn Dam in the Bekaa-which permits storage of 10.2 billion cubic feet of water all year round-and of the Marqaba Tunnel south of the dam, which carries the water 4 kilometres to,the generating plant. He says that “Below the power station, a smafl dam channels the used water westward-toward the coast-where it waters coastal orchards. Litani water not used for irrigation falls into a power plant 1,300 feet below in the Awali River bed. Fortified Israeli positions near a small diversion dam at Awali and another power plant downstream at Joun give Israel a virtual stranglehold over the main water supplies for Beirut and the coastal towns.“* Cooley speaks of how, immediately following the occupation of southern Lebanon, the Israelis plundered maps of the Litani and plans for the dam and for the technical installations. 154. He also speaks of other Israeli excesses involving the theft of the waters of the Hasbani and other Lebanese waters. These acts are very similar to Israeli acts involving the waters of the Golan. Cooley goes on: “The Israelis were openly augmenting the flow of the Hasbani across the frontier into Israel by laying surface pipes to catch the run-off and other water from the mountains and nearby springs. “Moreover, a watchful American military observer claims to have seen Israelis burying pipes deep in a hillside near Maxj’Uyn after the Israeli incursion of 1978, indicating that the Israelis might be secretly syphoning water underground from the Marj Plain in southern Lebanon into Israel, . . . . Such a diversion would tap the extensive underground aquifer, which is fed by seepage from both the Litani and the Hasbani rivers and by underground streams from the Mount Hermon region. The site where the pipes and pumping equipment seem to have been secretly buried is near a World War II airlield built by the British and repaved and extended in fall 1983 by the Israeli Defence Forces.“* 155. Cooley quotes Lebanese engineers concerning the impact of these Israeli plans on the future of Lebanon: “Lebanese water engineers estimate that an Israeli downstream diversion effort could cost the Litani at * Quoted in ‘En&h by the speaker. Cooley underscores that “The hydraulic imperative, from the Israeli point of view, is capturing either the Litani or a much greater share of the Yarmuk.“* 156. I know that the representative of Israel is disturbed at my having cited these Western sources. 157. I would stress that the Yarmuk is an Arab river, which irrigates Syrian and Jordanian lands. .That is proof of what we have been saying, that Israeli ambitions towards Arab waters and lands are unlimited. 158. Israel’s acts and practices against the population and the land in southern Lebanon include: the alteration of natural, social and economic factors in that territory; the killing and assassination of civilians by the dozen (the representative of Israel did not mention in his statement the massacres which took place in Nabatiyah during Ashura); the repression of clergymen; the trampling underfoot of all that is sacred; the defiance of religious traditions; the destruction of orchards. I would mention that Israel has become extremely experienced in uprooting trees from orchards. The Israelis say that they have turned Palestine from a desert into an orchard; Palestine was once an orchard and has now become a desert, thanks to the insane industrialization by Israeli companies, which has destroyed agriculture in Palestine. 159. Other Israeli acts include closing down schools and preventing examinations from taking place, imposing curfews, controlling harbours and imposing high taxes and its shaky shekel on the inhabitants. 160. All those actions are in clear contravention of the basic principles of international law and are flagrant violations of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,’ and the provisions of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,’ a Protocol which, by the way, was not signed by Israel. Israel will not sign that Protocol. According to Western mass media, Israel is creating a new West Bank, a new Golan Heights and a new Gaza Strip in southern Lebanon. By cutting off communication from and to the land that it occupies in Lebanon, Israel is flagrantly violating an inalienable principle of international law and human law, which is the right of man to go back to: his home, the right of the individual to move freely m his own land, in his own country-not the right of the individual to emigrate from the United States to occupy Arab territories. I am talking here of the right of the Lebanese to go back to his homeland, the right of the Palestinian to go back to his land-not the right of the American Jew to go back and invest his money in Israel. I am 161. I wonder whether there is any difference between the Zionist practices in the Arab territories occupied from 1967 until today and the practices of nazism under which Europe suffered so much. Is the fourth Geneva Convention, which was established on the basis of the experiences and suffering of Jews and others in Europe, applicable only to Europe and to the United States and not, as Israel claims, to the Arab occupied territories? What then is the difference between Israeli practices against non-Israeli citizens, non-Jewish citizens, and the practices of the Pretoria regime against non-white citizens in South Africa and Namibia? 