S/PV.2914 Security Council

In accordance with the decis ion5 taken at the previous @etings cm this item, I invite the representative5 of Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, the Syrian Arab l&public, Tunisia, the Ukrainian Soviet SoCialiSt Republic, Yemen and Yugoslavia to take the places reserved for them at the sids of the Council Chamber. I invite the representative of Palestine to take a place at the Council tible. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sendjama (Algeria), Mr. Al-Shakar @ahrain), Mt. Etousna (Egypt), Ear. Menon (India), Mr. Sutresna (Indonesia), Mr. Al-Arbari (Iraq), Mr. Rein (Israel), Mr. Salah (Jordan), Mr. Treiki (Libyan Arab Jamahitiya), Mr. Urner (Pakisten), Mr. Al-Nasser (Qatar), Mr. AL-Kahtany (Saudi Arabia), Mrs. Diallo (Senegal) , Mr. Awad (Syr ian Arab l&public), Mr. Gbezal (Tunisia), Mr. Cbdovenko (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), Mr. Sallam (Yeraen) and Mr. Ps jic (Yuqoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chanberr Mr. Al-Ridwa (Palestine) took a @lace at the Council table. The PRESIDRNT (interpretation from Arabic) t I should like to inform the Council that I have received letter6 from the representBtive8 of Bangladesh, Horocco and the United Republic of ia~1~8nia in which they requeat to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council’s agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propo88, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discuarion , without the right to vote, (The President) in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. There being no Objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Chowdhury (Bangladesh), Mr. Pahhali (MOrOCcO) and Mr. Nyakyi (United I&public of Tanzania) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council table.

The Security Council will now resume its consideration of the item on its agenda. The first speaker is the representative of Yugoslavia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statelpent. Mr. PEJIC (Yugoslavia) a At the .outset, I would like to express to your Sir, the representative of friendly and non-aligned lIesocratic Ye-n, the sincere COngratUlatiOn8 Of the Yugoslav delegation cs the occasion of ytmr assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. Kour vast diploaatic experience I which has been proven m many cccasicno of the var!ous United Nations forums, gives us cause to believe that ycu will indeed discharge this responsible task successfully. I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to ewplese nry delegation’s rocognitjcn of the Permanent Representative of Cuba, Mr. Picardo Alarcon de Quesada, for his very successful cmndltct of the Council%3 deliberations during the nmth of February. (Mr. Pejic, Yugoslavia) In my capacity as ChairmM of the Co-ordiuating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and that Ebvement’s Committee of Nine on Palestine, 1 wish to express the deep ccncern of the non-aligned countries regarding the announced intention of the 15raell Governamnt to settle the Jewish imigrants fro5 the Soviet m$iar fn the occupied territories. As a mczst serious issue, this is the subject of the pcesent debate in the Security Council. At a tima of draxatic and rapid political changes in the world, msrked by dialogue and relaxation, the continuing crisis situation in the Middle East, at the core of uhf& is the unresolved ques ticn of Pales tine , causes widespread comer n and anxiety. The inti fadsh - the uprising of the Palestinian people - has detxxmttated clearly aud meg~ivoc5lly tho mtenability of the situatiar created by foreign occupa tion . Nurwrous attearpts have been mad5 by vrttious factors, including the Movement of Non-Aligned Countrle5, in the past several months to start a productive Palestinian-XaZaali dialogue as the first step toward5 the realisation of the legitima. e and inalienable eight5 of the Palastiniau people. The Palestine Liberrtion Oxganiaation’s mnetructive attitude and readiness to engage in dialogue aiPred at finally Winging about lasting peace in that troubled region still lack an adequate responee from the Israeli sit%. Demand5 putting unjustified pze-caadi ticns cn the opening of dialogue - pre-conditione that cannot be eccspted - have taieed 8 question in the mind of many ncn-aligne8 countries abatt the existeuoe of the getmine teadine end political w%Ll g? the pert 34 EWM influential political circles in Israel to seek a aPmprehan5ive and lasting solutiav M tbti prcbles5 that would met the a5piretione of all corntries and peoplea $5 the region. Certainly, the recent etatemento made by the highest-ranking officials of the rsraeli Covatnment iiaplyiug that Perael will step up the settlement of the occupied (Mr. Pejic, Yugoslavia) territories cannot be understood as a contribution to that end. It is therefore quite understandable that those statements have caused great anxiety and concern not only ammg the Pales tinian people in the occupied territories and in neighbouring Arab States but also in the international community as a whole, particularly among non-aligned coun tr ies . This Israel policy, it is generally agreed, further complicates the tense and complex situstion in the region , which continues to be on the verge of a broad armed conflict, with potentially catastrophic consequences. For that reason, this situation was at the centre of the attentiar of the Ministerial Meeting of the Non-Aligned Wvement’s Committee of Nine held on 11 March in Tunis. Expressing their deep concern over the serious situation in the Middle East, the Foreign Ministers of non-aligned countr ies warned on that occasion that “The declared policy of Israel ti settle Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union in the occupied Palestinian tecritory, including Jerusalem, was of grave consequence. such organizea, mass actions undermined the peace process, jeopardizing all efforts undertaken So far , and they were in flagrant violation of the norm of law, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Irrternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the fundamentel human righta of the Palestinian people.* (s/21192, para. 6) The final communiqu4 goes cm to say that *Supporting the right of every individual to leave any country, including hi8 imposed or to the detriment 0E others, in this ~cticulsr case of the Palestinians. The non-aligned counttie!s called ~lpon the international community and the united Nations Secwcity Council to take resolute action to prevent such attempts and declare them illegal, null and void. In this (Mr. Pejic, Yugoslavia) impartial protection of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation and to call upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories.” (ibid.) Non-aligned countries therefore rightly expect that, as in the past, the Security Council will take a firm positiar with respect to the inadmissibility of the Israeli policy on the settlements in the occupied territories, a policy that is contsary to the norms of international law and constitutes a most serious additional element of tension and instability not only in the occupied Palestinian territories but alto in the broader Middle Ea5t region. Such action by the Security Council is needed also to facilitate the efforts designed to open the peace process airred at a lasting, just and comprehensive solution tie the Middle East crisis and the question of Palestine. Thie latest deterioration in the situation in the occupied territories lo yet another warning of all the dangers inherent in the existing state of *no war, no peacea and its de5tabilizing effects ar the security of the broader area. In that sense, the Middle East region has o~)me to a crossroads. As stated by the Foreign Ministers of the nine non-aligned countries members of the Committee on Palestine at their meeting in Tunia, ‘the Middle East prooees has entered an important and critical stage in creating conditions for the establishment of fruitful Palestinian-Israeli dialogue, which should focus on all the substantive issues.’ (ibid., pare. It) The non-aligned countries are of the opinion that a lasting and just solution to the Middle East crisis and the question of Palestine is possible only with the participatiar, on a footing of equality , of the Palestinian people, mder the (Mr. Pejic, Yugoslavia) leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization as its only legitimate representative, in all negotiations and phases of the peace process, which should constitute an integral part of the International Peace Conference. The ncn-aligned countries earnestly hope that these meetings of the Security Council will make a contribu ticn towards the attainment of that q-1. It is high time for the Security Council to get actively involved in the efforts to find a peaceful and just solution to the Middle East crisis and the problem of Palestine. The non-aligned countries still believe that the most suitable framework to serve this goal is the early convening of the International Conference on the basis of .Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Each and every delay is . fraught with new dangers, with potentially serious conseguenccs.

