S/PV.2647 Security Council

In accordance with decisions taken by the Council at previous meetings on this item, I invite the representative of Morocco to take a place at the Council table; I invite the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to take a place at the Council table; I invite the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Israel, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey and Yemen to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Alaoui (Morocco) took a place at the Council table; Mr. Terzi (Palestine Liberation Organization) took a place at the Council table; Mr. Zarif (Afghanistan), Mr. Djoudi (Algeria), Mr. Chowdhury (Bangladesh), Mr. Haji Omar (Brunei Darussalam), Mr. Shaker (Egypt), Mr. Camara (Guinea), Mr. Wiryono (Indonesia), Mr. Netanyahu (Israel), Mr. Rajaie-Khorassani (Islamic Jamahiriya), Mr. Ould Boye (Mauritania), Mr. Shah Nawaz (Pakistan), Mr. Al-Kawari (Qatar) r Mr. Shihabi (Saudi Arabia) Mr. El-Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Bouziri (Tunisia), Mr. Turkmen (Turkey) and Mr. Basendwah (Yemen) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of India, Malaysia and the Sudan in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's 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 tihe 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, Miss Kunadi (India), Mr. Zain Azrai IMalaysia) and Mr. Birido (Sudan) took the places reserved for them at the side Of the Council Chamber.

The Security Council will now resume consideration of the item on its agenda. Mr. KASEMSRI (Thailand): On behalf of my delegation, I should like to felicitate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of January, which ushers in the New Year, the International Year of Peace. Your great country, China , and Thailand have enjoyed friendly ties for over 800 years, and I am pleased to add that the relations between our two countries have never been closer than at the present time. They have been forged on the basis of mutual trust and confidence , which is essential for any lasting relationship, as well as the age-old pragmatic wisdom of Asian peoples, which transcends any difference in modern ideologies. Indeed, my delegation is confident that under your wise and skillful guidance'the Council will enhance its prestige and useful role as an instrument of peace. I should also like, on behalf of my delegation, to pay a warm tribute to your distinguished predecessor, His Excellency Ambassador Leandre Bassole of Burkina Paso, for the exemplary manner in which he conducted the Council's business during the month of December 1985. My delegation is indeed grateful to him and his (Mr. Kasemsri, Thailand) delegation, as well as to the other retiring Council members and their representatives, namely, Egypt, India, Peru and the Ukrainian SSRI for the co-operation and assistance extended to my delegation in the past year in the Council. We welcome the new Council members and pledge in turn the co-operation of the Thai delegation in our common endeavours. My delegation is deeply shocked by the reported incident at one of Islam's holiest places, the Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem. It appears from the various statements before the Council that, irrespective of the purpose of the visit of the members of the Internal Affairs Committee of the Israeli Knessetr a certain number of Israeli legislators and other elements took advantage of the occasion~for other purposes. Their presence alone would have been regarded as Provocative by Muslim worshippers, judging by their past activities, which have offended the sensitivity of the entire Muslim world. The principal religion in Thailand is Buddhism. While there is no Buddhist presence in the Rely City of Jerusalem, we Buddhists recognize the historic City as the centre of three of the greatest world religions, namely, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. To US, the holy shrines belonging to the three religions in Jerusalem, despite or because of their different denominations, represent the unity of man's aspirations for good and his desire for spiritual harmony with his fellow man. In the light of the violent historical past and the present tense situation caused by Israeli occupation, religious tolerance is a prerequisite for peaceful religious pursuits in the Holy City. TOleraIEe is a principal tenet of Buddhism, and in Thailand 95 per cent of the population is Buddhist. Muslims COnStitUte about 80 per cent of the non-Buddhists, amounting to 4 per cent of the total population, Religious tolerance has been the practice throughout the COUntry since time immemorial and is enshrined in the Constitution, which entrusts the role of Upholder of All Religions to the King. It is therefore customary for the King to confer royal patronage on all religions practiced by his people. It may be of interest to note that the word "profanation" does not exist in the Thai language, but only such words as "insult" and "disrespect". With regard to the Thai Muslim population, they practice their faith freely, with their r i ghts guaranteed by law. In matters concerning matrimony and inheritance, a Kadi or Muslim judge is required to participate in the trial and adjudication of cases, and his opinion on Islamic law normally prevails. The National Council of Muslims of Thailand oversees the functions of the Provincial Councils established by Royal Decrees, which are in turn empowered to appoint a Council for each mosque responsible for the missionary work in the locality and the administrative work of the mosque. It may therefore be said that the Thai Muslims enjoy full rights to profess and practice their religion. That is why my delegation strongly deplores any religious discrimination and even more so such acts as those committed by the Israeli officials in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, which violate the sanctity of Islamic shrines. Moreover, Israeli occupation imposes on the Israeli authorities the onus of satisfying the international community that the rights of the people in the occupied territories are properly safeguarded. By the same token, we equally deplore acts of desecration against synagogues and acts of religious intolerance against any religious faith, wherever they occur. However, the immediate concern of my delegation is that inflamed emotions be allowed to cool, SO as not to exacerbate the situation further. It is therefore essential that the Israeli authorities desist from any action or inaction which would lead to a recurrence of such provocation in the future. It is also patently clear that the root cause of the problem, namely, the Israeli illegal occupation of the Arab territories, must be brought to an end in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly.