162. We call on the Council to rise to its responsibilities, because the subject before the Council now is not concerned only with a violation of human rights, it is concerned also with foreign aggression against a sovereign, independent State. The Council has a responsibility to put an end to the Israeli occupation and to implement resolution 509 (1982) which was adopted unanimously by the Council. What has been called “Peace for Galilee” is merely a fig leaf. The truth is that Israel, supported by the United States, is attempting to spread its hegemony over the whole Arab region. The annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the building of hundreds of settlements in the Palestinian and Arab occupied territories, the moving of settlers to those settlements and forcing Arabs to emigrate-all that shows a never-ending arrogance, which is not based on Israel’s own force, but on the force provided by American support, a support which has become a strategic alliance in all fields. Every time that alliance is escalated and every time it becomes more aggressive, we Arabs become stronger in our will to achieve strai tegic balance in the region, to face international imperialism and Israel. The heroic struggle and opposition of the people of Lebanon, who are suffering under the Zionist occupation, shows the capability of the Arab people to struggle against Zionist terrorism, which is being fed by every means by Washington. 163. Here we salute that struggle, about which one can read in The New York Times and The Washington Post, that struggle which was not recognized or even mentioned by the representative of Israel in his famous statement before the Council today, a statement which was disgraceful and deceitful. We salute that struggle. And we must recall here that the struggle against the occupying colonizers is supported by the international 164. We recall here-and I speak to those who have known the tragedies of the Second World War-what has been written, said and done to bestow dignity on those who fell under Nazi weapons and bullets. 165. I should like to conclude by expressing my deepest concern about the deterioration of intemational peace and security in the Middle East as a result of continued Israeli aggression and the policy of force undertaken by the United States. The United Nations, and more particularly the Security Council, are called upon to put an end to this deterioration which threatens international peace in the region and in the world. The United States must live up to its commitments under the Charter. I note that the representative of the United States does not seem concerned with the words “international peace and security”; he rebuffs the Council. I insist that the representative of the United States listen to what I am saying. His country is a permanent member of the Council and he should be listening to what we, a non-member of the Council, have to say. The United States is responsible for what is happening in the region and I address these words to him directly. The United States must live up to its responsibility as a permanent member of the Council and it must take back from Israel its right as a super-Power to take its own decisions. The United States, as a super-Power, should reassert its right to take decisions; it should not relinquish that right to Israel, by virtue of Zionist pressures which allow Israel to meddle with the political life of the United States and to commit aggression against our Arab nation wherever and whenever it pleases.

The next speaker is the representative of Kuwait, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 167. Mr. ABULHASSAN (Kuwait) [interpretation from Arabic]: Although I have, on a previous occasion, congratulated you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month, I wish to voice my gratification at the wise and able manner in which you have been conducting our business. 168. Israel has once again committed a heinous crime in this long chapter of aggressive crimes, which has had no end since the creation of Israel. 169. Israel invaded Lebanon at the beginning of June 1982 claiming to be protecting its settlements in the north, despite the fact that those settlements had not experienced such tranquillity as they had during the whole year preceding that act of aggression. 171. Israel has committed unspeakable crimes and brutal acts in Lebanon. Sufftce it to say that since that savage aggression, the Council has adopted successive resolutions concerning the situation created by the Israeli invasion. There are 18 such resolutions, some calling for a halt to hostilities and others calling for the immediate, unconditional withdrawal of Israel from all occupied Lebanese territories. 172. When we review these criminal events, when we look at our television screens and measure the brutal nature of these acts, when we review all the feeble attempts to justify these brutal acts against the Palestinian and Lebanese people, culminating in the Sabra and Shatila massacres-an affront to human dignitywe rightly wonder whether Israel invaded Lebanon in order to provide itself with a safety net in the north or to force the Palestinian people in Lebanon into a new diaspora, or to safeguard Lebanese legitimacy, as was claimed by Israel at the time. Why is Israel still in Lebanon to this day, more than two years after the initial Israeli invasion? More than two years have shed light on this hoax of Israel to assure long-term territorial ambitions in the area. 173. What is happening in the southern part of occupied Lebanon is irrefutable proof that Israel certainly does not intend to leave Lebanon. Quite the contrary, it wants to entrench itself, to tighten the noose around southern Lebanon, to transform that country, which is cherished by Arabs in general, into a northern strip which would be added to the West Bank and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, and add another fait accompli to its collection. 