I thank the representative of Yugoslavia for the kind words he addressed to sm. The next speaker is the representative of Pakistan. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. WER (Pakistan) : Allow me to begin, Sir, by mnveying to you the sincere felicitations oE my delegation m your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. We are aonEident that your vast experience and skills will ensure the smcoth functiming oE the work of the Council. I should also like to express our deepest appreciation to Ambassa.bot Ricerdo Alarcon, the Permanent Rzpresentir tive of Cuba, for the outstanding manner in which he managed the affairs of the Security Council In the month of February. The current debate is indeed another reminder Df Isreel*s intransigence and deliberate policy of thwarting every peace initiative. The reason for this attitude is simple. Israel persists in the mistaken belieE that it can, in due course of tiam, transfora into a fait acccmpli its gradual absorption oE the Palestine and Arab territories which, through massive use of force, it continues bo occupy illegally. We ca~demn, ante again, this p&icy of expansion and annexation. (Mr. Uuer, Pakistan) (Mr. Umer , Pakistan) rjhat the international community has witnessed over the past two years is essentially a sharpening contrast between Palestinian -ration and Israeli obduracy. On the Palestinian side ie the peace initiative launched by Chairman Yasser Arafat in 1908. The political resolution adopted by the PalesLine National Council confitroJd the determination of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to reach a oommehensive peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its crux, the Palestinian question. The initiative envisages the solution of the problem within the framework of the United Nations Charter, the rulea of international law and the resolutions of the United Nations in a manner that will secure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to establish an independent State on their national territory as well as to ensure ccmdi tions of security 416 peace for all the States of the region. Unfortunately, Palestinian &ration has been met with increasing Israeli intransigence and resort to violence. Israel has so far shown nothing .but canplete disregard for the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territori~. The haroio intifadah of the Palas’~ini&ns ie being brutally f~ppm~sed, and all initiatives aimed at finding a lasting and just solution ti the probletm hava been rejecthd by Israel. The policy of large-scsle aett?emnt of foreign Jews in occupied temritortee rlmds to be seen in the cmtext of Israel% long-standing policy of intPan3igence , rejection ad forceful occupation. The eottlement of Jewish immigrants into Palt?etine io not a new development. In fact, it formd the ve%y basis of the Zionist ideology of the iLlgathering of the exiles, under whit91 Jews from all ammtes of the world ehould fozm a Jewish natimal horn in Palestine. Labr, Zionism ailred SC a general poli,tical strahgjy. The head of the %rld Zionist OLganizetLon :B eett:aemnt &partment declared that “Our settlenmte have always estd~lisheid thrfact& p,f ulc tap of 15~ael”. (Mr. Umer , Pakistan) Professor Moshe Arens was mce specific when he said that the s truqgle over settlements was an organic part of the struggle over the peace borders. Imnediately a ftec the 1948 h0.s tili ties the Jewish population fllegally seized land and property belonging to the Palestinians , and the Israeli Government sanctioned those de facto aquisi tions on grounds of security and defence. This was folloved by a policy of systematic deportation of the rightful inhabitants of Palestine. Settlement and land expropriation became the dominant Israeli policy, and the result, as we all knorJ, was the virtual displacement of the Arab nation of Palestine, exczept as a discriminated-against and persecuted remnant in Israel. The same policy was followed in respect of the occupied teccitor ies after 1967. Even the Eriends of Kscael have deplored that policy. l’he report Of the United States Department of State on human rights practices for 1989 states that *Israel continued to place land under its control for military Purposesr roads, settlements and other purposes which restf ict use by Palestinians and discriminate in favour of Israeli settlers against Palestinians”. A report prepared recently by the West Bank Data Project also ooncludes that the Government of ferael ofEer8 special incentives to Israeli ci tizenn, including new immigrants, to move to the settlements. St is estimated that ore than 140 Jewish settlenmnte have been established in the west Bank and Gaza and that mtxe tian 60 per cent of the land in the tecc itoc ies has been seiaed by the Israeli authorities since the end of the military operations in 1967. Moreover, about 126,000 fstaelis are said to ha.a settled in the new neighbourhoods in East J=i~alem ~iiii~ aitt?r .a-- 1101. According to the latest estimates, nearly L million foreign Jews Could ultimately be settled in Pal-tine Over the next 10 years. Since most Of the emigrants are reportedly leaving not foe reliq;‘,ous reasons but to seek better eccnomic conditions, their first-choice destinations were the countries of the (Mr. Umet , Pakistan) West. However, due to stringent immigration laws , the flow of emigrants is being redirected towards Israel. This has created a patently unjust and incongruous situation in which the people of Palestine cannot enjoy a sovereign national life in the place of their birth and continuous residence, while foreign Jews are allowed to displace them. At a meeting of the Likud Party on 14 January 1990, the then Prime Minister of Israel was repor ted to have stated that “Big emigration requires Israel to be big as well. We need the space to house all the people*. Despite later denials and an effort to sensor news repbrts on migration, it is obvious that this policy is still continuing. The Washington Past of 27 January reported the mayor of Ariel, a Jewish settlement in the occupied territory, as saying : “If we get half a million mews from the soviet Union all tie reasons for ranpromising and trading land for peace will disappear’. According to the Washington Post ther e are already 70,000 Jewish settlers in the occupied territories, and their leaders have repeatedly voiced their determination to attract thousands of Soviet emigrants, even without special Government allocations. The Israeli leadership obviously hopes that as in the past the policy of creating facts will perpetuate its annexation of the occupted Arab territories by creating a fait accompli of a Greater Israel at the expense of the rights of the Pales tin ian people. Undoubtedly it also beLleves that sucir massive iarge-sCG~= immigration will thwart the Palestinian intifadah by creating a oonflict between the Palestinian people and the new