I thank the representative of Thailand for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his Statement* Mr. RAJAIE-KK)FGSSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran): I congratulate you, Sir, on your presidency and extend special thanks to your predecessor, Ambassador Leandre Bassole, Permanent Representative of Burkina Faso, for the Proper manner in which he conducted the affairs of the Council at the end Of 1985, during the month of December. I should like to begin my statement with our Holy mandate - the mandate which has its root in the Divine sources. It is in harmony with all of nature - the galaxies, the skies, the heavens, the stars, and everything else. This is the message of Cod, Xho created all of us - before our beloved United Nations Charter was written - and Who has told us how to conduct our affairs. He has told us how to treat our friends and how to treat our enemies. If we had not forgotten that ’ mandate, things would have been totally different now. The mandate reads as follows : “To those against whom War is made, permission Is given [to fight], because They are wronged ;- and verily, Cod is Most Powerful For their aid;- “They are those who have Been expelled from their homes In defiance of right,- [For no cause] except That they say, 'Our Lord Is God'. Did not God Check one set of people my means of another, There would surely have been Pulled down monasteries, churches, Synagogues, and mosgues, in which The name.of God is commemorated In abundant measure. God will Certainly aid those who Aid His [cause]; - for verily God is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might, [Able to enforce His Will].” That was recited from the "Pilgrimage" Surah, verses 39 and 40. Early in the dawn of 1986, when the international body was still in the happy mood of the Christmas vacation and the New Year's merry-making, the Zionist acts of aggression in southern Lebanon brought further evidence of the Zionist breaches Of international peace and security and therefore disturbed the peace and tranquillity of the international community. Hence the convening of the Security Council became necessary. Hut frustration of the Council was completed by the well-known veto that the United States Administration always exercises in support of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Not having fully recovered from that fiasco, we are now facing another problem - namely, the desecration of the Haram Al-Sharif and MUSlim sanctuaries by officials of the Zionist base in occupied Palestine. This time the situation is slightly different, The religious and Spiritual sanctity of the holy sanctuaries in the Islamic land occupied by the Zionists iS indeed a matter of great concern for the entire Muslim world. But it is a matter which requires concerted actions by the Muslim countries in accordance with the prescriptions of Islam. Here, the Muslim countries must discharge their responsibilities by comprehensively co-ordinated and direct actions against the forces of occupation in the region - and not simply in the Security Council- ‘Let US hope that the political manoeuvres Fn the Security Council are not intended to be used as a face-saving device for internal consumption by certain rdgimes in the Muslim world - those rhgimes that have always neglected their Islamic responsibilities, particularly vis-a-vis the occupation of Palestine. After all, to treat a purely religious matter like a secular and so-called international issue addressable to the Security Council is in a way a desecration of that religious matter. My delegation still thinks that Muslim nations do not believe that an institution like the Security Council, which is historically involved in and even responsible for the occupation of Palestine and which is institutionally, thanks to the role of certain of its permanent metiers , responsible for all the crimes perpetrated by the forces of occupation against Palestine and all the neighbouring coun tr i es, is the best forum for deliberation of this issue. We believe that justice can be done to a given subject only when it is addressed in its proper context and with reference to its appropriate cultural, historical perspective and its wngenial values. The problem of the desecration of the Islamic sanctuaries should be discussed in the right religious context, in an Islamic forum, in its proper Islamic perspective and in accordance with its Islamic pertinent values - never in a secular forum by a secular body. When the very occupation of the Muslim land is indeed an act of desecration which imperatively demands the immediate, concerted, comprehensive efforts of all Muslim nations for the liberation of Palestine, we cannot avoid the issue and simply emotionalize the matter by merely stressing the enemies’ subsequent acts of desecration - for instance, entering the Mosque. After all, what is more important: on the one hand, actually occupying the entire Muslim land of Palestine, including all its mosques and sanctuaries, expelling Palestinians from their homeland, dispersing them all over the world, bombing them from one refugee camp to another, killing thousands of them in Deir Yassin, Sabra and Shatila and elsewhere or, on the other hand, simply entering the Mosgue? Why should we expect the enemy to refrain from entering our Mosques when we are prepared irresponsibly to remain indifferent spectators to, and acquiesce in, the actual occupation of the entirety of Palestine, including its Al-Agsa and other mosques? Why should we bring our issue to the security Council when we can and must discuss it and take a decision on it in a meeting of the Muslim Heads of State in Mecca in the month of il-Hijjah, in front of millions of committed and r'esponsible Pilgrims who are rich and powerful enough , who are ready to sacrifice their lives and property for the liberation of their beloved Palestine and who are even ready to march towards Palestine immediately after the pilgrimage? Is it not irresponsible to ignore all the many resources, all the millions Of able and creative Muslim people and the economic, social and political power of the Muslim Ummah physically and spiritually mobiliied in the Hadj, ready for action, instead of just reiterating our appeal to the security Council, whose nature and abilities are well known to all of us? I have been following the sincere statements made to the Council about the recent acts of desecration. All of those statements elaborating facts concerning the criminal record of the Zionist base occupying Palestine are always repeated as if the majority of the permanent members of the Council do not yet have their active embassies in the occupied Palestine or those embassies do not send regular reports to their capitals. They know everything. As a matter of fact, the metiers Of the Council - all of them - know everything. Why do we try to attribute innocence and ignorance to certain permanent members which are responbible for all the crimes of Zionism? More painful is the fact that now some of us are complaining that the usurper forces do not recognize the Palestinians and do not make peace with the Palestinians, that they do not come together in peaceful negotiation with the Palestinians. That is really what we should expect from the Zionist base. The course of events related to Palestine seems to be viewed by the sympathizers with, and supporters of, the Palestinians as if all the leadership of the Muslim world were cross-eyed and perceived the entire situation in the reverse order or upside down. Does the Muslim Wmmah want us to be so concessionary to the usurper enemy? Do the people in the streets of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Iran, Irag, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Sudan, Pakistan, Malaysia or any other Muslim country want that? DO those people want peace with the Zionist usurpers? Do they simply want freedom of religious practice? Do they want the Zionist usurpers simply to keep out of the sanctuaries for a few days or weeks? Is that what we are here for? Is it our duty? Are we representing the Muslims in the entire Muslim world or something else? On behalf of whom are we speaking when we expect recognition or peace from the occupiers of Palestine? Are we being pushed unknowingly towards a Camp David conspiracy, or are we trying to liberate Palestine? what are we doing? Are we really trying to serve the cause of Palestine, to liberate the Palestinians from their refugee camps or are we simply hiding our guilty faces behind the Security