174. Israeli practices in southern Lebanon, as has been stated by Lebanese officials, are no different in their goals and scope from what is occurring in the Gaza Strip, in the Syrian Golan Heights and on the West Bank. These practices flagrantly violate international law, primarily the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,’ as well as the Charter of the United Nations and the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949.5 175. Israeli practices in southern Lebanon have nothing to do with the goals stated by the Israeli authorities when the invasion took place more than two years ago. Otherwise, would it not have been logical for Israel to withdraw from all these Lebanese territories when it could no longer sustain its attempted justification of that completely illegal invasion? The question that emerges here today, however, is much more complex 176. In his very important statement made here today, my eminent colleague, the representative of Lebanon, was kind enough to give us a clear, detailed account of all the criminal acts committed by Israel in occupied Lebanese territory. The matter was also the subject of letters exchanged with the Secretary-General. These are all part of obsolete colonial practices, the vestiges of which our modern-day world is trying to cast off. 177. The practices of the occupation forces, however, are not confined to closing roads. They encircle villages and send policemen to villages. They arrest old people, women and children. They damage crops. They launch illicit raids and make all kinds of arrests, but it does not stop there: they defile religious dignity in places of worship. They close sanctuaries. They close ports to prevent ships from discharging emergency foodstuffs sent to help the plagued inhabitants of southern Lebanon. And obviously the question arises, what crime is the Lebanese people guilty of? Under the banner of protection, Israel viciously and brutally attacked Lebanon in pursuit of its grand designs. The Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 are part and parcel of the same policy. 178. The Litani River is an old Israeli target, but events in southern Lebanon underline the Israeli expansionist ambitions and reveal that this target was at the origin of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon two years ago. The mass. media mentioned Israel’s attempt to eliminate the border strip between Lebanon and Palestine. We hear that the Israelis have established certain engineering works to divert the Litani River towards Lake Tiberias. We have also learned that the Israeli occupation forces are doing everything to force as many inhabitants of southern Lebanon as possible to leave. The mass media have mentioned an Israeli attempt to create a new road network in order to enable it to annex part of southern Lebanon and link it to Israel. 179. The people of Lebanon is a peace-loving people. That is why it has so patiently borne its suffering. It has been the target of aggression and inhuman practices by the Israeli occupying forces. The continuation of these acts of aggression, on the one hand, and Israel’s refusal to withdraw from Lebanese territory, in spite of the repeated resolutions of the Council, on the other hand, have given rise to fierce resistance daily against Israel. 180. It is ironic that Israel, which invaded Lebanon two years ago in order, according to the Israelis, to protect its northern territory, cannot now ensure the protection of its own forces in the occupied territories. They cannot protect themselves from the wrath of the Lebanese people, and the security called for loud and clear by Israel in order to justify its criminal and in- 187. My brother, the representative of Lebanon, in his very complete statement made a few moments ago, described what we expect the Council to do-fully meet our rightful and legitimate demands. Kuwait supports these demands as being fully in keeping with international instruments, in particular previous relevant resolutions adopted by the Council, especially resolution 509 (1982). 181. Israel’s behaviour is in flagrant violation of the most basic human rights that are guaranteed in all international instruments both in times of war and in times of peace. 182. So long as the United States is at its side, Israel behaves as if the whole world did not matter. This highlights the role the United States could play to bring the situation in that part of the world back to normalcy. The United States must make Israel understand-presuming that Israel would be willing to understand-that the security of the Israeli forces in Lebanon depends on their withdrawal beyond the border of southern Lebanon, especially since the United States voted for resolution 509 (1982), which demanded that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon.