Jewish settlers. (Mr. Umer , Pakistan) The Israeli plans for settlement in the occupied territories are contrary to the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907 and article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention rela’ * 17: to the Protection 00 Civilian Person5 in Time of Wr of 1949, which clearly 5 liates that the occupying Power shall not d5port or transfer parts of its 0~1 population into the territory it occupies. Such settlements are also in direct violation of the resolutions of the United Nations, including in particular security Council resolutions 446 (19791, 465 (1980) and 478 (1980), which expressly forbade Israel as the occupying Power from changing the demgraphic character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. It is our earnest hope that the Council will send a clear and forthright laessage to the IsraeLi authorities to stop forthwith this massive breach of international law and this unacceptable violation of the rights of the Palestinian people l The urgency of the situation is underscored al50 by the fact that continuation of the policy of settling Jew8 in the occupied territory will ser iously undermine tbe pr aspects for peace in the region. The last decade closed on a ringing note of triumph for freedom and human dignity. It is indeed ironic that the match of freedom should have stopped at the frontiers of Palestine, a land whose brave and valiant people have struggled 50 nuch for so long in their quest for the inalienable right to self-determination and statehood . It ie iniw&ent upon the internatiOnal oWnunity, in particular the Gecur~ty Council, t14 Intensify its effort5 to ensure that this right, so universally cherished, is no longer denied the people of Palestine. It: ie equally imp2retfve that e3y attenlpt to raioe obstaches that undermine the prospctcto of a lasting, ju5t and cfnqxehsnafve aettlfiment , such as the one which haa necessitated this debat.9, be r ?solutzly opposed and re jetted, (Mr. Umer , Pakistan) The framework for peace in the Middle East, fully supported by the General Assembly, already exists in the proposed convening oE an international conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations, to be attended by the parties ti the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization cn an equal fm ting . The urgency of the situation requires the initiation of tangible measures for the wnvening of that conference. The PWSIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) : I thank the representative of Pakistan for his kind words addressed to 1113. The next speaker is the representative of India. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. MENON (India) : -- May I begin by extending to you, Sir, our felicitations ~1 your presidency of the Security Council for the current month. India and Democratic Yemen have enjoyed long-established links of friendship and co-operation , which underlines our pleasure at seeing you chair this important meeting. I should like to take this opportunity to compliment your predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Ricardo Alarcon de mesada of Cuba, for his leadership of the Council during the preceding month. Since this is the first tire that my delegation is addressing the Council this year, I should like to felicitate its new me&erg - C&e d’Ivoire, Cuba, Demcratic Yemen, F@mania and Zaire - on their election to it. our tribute goes also to the members who retired last year - Algeria, Brazil, Nepal, Senegal and Yugoslavia - The implica tions - undeniably adverse - of Israel *s settlement of new Jewish immigrants in the Arab territories occupied by it bring the Council together in its traditional role of addressing concerns relating to peace and security. s b+v2e (Mr. Menon, India) 1967, when Israel occupied Eae t Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaze Strip and other Arab territories, it has been encouraging and promoting settlements in those occupied territories not only of its OM population but also of new Jewish immigrants . The policy has been deliberate and systematic, in defiance of United Nations resolutions, international law and world public opinion. To go back a little in history: The United Nations General Assembly, in resolution 32/F; of 1977, stated that the measures and actions taken by the Government of Israel, as the occupying Power, in the occupied Arab territories had no leqal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to efforts ainmd at achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. The General Assembly strongly deplored the persistence of Israeli measures in this regard, in particular the establishment of settlements in the occupied Arab territories. Later, in 1979, a Commis:ion set up by the Security Council to examine the situation relating to such settlements came to the conclusion that Israel *s policy had ‘largely contribued to a deterioraticm of the situation in the occupied terrifaoties” and that it was *incompatible with the pursuit of peace in the area” (S/13679, Pare. 45). The Commission recommended that: *the Security Council adopt effective measures to prevail on Israel to cease the establishment of settlements in occupied tecritorfes and to dismantle the existing settlements accordingly*. (Ibid., nara. 54) The Commfssion’s conclusions and reoolnmenda tions were accepted by the Council in resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Attention was thus drawn to the grave -m-e--.__--__ -c *. b~l,~~yueuu+5d OL Itiraei’s settiements poiicy and its iack of iegai validity. Furthermore, in various United Nations resolutions the policy was considered a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention, a point that deserves to be stressed in our consideration of this issue. (Mr. Menon, India) Israel has, however, not been deterred. It has continued its expansicmiat settlements policy, along with the displacement of the indigenous Arab population from their homeland. *en the Palestinian people rose in revolt in their intitadah, whicfi continues today and whose daily heroisms have been well documented, the occupying Power resorted to severe reprisals, including deportations, illegal detentions, torture, demolition of houses, imposition of military and economic blockades and use of excessive force leading to casual ties. Recently Israel announced that, to accommodate the increasing influx of new Jewish immiqrants, particularly those coming Erom the Soviet Union, it needed a “Greater Israel*. What this amounted to was Israel’s pursuit of the eventual objective of annexing all occupied terri tor iea. The security of one state cannot be at the expense of the security of other States, nor can it be based on depriving a people of their security, their homes and their homeland. Further settlement of non-Palestinian people in the occupied territories only compounds the existing illegality