Council, a body that has always been part of our problem and never part of the solution? It has always been evident that if we tolerate the presence of the ugly forces Of occupation in our Holy Land their entrance into the Mosque will, willy-nillY, follow. The Holy Koran says: "Did not God Check one set of people By means of another," - the Zionist usurpers by the determined Muslims - "There would surely have been Pulled down monastaries, churches, Synagogues, and mosgues,in which The name of God is much remembered." (The ~01y Koran, Xx11:40) That is what the Zionist enemy is going to do , and it must be remedied according t0 divine prescriptions , not according to resolutions of the Security Council - if, indeed, we can achieve any resolution at all. The Koranic prescription is: Whoever fights against you, fight against him in the same manner as he fought again& you. W (The Holy Koran, II:1941 That is the only solution to the problem of the Zionist occupation and what follows from it, including the desecration of the Holy Places. Those who claim to be terribly agitated by the profanity of the Zionist usurpers entering the Mosque had better consider doing something to liberate the Holy Land, rather than resorting to, routine rhetoric in the Security Council. our solution is not to be sought or found here; it must be sought in the region. However , let us consider the argument of some of our colleagues: that as we are in New York, we have no front here but the diplomatic front in the Security Councii. Here we must remember that the Security Council is not really a front for UB if we do not co-ordinate in our capitals comprehensive and effective action against our common enemy. On the contrary, an overdose of the Security Council tranquillizers without effective remedial measures in the region will be hazardous and even addictive. Some of UEI may already have developed the bad habit of resorting to the Security Council for relief. Too much reliance on the Security Council by the diplomats and leaders of the Muslim world may also give a specious and quixotic image of the Security Council to some of the Muslim masses, who may consequently think that the Security Council is the right authority, which will work out the right solution sooner or later. Such misleading of the Muslim masses, whose sanctuaries are being desecrated and whose Holy Land of Palestine has been kept under illegal occupation, is not correct. Therefore, we must avoid any action that creates in people’s minds misleading opinions about the Security Council. As for the draft resolution, my delegation believes that it is too soft and too concessianary . It only deplores a strongly condemnable act perpetrated by the Zionist occupiers of Palestine. In the present circumstances, a draft resolution must reflect the totality of the Palestinian tragedy. It must Once again condemn not only the act of desecration, but, more important, the very continued act of occupation of Palestine. It must demand withdrawal of the forces of occupation from all Palestinian territories, and it must express the legitimate desire of the entire Muslim Ummah for the rehoisting of the flag of Palestine over the whole Of Palestine. The draft resolution must be so clear and uncompromising that the enemies Of the Muslim Ummah will not be able to hide their faces behind the consensus in the Council and avoid their traditionally wellknown veto. The draft resolution is supposed to serve the cause of Palestine D not those who may wish to feign friendliness towards the wslim world or to darn and patch up their bilateral relations with the Arab world or the Muslim world. It must be clear, it must be decisive, it must be inspired by the Islamic values in the Koran, whose name is also the Forkan, which means distinctive. It must make a distinction between truth and falsehood.. That is the Islamic spirit. The draft resolution must maintain that, and therefore it must be campletely discriminating with regard to fr iends and enemies. our Persian proverb says that it is treacherous to be a friend of the caravan and in the canpany of the burglars. The uli ted States must make UP its mind aboU t, its relations with the criminal Zionists and the victimized &Uslims. It must be quite clear *at it wants. Either it remains friendly to the Muslims and to the Palestinians and reoogniaes the cause of Palestine as it really is, or it is the enemy of the Muslim world l If’it wishes to remain the supporter of the criminal Zionists, as it has always been, then it must not be given a chance to deceive the Muslim world by pretending to be its friend. Morewer, a constructive draft resolution at this particular juncture cannot be oblivious to the events taking place in further trampling upon the rights of the Palestinian people. DO we not see Peres worriedly meeting with Richard Murphy these days, and the . famous King Hussein of Jordan also busy with some surreptitious negotiations in Larda? po we not remember that many political analysts in the West, particularly in the United States, were of the same opinion as King Hussein of Jordan% that me situation is very acute and that they must force a peace plan down the throats of the Palestinians nw or they will never be able to do so? If this is the plot, then we have to stop it. *at are we doing in order to pre-empt such peace-lwing conspiracies which aim at a complete surrender and complete recognition of the occupation as a fait accompli? I therefore believe that the present draft resolution is not all that eatisfactory. It must be stronger and more comprehensive. It Should be strong enough to secure a veto, of tour se - if a complaint to the Council was advisable at all. However, better than a draft reeolution is just turning away from the Security Council to our own people in Hadj, asking them for decisions and resolutions - decisions and resolution8 they can make and implement. After all, they a& the people vJho are liberating and indeed will liberate Palestine, and not the Security Council. They are the people who do not mimic the language of prestigious international panposity, the peaceful language, just in order to gain reoognition or acceptability. The Council knows very well haJ the term “peace” has gained currency in the political literature of the international body, and how it is often used in order t0 kill and to destroy and to expel and to occupy and to further occupy. Everybody knows that the. occupation of Palestine, in the early moments of occupation, was performed under the label of peace and tranquillity. Partition was brought about under the same label of peace and tranquillity. Further occupations were carried out Under the same label. This peaceful language was also adopted when further attacks against Lebanon Were carried out by the Zionist usurpers. The killings of the Palestinians in the gabra and Shatila camps also came under the label of peace; it was a very peaceful murderous action. And the deployment - the peaceful deployment - of the republic of IFan) multinational forces for the preservation of the Palestinians furthered the occupation and the refugee camps and was also carried out under the label of peace and for the cause of peace. What is that peace that is so lovely? What good has it brought to US? Does the Council not think that the role of the maintenance of international peace and security is actually handed over to the Zionist terrorists, who commit all their terrorist acts and all thefr killings and murderous acts just for the sake of peace in the region? Now we have to understand what peace means, and we should not be so simple-minded as just to issue an appeal, using the same language in order to make sure that we follow the norms of the international body. Those norms must have been very well introduced to us. The Muslim Unmsh does not seek peace with the Zionist enemyi it does not want freedom of religious exercise in accupied land ; it does not want recognition Of Islamic matrimony regulations; It wants the liberation of Palestine, once and for ever, and it is going to get it. It would be nuch better for the SeCUritY Council, for its own prestige and respect, to be realistic, to open its eyes and see what is true and what is false. The Security Council must be liberated from the occuption of the Zionist and imperialist forces. We believe that the Security Council is as much a victim of the same forces who have occupied Palestine as the Palestinians. That is why the Security Council is so incapable, so impotent, in carrying out its cons ti tu tional duties.