I should like to inform members of the Council that in view of the lateness of the hour certain representatives scheduled to speak have been understanding and cooperative enough to agree that their statements should be postponed until tomorrow, and I thank them on behalf of the Council. 189. The representative of Lebanon has asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply and I now call on him. 183. The international community has been following with great attention certain long-standing attempts to establish a linkage between the problem of the Middle East and the American or Israeli elections. They clearly seek to bring about successive periods of respite during which Israel would enjoy impunity. We are aware that the Israelis use this argument during election time -especially during this election-to escalate its arbitrary rule and to continue with its territorial expansion in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon. 190. Mr. FAKHOURY .(Lebanon) [interpretation from Arabic]: Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to exercise the right of reply at this late hour. I shall be brief. 191. In my statement before the Council .I set out the substance of our complaint and I repeated twice that the aim was not to engage in a sterile discussion or exchanges of rhetoric. However, the representative of Israel, the State that has committed aggression against Lebanon and occupies one third of its territory, lectured us on the situation in Lebanon for three quarters of his statement. The policy of hoodwinking intemational public opinion and diverting it from the real situation and our complaint against the Israeli practices in the occupied territory cannot be hidden from anyone. 184. My country’s delegation believes that we should not be silent about this fact, because the cause of international peace and justice cannot depend on any local elections that may be held. We must tackle this international problem compromising international peace and security without waiting for these elections, which may drag out for a whole year. The international community, which unfortunately is beginning to consider this linkage as fact, must not be misled by schemes designed to allow Israel to carry out its ambitions sheltered from any pressure or intervention. 192. The last one who has a right to speak of Lebanon and the situation there is the representative of Israel. He did not mention in his statement or in what he quoted from Radio Beirut that the President of Lebanon placed responsibility for what is happening and has happened in Lebanon squarely on Israel’s shoulders. Perhaps the representative may be a little more faithful in the future in giving us information. 185. The situation in southern Lebanon is explosive, If the international community does not take effective steps to restore the situation, it might find itself faced with anotherfair accompli imposed by Israel enjoying full impunity. 193. Lebanon is the one which decides whether or not soldiers are to be sent to the south. 194. Those who have listened to the representative of Israel may well think that life under Israeli occupation can be compared to life in paradise. No, they are occupied Lebanese territories, and members know full well what occupation means and what life is like under occupation. Therefore, let us not deceive ourselves 186. My delegation believes that the United States has a special responsibility in this respect because of its relationship with Israel, on the one hand, and the fact that it is a permanent member of the Council, on the 195. I reject and denounce the way in which the representative of Israel has spoken about Lebanese officials. I reject the adjectives he used to describe them. I will not stoop to that level and thus degrade the debate in such a forum as the Council. 196. I reserve my right to reply at a later stage to other statements made by the representative of Israel.

The representative of Israel has asked to be allowed to speak, and I call on him.

I, too, shall be very brief in my reply to the statement of the representative of Syria. The brevity of my reply is dictated by a variety of reasons and not only by the lateness of the hour. 199. I believe the monumental statement of the representative of Syria, the representative of the subjugators of Lebanon, fully speaks for itself and really requires no reply. I merely wish to draw the Council’s The meeting rose at 7.25 p.m. NOTES I United Nations, Treary Series, vol. 75, No. 973. 2 Carnegie Epdowment for International Peace, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (New York, Oxford University Press, 1915). 3 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 249, No. 3511. ’ Ibid., vol. 1125. No. 17512. s Ibid., vol. 45, No. 655. 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. COMAMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATJONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans Ies librairies et les agences dkpositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous auprts de votre libraire ou adressez-vous a : Nations Unies. Section des ventes. New York ou Get&z. IiAK IIOXYYZiTh A3AAHHH OPrAHN RAI[UZI OIX~E.‘~HHEHHJdX HAllHA. COMO CONSECUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS L;ls publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas e&n en venta en lib&as y casas distribuidoras en todas panes del mttndo. Cons&e a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas. Secci6n de Ventas. Nueva York o Ciinebra. Litho in United Nations, New York 00400 90-61313-Febrwy 1993-2,050