of Israeli occupation of those territories by force. At a time when all interested parties are seeking to promote the peace process in the region, such activities can only jeopnrdize efforts to bring the parties concerned to the negotiating table. We face, therefore, 011 the one hand , an Israeli policy that complicates and undermines processes meant to promote peace while, on the other, there ie widening acknowledgement of the importance oP the peace initiatives put forward by the Palestine Liberation Orqanization, the sole legitimate representative of the great support the relevant resolution obtained at laet year’s session of the United Nations General Assembly. However, a section of the Israeli leadership insist8 on turning away from the reality that a solution in the West Asian region can be found (Mr. hkncm, India) anly in a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement that addresses the core issue of Palestine and takes fully into crjgnizance the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination and their own homeland, as well as the recognition of the rights of all States in the region to live in peace within internationally recoqnized and secure boundaries. Instead of promoting the peace process on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Israel opens out ,thhe prospect of a larger influx of Soviet Jewish immigrants, ranging from 750,000 to one million in the 1990s. Such a prospect bodes ill for progress in peacemaking for the region. India has consistently upheld the cause of the Palestinian people and their struggle as part of the wider global movement against colarial rule, oppression and injustice. Addressing the Non-Aligned Committee of line on Palestine at its ministerial meting at Tunis cm 11 March this year , our Minister for External Affairs, Mr. 1. K. Gujral, expressed concern at Israel% intention to settle a large number of Soviet Jews in the occupied territories. He said: -The development has qrave implications and calls for speedy and united action by the international community. Israel. is in illegal occupation of these territories, and there are numerous resolutions calling upon it to withdraw from these territories. Ehcouragemsnt of further settlement of non-Palestinian people in the occupied territories amounts &J the compounding of the existinq illegality of the occupation of these territories by Israel by force .* (Mr. &non, India) At a tixm when all the interested parties are painstakingly looktng for an acceptable approach for starting the peace process, this development cannot but have the effect of further canplicating the process of bringing together the parties to the negotiating table. This is also likely to increase the already existing tension in the occupied tecri tot ies and may even result in greater violence and conflicts. Finally, this development has the effect of destabilizing security and imperilling peace in the entire region. We are aware of the human rights angle of this issue. However, the rights of one section of the human population cannot be exercised at the coat of the rights of others. While talking of human rights we have to be mindful of the human rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories who have been suffering for decades.* In this context, Mr. Gujral oalled for the Non-Aligned Wvemsnt as a whole to exercise its influence to prevent this ominous development and to address itself, as it has been doing, to the wider question oE the realisation of the inalienable rights of the Palestin ian people. The NDn-Aligned Fbvement’s Committee of Nine on Palestine, of which India is a member, echoed these comer ns in its communiqu4 issued after its minister ial meeting in Tunis on 11 rvhrch this year. It called upon the international oouawnity and the Security Council to take resolute action to prevent such Israeli attempt8 and declare them illegal, null and void. The Ministers supported the right of every individual to leave any covrtcy, including his own, but stressed at the sams +.= ‘t.-t ‘,L.= exsrtias GE &f-a. ,‘A& -L--q -I -^L UIOS. . LY1.C PI,WA.” ll”L be i;i;pzed cs, or ke ti tk detrinmnt of, others - in this particular case, of the Palestinians. ‘Ihey called upon the Security Council to aDnsider measures for the impartial protection of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation, and urged all States not (Mr. &non, India) to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories. Our Prime Minister, Mr. V. P. Singh, in a recent message to the Palestinian President, Mr. Yasser Arafat, reiterated India’s principled support for the Palestinian cause, and agreed that Pressure should be brought to bear upon Israel against its policy of resettling Soviet Jews in the occupied Palestine and Arab areas. AS I said earlier, my country believes that this policy of Israel militates against the current peace moves, as well as the principal objective, as formulated in various General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East, to be convened urgently mder United Nations auspices, with the partic!pation of all parties to the mnflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organisation, on an eWa1 footing. llte end objective is, of courser the restoration of the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian In an era characterised by a relaxation of tensions in relations between nations - in par titular , between the super-Powers - act ions such as Israel’s can only be mnsfdered inflammatory and a threat to peace. My delegation believes that nkmsures are urgently needed to defuse the risks to which the peace process is being subjected by these Israeli actions. In the general antext of today’s world political situation, where compromise and reconciliation have recorded notable gains, it is incongruous that no Perceptible progress has been made in resolving the Pales tin ian issue. Countries best placed to influence the course of events in Palestine are not shwing the determination to resolve this issue that they have displayed on somr other issues. If the Palestinian problem is allowed to fester, it can have adverse effects on the general climate of relaxation of tensions. It therefore becomes necessary (Mr. Menon, India) for the intetna tional community, as represented within and outside this Cha&er, to address itself to the issue at hand. The tragedy of Palestine should not be aJmpounded by the unilateral policies of the occupying Power. Nor should the international community underestimate its responsibility of challenging such policies and seeking to get them changed. The larger cause of peace in Palestine and in the region as a whole and the restoration of Palestinian rights that underpins it demand our continued support and solidarity. We trust that the Council will address the issue in full awarenesc of the need to promote and bring to fruition the just cause of the Palestinian people.