I thank the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Brunei Darussalam. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. Haji CMAR (Brunei Datussalam): Allaw me, Sir, to extend my delegation's feliCib3tiOnS t0 you on your aSSUmptiOn Of the presidency Of the %CuKity Council for the month of January. My delegation is convinced that under your great leadership the Council will succeed in taking the necessary and just measures in this crucial situation. I al90 wish to pay tribute t0 your predSC!eSSOK, the Permanent Representative of Burkina Faso, for the exemplary manner in which he guided the work of the Council in December. I take this opportunity to congratulate the new members of the Council; Bulgaria, the Congo, Ghana, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. I am CeKtain they will contribute to the success of the Council's work. It is a great honour for my delegation to be given this opportunity to address the Council on this very serious matter. The matter at present before the COUnd.1 pertains not to Jerusalem alone; neither does it pertain only to Palestine; nor does it concern solely the Middle East region; it is a matter affecting the Islamic nation and the Moslim ummah all over the world. Brunei Dar ussalam , being an Islamic sultanate which upholds Islamic principles as its way of life, is deeply concerned over this situation, In this regard we join the whole Islamic world in expressing our condemnation of the repeated desecrations of the holy Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest place of Islam surpassed in sanctity only by the Al-Haram Mosque in Mecca and the Prophet -‘peace be upon him - Mosque in Medina. It was the first kiblah to which Muslims turned for prayers in the early days of Islam. This Sacred place marks the ascension of the Prophet mhannned - peace be upon him - during I srak Mekraj , an occasion that Brunei Darussalam commemorates annually With religious rites. These repeated acts of desecration have aroused deep emotions and great anger among all Muslims all over the Muslim world. My delegation joins other nations in voicing our strongest concern over the recent repetitive incidents during which some extremist members of the Knesset entered the Al-Aqsa Holy Mosque and committed acts of desecration. The situation was further aggravated by the involvement of the Israeli occupation forces in giving protection to the perpetrators and arresting Muslim worshippers who were legitimately expressing their indignation at the sacrilegious acts. These acts and other acts known tc the members of the Security Council, as enumerated by metiers of delegations who Spoke before me, are the continuing acts of aggression committed by Israel in order to Judaize the Holy.City of Jerusalem and its Holy Places. These actions contravene the principle of international conduct which prohibits the occupying Power from committing acts of aggression or interfering with freedom of worship in holy places. The recent incidents were not the first attempts by Israel to Judaise Al-Quds and other Holy Places since it occupied the Holy City. The Security Council in its many resolutions has repeatedly affirmed tht all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and constitute a flagrant violation of international law. It rejected Israeli actions aimed at changing Jerusalem’s geographic and derrrographic structure, including the expropriation of land and property, and called upon Israel to rescind all such measures and to desist from taking any further such action. Time and again Israel continues to defy General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. As .the guardian of peace, the Security Council has the legal and moral responsibility to be let it be knaJn to the occupying Power that the whole Islamic world stands behind the Palestinians to protect the Al-Aqsa Mosque from being desecrated. Jerusalem has been a symbol of the convergence of the great spiritual traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam where the principle of relgious tolerance has been respected and upheld. Israel has violated this principle by committing acts of desecration. It should now be very difficult for any nation to fail to recognize the necessity for 1srae1 to relinquish unconditionally all the Arab lands it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, The need is now more urgent than ever to find a comprehensive , just and lasting solution to the problems of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 1 Call upon the Security Council to take effective and urgent measures to prevent Israel from committing such recurring acts of desecration.

I thank the representative Of Brunei Darussalam for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Guinea. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his Statement, Mr. CAMARA (Guinea) (interpretation from French): Mr. President, on behalf of the delegation of Guinea I should like to extend to you and to the Other members of the Security Council my most heartfelt thanks for allowing me to participate in the debate on the situation in the occupied Arab territories. f should like at the same time, Sir, to join the preceding speakers in commending you on your wisdom and canpetence and congratulating you on Your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of January 1986. I am all the more pleased since you represent a country whose commitment to the cause Of peoples fighting against colonialism and racism is well known. I wish also to thank your predecessor for the remarkable way in which he presided over the work of the Council last month. In requesting the urgent convening of the Security Council on behalf of the member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference the representative of Morocco drew attention to the serious threat posed to international peace and security by the acts of desecration recently committed by Israel against the sanctuary of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Guinea condemns and denounces these .aCtiOns I which can only do disservice to the cause of the search for a just and lasting peace to the question of the Middle East. This behaviour corresponds to the escalation of illegal acts and acts of aggression that form part of Israeli plans to Judaise the occupied territories and deprive millions of believers, especially Muslims , of their right to their Holy Places. The international community must respond firmly to such acts in order to induce the occupying authorities ti respect universal human values. It is in fact intolerable that certain deputies of the extreme right I accompanied by militants known for having called for Jewish control over Muslim Holy Places and for having on a number of occassions attempted to organize prayer groups there, used that pretext to commit acts of provocation. It should be stressed that those extremists were led by Gershon Solomon, head of a movement advocating the destruction of the Dome of the Ibck and the construction of a Jewish ” Temple ” and that the Knesset metiers included Geula Cohen, who has called for the expulsion of Arabs from Jerusalem and the West Bank and who was one of the leaders for Jewish colonization within the heart of the Arab city,of Hebron. These deliberate and planned actions , which are extremely serious, are an affront to hundreds of millions of Muslims who consider the A.l-Aqsa Mosque to be the Holy Place towards which the faithful originally turned to pray. The violation of the sacred nature of that third holiest place of Islam is an insult to the feelings of the believer8 that aroused the anger and indignation of Muslims the world Over and whose consequences could be moat serious. In the already heated atmosphere of the region, th is rel igious provocation only adds to the political conflict with its unforeseeable repercussions on peace and stability in that part of the world. Any repetition of such sacrilege would seriously threaten international peace and security. The Security Council has the heavy responsibility of preserving the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem. We venture to believe that the Council will live up to its responsibilities.

I thank the representative of Guinea for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization, on *an I now call. Mr. TEEUI (Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) ): On 10 January 1986 a document was circulated, under the symbol S/17729, in which we informed You, @JU. President, and the other members of the Council, through the Secretary-General, that: “On Thursday, 9 January 1986, the Sabra and Shatila murderer and current metier of the Israeli Cabinet, Ariel Sharon, heavily guarded by Israeli police, walked into the Sanctuary [of Al-Haram Al-Sharif] , in yet another attempt at provocation and incitement. This act was followed by three Zionist thugs attempting to hoist the Israeli flag in the Sanctuary, but they were prevented from doing 80 by the Sanctuary guards.’ (S/17729, annex, PO 2) I recall that simply to say that to emulate his colleague the Deputy Prime ’ Minister and Housing Minister of Israel, a certain David Levy, on 21 January 1986 - that is, while the Council was considering the provocative violations - participated in a religious ceremony in the heart of Hebron consecrating 13 apartments for occupancy by Jews. At the ceremonies Mr. Levy said that additional constructicn for Jews would begin immediately. It is interesting to note here that the construction is going on around and in the vicinity of the Al-Haram of Hebron, which stands on the Cave of Machpelah the burial place of the Patriarch Abraham. For the ‘sake of history, that Mosque was built by Muslims in veneration of and respect for the Patriarch, not in desecration. For almost 1,400 years it has been a sanctuary very much respected and 1: evered. Cne would also recall here that , according to the Daily News Bulletin of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Israeli Housing Ministry is investing about $uS 1 million in the construction of Jewish flats in Hebron. I mention that to show the extent to which the Government of the United States is involved in those violations of peace in that area. It should also be recalled that in 1979 a group of women and children were moved into buildings around Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Hebron; they remained there for nine months and were guarded by Israeli troops. Therefore, one can see that those violations are not really “violations” - they are defended and protected by the Israeli (aver nment; and .they are not acts of thugs, as might be said, but a policy of the Cabinet, a policy of the Government. And, as we noted on 21 January 1986, the Government is protecting those acts of profanation and desecration and, more profoundly, provocation of the population. The Israeli Housing Ministry has new plans for additional apartments, and very clearly the project architect , a certain Saadia Mendel, has boasted on television that he considered the building plans an expression of “political positions”. Thus, we do not need any further prcof that all these acts of desecration, all the construction, are acts expressing a political position. Meanwhile we are told that those troops in Hebron are preventing Arab workers employed by the Islamic Supreme Council from entering and carrying on their maintenance work in that Mosque. I am alsb aware of a message sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by the Head of the Islamic Supreme Council appealing to him to intervene immediately to put an end to those acts of aggression, violation and profanation in the occupied Pales tin ian terr i tor ies , both in Jerusalem and at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron. I’trust that, if the Secretary-General ha&received that information , he will ‘make it public + The representative of Tel Aviv told us in a statement in ths Council that the visit on 8 January was to II . . . Solomon’s Stables, a site with no religious significance, at the south-east corner of the Mount. Xt is not in any of the mosques . ..“b (S/PV. 2643, p. 27) I should like representatives to understand something about the structure of the place. Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa stands on some pillars. Its foundations, which were converted into stables during the twelfth century, are, structurally speaking, the pillars that bear up the building. And, as an analogy, I wonder what anyone would say if the garage of this building were violated and destroyed. What would happen to the thirty-eighth floor? The stables are part of the compound. They were not originally intended to serve as stables; the convarsion took place later, in the twelfth century. However, the news from Jerusalem tell us that, on 21 January, the Knesset’s Interior Committee seemed to be uncertain as to what the law permitted, because the .I Chief of the Muslim Council, Shefkh Salad A-Dan Al-Alami, had stated publicly that if the intention was to build a synagogue an the Temple Mount in place of the Mosque, “this would be over my dead body”. That goes to show that the visits and attempts of the Israeli occupation officials were not in keeping with any pre-arranged plan between the Islamic Supreme Council and the occupation authorities. Again, with regard to their allegation that there were sme construction violations, I am informed that a certain Aharan Sarig, the Director-General of the Jerusalem Municipality, inforraed the Interior Coaanittee of the Knesset that, contrary to allegations , no illegal construction was taking place on the l'bmple Mount. He said that there was s-e reconstruction work which did not require licences. Again, my question ist What was the Interior Committee of the Knesset doing in that area? It was definitely a matter of provocation and desecration, and it resulted in the call for this series of Security Council meetings. I thought I would bring that information to the Security Council so that every one of the members would clearly understand that what took place in that sanctuary was not incidental; that it was planned provocation, involving members of the Cabinet and the security forces. We are, in fact, told that on 19 January about 600 of the latter joined in the march on the area. Six hundred members of the security forces are no accident. This was something which was planned by the central Government, in this case the occupying Power. The PRESIDENT (China) (interpretation from Chinese): The next speaker is the representative of India. I invite her to take a place at the Council table and to make her statement. Ms. KUWADI (India): Allow me, Sir, to congratulate you on your assumption of the high office of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of January. We highly appreciate your diplomatic skills and experience and your dedication and objectivity. We look forward to fruitful activity by the Council under your stewardship, 1 should like also to pay tribute to the admirable manner in which your predecessor, Ambassador Bassole of Burkina Faso, guided the affairs of the Council last month. f take this opportunity to congratulate Bulgaria, Congo, Ghana, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela, which have joined the Security Council this year, and to wish them all success in carrying out their onerous responsibilities. I place on record our gratitude to ‘all Council members for the co-operation extended to us during India’s tenure on the Security Council. We have listened with great attention to the statements made by several @receding speakers, which gave a detailed and factual account of the recent incidents which occurred at the Al-Agsa Mosque in Al-Quds (Jerusalem) on 8 and 14 January, and we have taken careful note of the contents of the final communiqu& of the tenth session of the Al-Quds Committee, held at Marrakesh on 21 and 22 January, which has been circulated in document S/17760. We are deeply concerned over these developments and the actions taken by the Israeli authorities, which are in direct contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the norms of international law and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. Undoubtedly, these incidents have contributed to heightening tension in an already fragile and charged environment. As a country which firmly believes in and follows the principle of secularism, India can only feel aggrieved and shocked at this sacrilege and desecration of a place of worship. To us the incident represents a much wider malaise and is a direct consequence of the illegal occupation by Israel of the Holy City of Jerusalem and other ‘Arab territories. The injustice which the Arabs and the Palestinians have suffered at the hands of the Israelis in the occupied territories over the years offers the only explanation for the widespread reaction that the recent incident at the Al-Aqsa Mosque has evoked in many countries. Consequently, the