I thank the representative of India for his kind words addressed to me. 3he next speaker is the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. MC. OUIXWENKO (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (interpretation from Russian)r Since this is the first tima I have spoken in the Security Council this year permit me first, Sir, warmly to oongratulate the representatives of C&e d’Ivoire, Cuba, Romania and Zaire, as well as you yourself, as the representative of Denucratic Yeman, upon their countries’ being elected non-permanent members of the Council. I also pay tribute to theft predacessore in the Council, the representatives of Algeria, Brazil, Nepal, Senegal and Yugoslavia, who by their tireless efforts in this important organ of the United Nations made such an important contribution to the cause of strengthening international peace and security. (Mr. adovenko, Ukrainian SSR) In welcoming you, Sir, to the important post of President of the Council for this mOnth, I wish to express my certainty that your great professional merits and authority, as well as your personal qualities, as representat.ive of the friendly country you have represented so worthily for so many years at the United Nations will enable you to discharge your arduous duties in March in the best possible way. I also wish to express my gratitude to pur predecessor as President, the Permanent -presenta tive of Cuba to the United Nations, Mr. Alarcon de Quesada, for his skilful aonduct of the Council’s proceedings last month. The delegation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic shares the concern expressed in the letter dated 12 February 1990 from the Permanent Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regues ting that the Security Council be convened to wnsider unlawful Israeli moves to settle the occupied territories. Only a short time has passed since in the General Assembly *s discuss ion of the situation in the Middle East at its forty-fourth session there was clearly expressed the idea that in present circumstances, in the light of the gravity of the Palestinian problem, it wae extremely important to harvest the fruits of the great and hard-on efforts to achieve a Middle East settlerent, and that following the path to such a settlement required patience and wisdom. Indeed, developments in the area have aroused entirely well-founded hopes in the international wmmunity of d genuine breakthrough towards bringing about a settlement of the long-standing Arab-Israel conElict and its core, the Palestinian question. Now m3re than ever we need realistic and judicious actions by ali the parties to the conEli ct. In that regard, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist I&public wishes to state its concern about the propaganda campaign being waged in certain circles around the growing emigration of Jewish persons Prom the Soviet Union, and in particular the (Mr. (Xldovenko, Ukrainian SSR) Ukrainian Soviet Socialist &public, to Israel. I stress that the problem directly affects the interests of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1989 a total of 45,710 Jewish citizens of the Ukrainian Soviet %cialiSt Republic received permission to leave the oountry. Of that total, only 16 per cent went to live permanently in Israel, and only 0.01 per cent, it is estimted, actually settled in the occupied territories. (Mr. Oudovenko. Ukrainian SSR) The subject of Jewish emigration has recently been the target of an attempt by ruling circles in Israel to exploit it for its unsavoury purposes. While there are concerted efforts in the international community to bring about a peaceful, just dnd comprehensive solution to the Palestinian problem guaranteeing the Palestinian people the exercise of i’s lawful rights and opening up for the peoples of the area the path to peace and security, Israel is making statements that confirm its aggressive ambit ions, its expansionist plans and its intention to sabotage the peace negotiations designed to call a halt to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Mr. Shamir’s statement that “the Lord has always come to the aid of the Jewish people at its most difficult moments” - it is precisely from this standpoint that he views the prospect of the settlement in the next five years of up to 500,OOG Jews in Israel, which, as he sees it, will help the dream of a “Greater Israel” to come true - has had the ef feet of an exploding bonb in the Arab world. They have quite rightly seen in this a direct connection between these words and the continuing settlement of new immigrants on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, which are in the throes of an uprising. We think that the carrying o?lt of such plans aimed at the de facto annexation of Palestinian lands, not to mention that it is in direct violation of the .)niversally acknowledged norms of international law - and in this case with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 - would deal a blow to the prospect8 Of a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a just solution to the Palestinian problem and open up a new chapter in the grim hiBtOry Of anfrontation in the Middle Rast. In our view, such statements by the Israeli leadership are aimed at a number of thinget to exploit the incoming immigrants for the Eorcible expulsion of Palestinians from the land that belongs to themt to hinder the process of (Mr. Oudovenko, Ukrainian SSR) international co-operation in the search for the most acceptable ways and means of solving the Middle East conflict on a just basis in the light of the interests of both Israelis and Arabs and, above all, the Palestinian people; and to halt, and if this is successEu1, even to reverse the tendency towards a change in public opinion inside and outside Israel in favour of peace negotiations with the Palestinians and of the creation, alongside Israel, of a Palestinian State. As to the concern on the question of the growth of Jewi& emigration from the Soviet Union, I should like to make one thing absolutely clears the problem lies not in emigration as such. ‘Ihe laws prevailing here are the same for all. There can be no special status for anyone, in this case for per sons of Jewish nationality, with regard to the right to leave the country. To undertake prohibitions would mean violating internetional obligations and dealing a blat to the deraocratic process within our country. The essence of the problem lies in the fact that some Israeli leaders still entertain hcpes that the world will at scme time come to agree that they have the right to lord it over the lands of others. In this regard I should like to draw the Council’s attention to the nmin pointc the settling of Palestinian terr!tories, regardless of whether it is by compulsion or voluntary, is unlawful and any attempts to change the demographic character of these territories by the occupying power is iZlega1 - and this is something the Ukrainian SSR has frequently stated in the United Nations. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the i&ma Strip have never belonged and do not belong to the atrrte of Israel. It is worth recalling here Security Council resolution 242 (1967). which is the ---al ..L 4 ,yL universally acknowdged basis for a Middle East settiemeni;, an& also LTDYLYC-... 465 (1980), calling upon Israel to halt the practice of settling the West Bank and Gaza. (Mr. Oudovenko, Ukrainian SSR) f should like to stress once again that Soviet citizens have the right to emigrate to any country, and this is entisely in keeping with the O;venant on Civil and Political Rights and the Vienna Agreements. But we vigorously protest egainst their being settled in the lands of others. This is a violation of the norms of international law and is morally wrong frcan the standpoint of respect for basic human rights - and we have no doubt about the fact that these people are precisely being encouraged to settle. Of course, there is no forced settlement. But everyone knws that in the occupied territories new immigrants are offered free housing, that is, housing subsidized by the State. For example, in Tel Aviv and other parts of the awntry immigrants have to pay for housing themselves, and this makes a great difference to people who have no raoney and no work ad who have to begin life over again from scratch. So this is an official policy, an economic incentive for settlement in the occupied territories. NW, is there any possibility of avoiding a situation where as a result of emigration from the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR and other countries we can prevent the spiral of conflict from becoming even more intensive? Ye8, there is, but on condition that all interested parties set to work witbout emotion in an attempt to bring about a sznoible ampromise. But Israel must give clear guarantees not to settle incoming immigrants in the occupied territories. We trust that the Israeli Government will heed, finally, the view of the international community which will not accept its policy in the ocuugied Psab territories. This position was confirmed in General Aeserbly resolution 44/42, which VBB adopted by 8 record comber of votes. The Ukrainian SSR delegation welcomes the evolution in the qproach of the United States h%rdniStK8tim to this question, an approach uhLch increases the possibility of concerted action on the pact of the international oommunity in order (Mr. Oudovenko, Ukrainian SSR) to pronmte a peace process in the Middle East and prevent the creation of additional obstacles to it. The Ukrainian SSR delegation wishes to take this oppottunity to repeat our appeal to the Government of Israel to draw the necesaarry conclusions fran the discussion here in the Security Council and associate itself with the international consensus in favour of implementing the idea of convening an international conference under the aegis of the Un!.ted hations and with the participation of the five permanent members of the Security Council and all parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organizntion (Pu)) , the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, on an equal footing. In our view, such a conference would be the best possible forum for finding mutually acceptable solutions on all aspects of the Middle East conflict - and this includes the question we are considering today. We should like to express the hope that the Security Council will Parke a decision which will halt Israel’s actions aimed at changing the demographic structure of the occupied territories. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) 8 I thank the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Qatar. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. AL-NASSER (Qatar) (interpretation from Arabic) t Way I congratulate you, Sir, 01 your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month, which we welcome in view of your well-known wisdom. We also wish to express our best wiehes to your predecessor , the Permanent Representative of Cuba, who presided over the work of the Council very competently. I thank you, Sir, for having given me this opportunity to participate in the debate of the (buncfl on behalf of Qatar. I should like to emphasize the importance my Government - like all Arab and other Governments that cherish Peace and justice - attaches to the subject before the Council. ‘Ihe wave of Soviet Jewish settlers in the Arab territories occupied since 1967 is an extremely grave situation which the international community must prevent firmly and with &termination. lfie dangers of such immigration and the settlement of those immigrants, if given free rein , are a threat to international peace and security . That is trGi an three Counts. First, the acts of the occupier in the occupied territories violate international law and the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. That Convention clearly forbids occupying Powers to alter the demographic composition of occupied teKKitOKie8 by expelling the indigenc*Js population or by bringing in foreign elements and settling them in those territories. The Council has repeatedly reaffirmed the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the occupied territories. It has also affirmed that Israel, by virtue of law, must respect the provisions of those Conventions. My delegation would therefore ask that this be reaffirmed and that measures be taken guaranteeing the implementation OP those Conventi&, so that they not remain aeaa letter. Secondly, if the current practices go unpunished , they will have unfavourable repercussions on efforts being made to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by peaceful means. ‘Ihose efforts are progressing at a 5nai1’8 pace, for reason5 faidiiar to all, but at ltaaat step5 are being taken. All peace-loving countries hope that this long-standing conflict will be resolved on the basis of law and justice. But if those waves of immigranta continue to arrive in the occupied territories, then the peace process will breathe its last breath and ali attempts to resolve the conflict through negotiat.ions rill be undermined. Thirdly, the establishment of Soviet Jews in the occupied territories jeopardizes the ongoing peace process. Thus, if tens of thousands of foreigners settle there, negotiations betwee. the Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to continue, since they will have been stripped of all foundation. An attempt is being made ti Efnd a peaceful solution allowing the two parties to enter into dialogue. If remaining Palestinian lands are turned into Jewish settlements, ft would undermine the very objectf;re of those negotiations and doan them from the outset. They would be left devoid of a rairon d’ttre. The item before the Council today requires firm, practical measures, not just resolutions stipulating certain principles that in practice would ,-emain dead letter. l%erefors, it would be futile for the countries concerned to impose conditions such as the non-settlement of new immigrants in the occupied territories or the granting of foreign assistance for that purpose. Such theoretical conditions, in financial and human terms, would not prevent the implementation oE the Israeli plan, which is aimed at changing the demojrephic composition of the occupied territories. Unless an end is truly put to the flaw of immigrants and the assistance halted, and if Israel is not convinced that an end must be put to these wave6 of immigrant6 and if aid to them is not halted , then lsrael will. pursue its plan, which is to settle Soviet Jews in the occupied territories in order to change the demographic composition of those lands. We hope that the Council will adopt a resoluticm that encompasses those principles in a way that does not mately condemn cne sei;i;iemist ct fiac iiii;;,igra;sts ?fi the UII*-AdA l aOWlLtirlrr urruy*ru bY.. b c-- a ..-. mha*daa efiwapmPa . ..1 we..--- --..___.. “_ should be encouraged to take concrete measures to ensure the true implementation of the Quncil’e resolutions. lbn settlement of soviet .‘ews in occupied Palestinian lands is only cne aspect of the Middle East problen, at the heart OP which lies the Palestinian question. We need not look Ear Eor the real causes of the situation in the Middle East. Ever since Israel has been in the region , ever since it expelled the population from its lands and from its homes, ever since it usurped the goods and property of the population, the people of the region have been condemned to the living hell of conflict in an attempt to recover its expropriated lands. In addition to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel is consolidating its aggression and is perpetrating new acts 0P aggression, Such as the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights and of Lebanese territory through a number of invasions. In 1982, Israeli forces went as far as Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. They perpetrated their daily acts of aggression by air, land and sea. Israel also undertook aggression against Tunisia and struck at a peaceful nuclear reactor in Iraq. Those are but a few examples of Israeli practices in the Middle East. To that we would add the ideology of expansion, which is the prevailing ideology that threatens all neighbouring States with the risk of being attacked. International will, as represented by our international Organisation and its resolutions, has agreed that a peace conference on the Middle East should be held under the auspices of the United Nations with the participation of all parties concerned, including the Palentine Liberation Organization (PLO) , the sole legitimate representative of the Palestin ian people. Ihe framework of international legality for the peaceful settlement of the conflict consists of Israel’s withdrawal from all occupied L---a L--a -- L.CI‘LALVLL~~, SBouyn~cAUi Of the right of P&etitine ijo eeif-determination, * IL ana cne establishment of its own independent State. The time has co@ for the international community to take a position consistent with the noble principles of OUK international Organization, especially (Mr. Al-Nasser, Qatar) the right of peoples to freedom and self-determination. That fundamental principle of international law must be applied to the Palestinian people. The PKESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) f I thank the representative of Qatar for his kind words addressed to me. ‘Lhe next speaker is the representative of the Libyan Arab Janmhiriya. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to give his statement. Mr. TREIKI (Libyan Arab Jamhiriya) (interpretation from Arabic)x I should like at the outset to congratulate you , Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. I am proud to 5ee you assuming that post, not only as the representative of a friendly country that shares past, present and future ties with my country as well as a common destiny, but also as a representative of the Arab nation. Yemen was a cradle of civilization; it is a source of advancement and the hope of the future. I should alao like to express my full appreciation to your predecessor, Mr. Ricardo Alarccm de Quesada , the representative of friendly Cuba, who led the Council constrtuctively and poaitively last month. (Mr. Treiki, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) ‘Ihe Security Council is meting once again to discuss one of the nest important issues of our times2 the question of the Palestinian people - indeed, I would venture to say, the tragedy of the Palestinian people. Ihe Council is meting to discuss one aspect of that tragedy and the phenomenon of Zionist expansionist settlement: the mass, systematic immigration to Palestine and the occupied Arab territories. The mass, systematic Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union and other places to Palestine is only a new 1 ink in the chain of the Pales tin iw tragedy. It is . only a new phase of the Zionist scheme to oaxpy all of Palestine as well as nmy parts of the Arab nation, in order to establish the Greater Zionist State from the Nile to the Euphrates. The phenomenon of Zionist settlement in Palestine and this increasing, systematic immigration is a colonial pheuonmnon in the full meaning of the word. . The aim is the CDmplete elimination , the liquidation of the Palestinian people and, in the meantime, the displacelaent of those who are etill there. The lata President Nasser &id, “He who did not own gave to him who did not deserve”. Through the Balfour Declaration, of such ill omml Britain - which WaS colonising Palestine then - gave Palestine to the world Zionists. At the sank? time, it gave South Africa to the white minority, in order to establish a racist State &here. The two systems are identical in their composition and their expansionist, aggressive policies , and in the policies of terrorism and mass annihilation pursued by both. It is astonishing to see this mss immigration taking place under the slogan mr)vement) but, in ml opinion, this freedom is indivisible. Why should the Palestinian human being not have the right to return to his homeland? &hat logic is there in talking about human rights and, at the same time, accepting the right to persecute people? What kind of human right is that? Why should one human being be differentiated from another human being merely because of religion or colour? Why should not those who profess Christianity or Islam have the same rights as those who profess Judaism? When some Soviet Christians travelled to Israel a few weeks ago and were refused entry by the Israelis , no one talked about that. What about human rights in that case? When thousands of Palestinians ace expelled from their land, and their houses and farms ace demolished, that appears to be of concern to no one. We all witnessed that great: publicity campaign against the Soviet Union - a campaign wged particularly by the United States of America, whicfi used all kinds of plitical and economic pressure and linked international &tente to the immigration of Soviet Jews. When the Soviet Union agreed to that, the United States determined the proportion of Soviet Jews that would emigrate to the United States - in order to direct them to occupied Palestine for settlement in the oocupied Arab tecc itor ies. We welcome international &tente and the promotion of freedom in the world, as well as the emphasis on human rights. But we support human rights for everyone - not for some special people alone , on the pretext that God promised them a oettein land. We do not deem it apptopr iate to think of God as a trader in slaves or in land. We condemn discrimination in southern Africa cm the basis of colour, why do we not con&m, discrimination in Palestine on the basis of religion? What would be the reaction if, for example , the United States or the Soviet Union or France or Gceat Britain declared that it was a Christian State and, therefore, focbads the immigration of non-Christians and expelled people of other faiths, including Jews and Moslems? What would happen if some countries with Moslem or Flindu or Buddhist majorities declared that they were States based on religion and therefore forbade other faiths and religions? (Mr. Treiki, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) This mass immigration is completely different fton the immiqration of individual human beings, which is recognised by international norms. International law and human rights dD not allow for the expulsion of one people and its replacement by another people, on the pretext that God promised the latter people that it 00uia live in a certain land. V&at has happened to the Palestinian people could happen to any other people. It could have happened in Argentina or Uganda or the eastern part of Libya. If the eastern part of Libya had been occupied, in accordance with the &sign at the beqinninq of the century, in order to become the Land of the Zionists, I who am sitting here to&y could have been a refugee, just like the Palestinian refugees. Even those who recoqnize the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate to the Palestinian territories that have been occupied since 1948 fly in the face of reality and contradict themselves. Hew ca this piece of land absorb these millions? Or perhaps the intention is to apply the policy of lebensraum applied by nazism in the days of Hitler. l%e State of the Zionist entity is the only State in the world that has no map. The leaders of that State have called very clearly for the establishment of Greater Israel, through the annexation of land by force - JeLusalemr the Golan Heights, southern Iebanon. And, if we do not take the necessary measures, this will be followed by the annexation of other lands from neighbouring Arab countries. The establishment of settlements in the occupied territories not only threatens the people of Palestine and eliminates any hopes for peace, but also jeopardizes Arab security as a whole and undermines any kind of peace based on justice. The Security Council has the responsibility for the maintel-.ance of international peace and security and, therefore, it must take every measure to (Mr. Treiki, Libyan Arab Jamhiriya) prevent the establishment of these settlements. The Council has adopted binding resolutions calling for a boycott of South Africa. As Africans, we were happy about thcae resolutions, which ma& a pmitive contributicm to the fndependence of Namibia, which WB oelebrated a few days ago. I congratulate the people of Namibia ~1 this historic victory, which has marked the beginning of the cud of the imperialist apartheid system. But the Council seem to be unable taday to take any measure to stop the policy of mass murder and annexation, the policy of aggression and expansionism engaged in by the Israelis. (Mr. Treiki, Libyan Arab Jnmahiriya) _LI Even the criticisms by countries with a great responsibility in this matter are interpreted in such a way as not to offend the rsraelis. The Israeli entity would never have been able to establish settlements without the billions of dollars handed to it. It could not have flouted the resolutions of the United Nations, inc.luding those of the Council , or the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements were it not for the material and moral support and military and political protection providec by certain great Fcwers which bear special responsibility under the Charter. There is an outcry when a single Arab country acquires even limited means of self-defence. But nothing is sdid when the Israelis possess