current meetings of the Security Council, convened at the joint request of the Chairmen of the Arab Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to consider a specific complaint, have wider and deeper implications. The city of Jerusalem is sacred to the followers of three religions, and the status of its @laces of worship has been Of Special concern to the United Nations for a number of years. The safety and sanctity of these religious places is related to the maintenance of the unique (Ms. Kunadi, India) character of Jerusalem. It is for that reason that the United Nations has on many occasions expressed itself as being against any change in the juridical status of the city. Over the years, the General Assembly and the Security Council have adopted numerous resolutions concerning the status of Jerusalem. A number of the, Security Council’s resolutions have been adopted unanimously. Those resolutions have called upon Israel to desist from taking any legislative and administrative measures and actions, including appropriation of land and of properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem. They have also reaffirmed the principle Of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by military conquest. They have further called upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken. Security Council resolutions 465 (1980), 476 (1980) and 478 (1980) have further called upon Israel to annul the so-called basic law which was aimed at altering the status and character of Jerusalem. My delegation believes that Israel, as an occupying Power, is bound by the norms of international law, the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Recent years have witnessed an aggravation of tension and violence in the Middle East region as a result of Israel’s aggressive and expansionist policies directed against its Arab neighbours. In addition, Israel has resorted to inhuman practices against the Arab and Palestinian population in the occupied territories. Such practices, including Israel’s policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories, are aimed at consolidating permanent Israeli domination over the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and creating a fait accompli by encouraging the Arab population to emigrate from those lands. For nearly 40 years now, the fnternational’community has been engaged in strenuous efforts to find a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the problem of the Middle East and its core, the question of Palestine. The fundamental principles of and the basic framework for such a solution already exist in the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Arab peace plan adopted at Fez, and the pronouncements of the non-aligned countries adopted at the seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government, held at New Delhi in March 1983. Those well-recognized fundamental principles are: first, that the guestion of Palestine is at the heart of the problem of the Middle East and that no solution to that problem can be envisaged without taking into account the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; secondly, that the implementation of those inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to return to their homes and property and to exercise their right to self-determination, including the establishment of a State of their own, will contribute to a final solution of the Middle East crisis; thirdly, that the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the sole authentic representative of the Palestinian people, on an equal for5ting, is indispensible to all efforts at finding a solution to the Middle East problem; and, lastly, that no just and lasting peace in the Middle East can be established without the withdrawal of Israel from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and without the guarantee for’all States in the region to live within secure and recognised borders. These fundamental principles were reiterated and endorsed at the meeting Of the Foreign Ministers of Non-Aligned Countries held at Luanda, Angola, in September 1985. The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries attaches paramount importance to the achievement of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. In this context we underscore the importance of the early convening of the proposed international peace conference on the Middle East. The time has come for the international community to raise its Voice in outrage against Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories and against its Arab neighbours which have posed a serious threat to international peace and security. We hope that the Security Council will demonstrate the will to act resolutely. .The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Chinese): I thank the representative of India for her kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Malaysia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. ZAIN Azrsai (Malaysia) : I am grateful to you, Mr. President, and to the other members of the Council for the courtesy extended to me in acceding to my reguest to participate in the debate on the item which is now before the Council. I feel particularly privileged to do so when you , sir, are presiding over these deliberations, not only because you represent a country with which my own enjoys ever warmer and closer relations, but also because you have established, even in the relatively brief time you have been here , a reputation for professionalism, courtesy and fair-mindedness. It is not the practice of my delegation to seek to appear before the Council unless the circumstances are exceptional. Such is the case on ‘this occasion. The events of recent weeks affecting the sanctity of Al-Haram Al-Sharif touched the most deeply held sensitivities and religious convictions of our people and have aroused their utmost anguish, indignation and rage. My Government therefore feels compelled to convey these sentiments to the Council and to urge the Council not to be satisfied with passing ritual words of condemnation, but to take decisive action to ensure that these events do not recur. The fact is that this is not the first time the sanctity of the Al-&pa Mosque and the area of Al-Haram Al-Sharif has been violated. But the participation of certain members of the Israeli Government and Parliament and other officials in these actions has added a new and dangerous dimension to the situation which we urge the Council to take fully into account. Those who have spoken before me have fully described these events, and I need not, therefore, go over them once more in any detail. Suffice it to say that these events, taking place as they have on four separate occasions, on 0, 9, 14.and 19 January, constitute a clear pattern which can only be described as premeditated provocation. They have involved a visit during the noonday prayer by a delegation Of the Interior Committee of the Israeli Parliament, which includes individuals who are not members of the Committee as well as others whose unbridled hostility to the Arab population, whose rigid insistence regarding th; establishment of Jewish settlements in the occupied territory and whose blatant advocacy of its annexation to Israel are well known. They have involved physical violation of the sanctity of Al-Haram Al-Sharif and the conducting of Jewish prayer therein, attempting to raise the Israeli flag and disrupting and intimidating Muslim worshippers, as well as other efforts to intrude into the Al-Aqsa Mosque and other inflammatory and Provocative words and acts. What were these individuals on these separate occasions doing; what legitimate business did they have in Al-Haram Al-Sharif? And what was the role of the ISraeli Police forces in all of this, considering that they did nothing to prevent further incidents after the event of 8 January except to provide a protective cover for the Perpetrators of these crimes? Are these acts to be regarded as “routine” - to repeat a word that has actually been used in the Council? Unfortunately, unless the Council does act decisively it will be only too true that such acts would indeed be routine. It must also be pointed out that the Muslim guards of the Holy Places successfully resisted these encroachments and violations. If they had not, is it to be believed that these criminal and immoral acts would not have been suqxessfully perpetrated or that the Israeli police authorities would have prevented them? The situation in Jerusalem, it must be remembered, is one of foreign occupation backed by overwhelming military force, in which - in defiance of the will of the entire international community, including all members of the Count il - the occupier proclaims its sovereignty over all of Jerusalem now and ’ forever, a claim which has been made yet once more with almost casual arrogance in the Council in the course of this debate. Israel’s actions over the years have fully conformed to its words. Demolition of Arab houses, confiscation of thousands of hectares of Arab property, the destruction of Arab quarters which include Muslim Holy Places as well as other ancient buildings, the 1iqUidation of other Arab institutions, the harassment and expulsion of Arab inhabitants, the imposition Of Israeli law and administration and institutions - all that has indeed become routine. It is in this situation, in these circumstances, that the Muslim worshippers and the guards of Al-‘Haram Al-Sharif have sought to defend themselves and the sanctity of Islam’s Holy Places against the’power and military might of the occupation authorities. It is in that context, therefore, that the recent events must be viewed. The whole history of Israel has oonsisted of creating facts, of establishing fai ts accanpl is. Seen in the context of the publicly proclaimed position of Israel regarding its sovereignty Over Jerusalem and indeed Over the West Bank, as well as in the context of the actions which have been taken to implement this declared national policy, these recent events must be viewed as insiduous and concerted attempts to destroy the Muslim character of Al-Haram Al-Sharif in order to pave the way for its complete Judaization. Nothing we have heard in this debate so far has given us cause to believe otherwise. Have we had any affirmation to the contrary from the Israeli authorities in this debate? Have we had any affirmation from the Israeli authorities that nothing will be allowed to change with regard to the present character and present administration of Al-Haram Al-Sharif? Since we have heard none, my delegation feels that, at the very least, this Council must make that affirmation. So long as there is obfuscation on this issue on the part of the Israeli authorities, so long as they seek to hide behind excuses about the acts of irrational individuals or to make merely accusatory debating points, for so long must they be held responsible for conniving with, abetting, encouraging and supporting extremist elements whose clear purpose is to violate the Arab character and Islamic history of one of Islam’s holiest places and of Jerusalem itself. The consequences of these acts on the peace process in the Middle East must be a matter of particular ccncern to this Council, as it has primary responsibility under the Charter on questions of international peace and security. Do these acts help or hinder the peace process? Do they encourage or discourage the Palestinians to seek a peaceful solution to the Palestine question? What do they say about the attitude towards peace of .thcse who deliberately orchestrated them? More fundamental, of course, is the attitude of Israel itself towards peace. That attitude, which has been made explicitly clear time and again, is: no self-determination for the Palestinians, no Palestinian State ever. The friends and sumorters of Israel accept these assertions as a matter of course, but they would wax eloquent and indignant if the assertions were reversed to deny such rights to Israel itself. Instead, they seek to divert attention by all manner of subterfuge and by raising the cry of agitator , of terrorist or even of anti-Semite against anyone who will not bow to the Israeli assertions. The attitude of Israel towards Palestinian self-determination and Palestinian independence is the fundamental obstacle to peace in the Middle East. The present acts of sacrilege in Al-Hat-am Al-Sharif flow fran, and feed upon, that attitude. The Council must therefore condemn not only these recent specific acts but also the fundamental attitude of Israel, which gives succour and encouragement to their perpetrators. Looking back, who would have thought two decades ago that the establishment of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and in Jerusalem itself would be accepted by many as routine? My Government strongly urges the Council to remember the lessons of the past and to act decisively so that at least on this occasion, and beginning now, the familiar Israel practice of fait accompli will be arrested before it can proceed any further, before these violations and infringements of the sanctity of Islam’s Holy Places do indeed become routine. The PRESIDWT (interpretation from Chinese): I thank the representative of Malaysia for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Sudan. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement l Mr. BIRIDO (Sudan) (interpretation from Arabic): First, I extend thanks to the Security Council for giving my delegation this opportunity of participating in its present deliberations on the situation in the occupied Arab territories. I also express to you, Sir, sincere and heartfelt congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. Our pleasure at seeing you in the Chair iS all the greater because you represent the friendly People’s Republic of China, a country linked to Sudan by excellent relations, which are becoming even broader. We are confident that, with your statesmanship and long diplomatic experience, you will provide the Council with the leadership that will be COmenSUrate to the ser iousness of the incident the Council is nm considering. I would extend thanks also to Ambassador Bassole, the Permanent Representative of Burkina Faso, for the outstanding role he played in conducting the work of the Security Council last month. This ‘is probably a good occasion also to express our appreciation and gratitude for the constructive contributions made by the non-permanent metiers of the Security Council whose terms of membership expired at the end of last year. Equally, we extend congratulations to the new non-permanent metiers, who have the full confidence of the international community. We trust that they will make concerted efforts in the service of international peace and security. The present debate in the Security Council is being held at the request of the Kingdom of Morocco on behalf of the members of the Organization af the Islamic Conference, and the United Arab mirates on behalf of the Arab Group in the United Nations. That request is contained in their letters of 16 January 1986 addressed to the President of the Security Council, in which they ask that the Security Council be convened to consider the acts of provocation committed by Israel against Al-Haram Al-Shar if in Al-Quds. The details of those acts have been set forth by the representatives of Morocco, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Heshemite Kingdom of Jordan. They can be summarized as acts of aggression committed by a number of members of the Knesset against the sanctity of the Mosque on 8 January 1986, in conformity with a premeditated plan to consolidate Israeli Control Over Al-Haram Al-Sharif. That outrage by those persons was followed by another act of aggreaeion and provocation on 14 January 1986, with the assistance of Zionist owupation mlice, against the wcrshippera and civilian guards at the Moeque . That brought about the wrath and revulsion not only of the Islamic world but of the whole international conumunity. Israel has ridiculed the’council ‘s debates on Lebanon in the past, just as the representative of racist South Africa ridicules the Council’s debates whenever given the opportunity here. This time Israel has taken leave of its senses, and as usual it has encountered difficulties and has been unable to cover up the outrage committed by its officials. Its letter to the Secretary-General dated 16 January (S/17739) and its representative in his statement to the Council said that the visit by members of the Interior Committee of the Knesset was co-ordinated with the Supreme Muslim Council, but the Speaker of the Knesset denied any knowledge of such a visit. Israel says that the visit comes within the context of the official work of the Knesset menhers of the Interior Committee, but it is clear that there was participation by others with no official capacity, who called for the annihilation of the Muslims, control of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Judaization of the Holy City, and others whose history is replete with hatred and oppression. That reveals the true intentions underlying the incident. The desire of the rulers in Tel Aviv was clear - to provoke the Muslim worshippers, proof of which is the fact that the first visit on 8 January was follwed by another, premeditated visit within a week. Israel claims in its letter that freedom of worship is ,available without any restrictions or harassment, but that visit by its officials and their follwers was carried out during the time of prayer, which showed a persistent lack of respect for the houses of worship, and the courtesy visits, as the Israelis describe them, called for the mobilization of soldiers and an attack on the worshippers, Sudan vigorously condemns those crimes perpetrated by Israel and stresses their gravity and their repercussions for peace and security in the area and the whole world. ‘This is not the first time the Council has met to consider Israeli attempts to Profane the Holy Places , and it is not the first time quil ty hands have been directed against the sane ti ty of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the First Kiblah and the third holiest sanctuary. The fervid practices of the rulers of Tel Aviv against Jerusalem reflect the fact that they do not believe in the peace of which Al-Quds iS a tower ing symbol. While that Holy City has embodied throughout its glorious history the images of brotherhcod end has embraced monasteries, churches and Wsques , the Zionist ideology, which is the basis of Israel, is designed to achieve other objectives. As I have already said, the January incidents were not the first in the series of acts of desecration. In August 1969 the international community was apprised of the attempt tc burn down the Al-Aqsa Nosque. Other such bar bar ic practices include the de6 truction of the Saladin pulpit, the Israeli excavations around the Al-Aqsa Wsque since 1967, the acts of terrorism which in April 1982 claimed the lives of sane worshippers who were shot dead, the repeated breaking into the Mosque, and the attempts to commit aggression against the freedom of worship and the sanctity of the houses of worship. The January incidents and the preceding incidents reflect the follcwing lessons and facts. First, the incidents demolish the claim of the Israeli author ities that the Islamic Holy Places enjoy protection and respect , and clearly reflect Israel’s cynical disregard of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its failure to discharge the responsibilities incutient upon occupation authorities. Secondly, the incidents of 8 January and 14 January cannot be isolated from the series of Israeli actions and schemes designed to impose control over the Holy Places and to Judaize them in full, undermine their Arab character and change their derrrographic, cultural and historic status. Thirdly, the Israeli acts of aggression against the Holy Places cannot be isolated from the question of the occupation of the Palestinian and Arab territories, foremost among which is Al-Quds. Rather, those acts of aggression reflect a colonialist, expansionist approach, fully premeditated, just like the south African approach in Namibia. I need not speak at length about the similarities between the two r&gimes, South Africa pays no heed to the African majority and its rights, and Israel evades facing the guestion of the Palestinian people. South Africa occupies Angolan territory and speaks about its so-called security, while Israel occupies Lebanese territory and speaks of its so-called security cordon. Both, therefore, direct their actions against neighbouring States which they destabilize; both undermine the stability and independence of the neighbouring States; both assist and harbour puppet forces. fn that regard, there is no difference between Jonas Savimbi and Antoine Lahad. While South Africa speaks of the necessity for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Angola, Israel raises the guestion of so-called foreign forces in Lebanon. I do not need to speak about their cynical disregard for the resolutions of the Council and the General Assembly, because it is an open secret. Fourthly, Israel’s latest acts of aggression were not committed in a vacuum. Rather, they are organically linked to its continuous refusal to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and its attempt to obliterate its cultural and historic identity. Pifthly, the acts of aggression against the Holy Places raise the guestion of the ,inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force of arms, including Israel’s other arbitrary aggressive practices. (Mr. Birido, Sudan) The question of Al-Quds has been before the Council for a long time, during which the Council has acknowledged that the acts of profanation and the attempts to change the character of the city jeopardize international peace and security. Since the Israeli onslaught in 1967 the Security Council has adopted a series of resolutions, including resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969), 298 (1971), 465 (1980), 476 (1980) and 478 (1980). All of those resolutions emphasize, inter alia, the invalidity of the legislative and administrative measures and consider them null and void. They stress the imperative need to rescind the so-called basic law. The United Nations General Assembly made the question of Al.--Quds a standing item on its agenda, as is reflected in its resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 1967 and the resolution it has been adopting year after year on Al-Quds. Al-Quds has always occupied a prominent position in the agendas of other international and regional organizations such as the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Organisation of African Unity, At its meetings between 15 and 26 June 1981 in Nairobi the Ministerial Conference adopted its his’toric decision 863, on Al-Quds. That resolution unambiguously rejected Israel's claims in Al-Quds, emphasized the gravity inherent in Israel’s numerous attempts to change the demographic and cultural character of the city and considered all measures taken by Israel null and void. The resolution of the Organisation of African Unity called for the rescinding of those arrangements and indicated that they contravened the Fourth Geneva Convention, of 1949, and constituted grave impediments to the efforts to achieve a comprehensive and permanent solution of the problem of the Middle East. That resolution denounced the policy of Judaization and the forceful seizure of Arab properties in Al-Quds and reiterated that the question of Palestine, including the question of Al-Quds, constituted the crux of the Middle East problem. I am sure the Council is aware of the statement issued at the sixteenth session of the Meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference held recently in Fez, which paid tribute to the resistance Of the Population of holy Al-Quds against the heinous Israeli attack, warned Israel of the the international consequences of persistilig in such acts of aggression and held community responsible for Israel’s persistence in perpetratin,g such cr imes and its violations of United Nations resolutions and international norms and laws. (Mr. Bir ido, Sudan) The Council should not confine itself to denouncing and condenning the actions of Israel. Rather, it should take practical steps to prevent a repetition of what has happened ; it must deter the Israeli aggressors. It should also adopt effective measures to guarantee the preservation of the status and integrity of the Islamic Holy Places. The Council should also reiterate its previous resolutions on the Holy City of Al-Quds, and it should warn the occupation authorities Of the consequences of repeating the acts of profanation. It is also, of course8 the Council’s responsibility to put an end to the Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories and to achieve a just and comprehensive peaceful settlement. Any failure of the Security Council regarding Al-Quds will have very adverse effects on its credibility and seriousness and the international community’s confidence in it. We sincerely hope that this Council will rise to the level of the challenges posed by the situation. The incidents perpetrated by Israel in January against the Holy Places call more than ever before for the international community to assume its duties in achieving a comprehensive and just settlement of the conflict in the Middle East, the crux of which is the question of Palestine, which constitutes the key to the solution of that conflict on the basis of the United Nations resolutions. Most important is the full withdrawal of Israel from all the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including the city of Al-Quds, and the guaranteeing of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the &tablishment of its own independent State on its own territory under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, its sole legitimate representative.

I thank the representative of Sudan for the kind words he addressed to me. There are no further speakers for this meeting. The next meeting of the Security Council to continue its consideration of the item on its agenda will be fixed after consultations with members of the Councij.. The meeting rose at 6.10 p.m.