nuclear weapons and long-range missiles and when they refuse to sign any agreement on nuclear or chemical disarmament. Israel does inde& possess nuclear and chemical weaponsr it uses poison gas against Palestinian women. That, they tell us, is “legitimate, civilized and humane” and is applauded by the mass media. But the Arabs are ‘tertorists”r HOW dare they call for a return to their land? How dare they resist occupation? The Palestinians should say yes to occupation. l’hey should say yes to murder and ann ihila tion. What can we call that attitude? We can cnly call it racism against the Arab nation. How can we give credence to those who talk of human rights when only a few day5 ago in their legislature they adopted a resolution establishing the right to acguire land by force and bolstering the principle of occupation and settlement and of the annexation of Jerusalem, despite all resolutions to the contrary? What is the nature of the human rights that are spoken of in the same breath a5 IAk of annihiiating one people and replacing it by another? (Mr. Treiki, Libyan Arab Jamahir iya) We want to emphasize the right of the individual to emigration. That right should be opened up so that every Soviet emigrant has a free choice of destination. Why should there not be an equal right of emigration for all? The establishment of any State on the basis of colour, religion, beliefs or philosophy is a grave mtter and is unacceptable today , at the end of the twentieth century. We welcome the policy of international d&tente between the two super-Powers when it is aimed at achieving peace, demcracy and freedan, but we reject it when it is pursued at the expense of the smaller peoples and is aimed at replacing one people by another and at creating further human tragedy. We are faced by a new choice 5 we must confront the question of the credibility of the Security Council. will it shoulder its responsibilities or will interests, calculations and election campaigns dictate its policy? The Palestinians have offered everything: they have nothing left to offer in exchange for peace. But the Zionists reject every call for peace, they establish more and more settlements end threaten to expel the retraining Paleotin ians. They challenge the international co~~~unity and flout its resolutions, The Council should take practical measures to ensure the Palestinian people’s return to its land and its enjoyment of the right of self-determination exercised by other peoples. It should also put a stop to the systematic emigration that threatens the entire area. We call upon the Soviet Union to take practical measures to stop the mass emigration to Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. We call upon the United States of America t6 stop providing funds and other assistance that could be used for the establishment of settlements and the displaceraent of the Palestinian (Hr. Treiki, Libyan Arab Yamahiriya) people. We appeal to all States that provi& assistance of any kind to the Zionist entity to halt that assistance, because it contributes to the displacemnt of the Pales tin ians. While we lay unequivocal stress on the unrestricted right of individuals to mve anywhere they want. We bear no animosity towards our cousins, the Jewish people. We respect Judaism as a religion. For many centuries, when Jews were persecuted in Europe, we protected them. We opened our land and our hearts to them because they are our cousins: we are all Semites. But we reject Zionism as a racist, colonialist, settler movement, and we consider that it represents a danger to both Arabs and Jews. Arabs and Jews are oxsins, belonging to the same race. They must stand together to eliminate the threat of Zionism, which is a threat to the entire world. Despite but bitter experience and despite the Security Council’s inability in tbhe past to adopt any effective resolutions on this subject, we hope - in the light of the great developments in the world and the international campaign In favour of human rights - that the conscience of the international community will be aroused and that legitimate rights will be restored to those who are entitled to them, We hope that Palestinian and Arab human beings will be treated like any other human beings. We hope that a just peace will be established. We are the nation of Islam, the nation of peace. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) x I thank the representative of the Libyan Arab Jalrrahiriya for the kind words he addressed to nm. The next speaker is the representative of Bahrain. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his staterent. Mr. AL-SHAKAR (Bahrain) (interpretation from Arabic) I At the outset, Sir, I should like to congratulate you most warmly and sincerely on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. The election of your fraternal country to membership of the Security Council was eloquent testimny to the prestige and esteem enjoyed by the Democratic Republic of Yemen and to its constant outstanding role in strengthening international understanding and in laying the foundations for co-operation among nations as an embodiment of the lofty ideals nd principles of the United Nations ChartPt. (Mr. Al-Shakar , Bahrain) I am fully confident that your well-known wisdom and capabilities and your wide experience and profound loyalty to the Organisation’s work will stand you in good stead in guiding the work of the Council and in achieving positive results during its work this month. I also take this opportunity to extend thanks and appreciation to your predecessor, Ambassador Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada, the Permanent Rzpresentative of Cuba, for his efforts in guiding the Council’s work last month so faithfully and competently. The Security Council is meeting in the midst of the major international tcansformatione that ace ushering in the last decade of this century. The successive events in the international arena that have occurred in Eastern Europe have led to a calm in the ideological cold war that had governed rehtions between the two rival blocs, bringing the super-Powers from dhtente to a true relaxation of tension and, finally, to what seems to be accord. Israel has hastened to exploit the new international situation created by the changes in international relations. On the pretext of evecyone’s human rights and freedom to travel and emigrate , Israel called for the door of emigration for Soviet and East European Jews to be opened so that it might achieve its dream of oontrolling more Arab territories , annexing and depopulating them to accommodate new hordes of Jewish immigrants from all over the world. That has led to an increasing flow of Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to the occupied Palestinian territories and to the settlement there of thousands of 1--e a- “IRD UI an a--L of LarJyLCDeL”.. cwp3Zll.7C -------l-e -r-l--L L%.- ..I”kL” rrD += U‘Ci L Ly‘.C.a “L %l-*aretr4rr -*Ia .-A ,hr4r Cy*-“-...-U*. C”..rL’ -.-mm land and to their country. Given that situation, we feel it is incumbent upon the Security Council to address the question of Jewish emigration from the political perspective, which (Mr. A!.-Shakar, Bahrain) raises a valid question that can be neither dismissed nor ignored. In that perspective, the Israeli scheme to exploit the emigration to support, its policy oE annexation and expansion 50 that it can hold onto the occupied Arab territories and empty them of their Palestinian-Arab population becomes clear. Among other sinister results, the deluge of the systematic Jewish immiqration is impeding the peace process and flouting the right oE the Palestinian people to regain their territory and to exercise their national rights therein. Hence it is clear that the motive behind the Jewish emigration is not humanitarian but primarily political, aimed at providing Israel with the massive human potential that will enable it to achieve a combination of military superiority and great population density and, thereby, to win the race of force in which it has been engaged since its inception in the region and to persist unhindered in its aggressive policy against the Palestinian people and Arab States. Thus the gravity of this question no longer brooks delay. The Israeli plans to settle the Jewish immigrants in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories have now become clear. They have been embodied in Shamir’s statements to the effect that such a large-scale immigration necessitates the establishment of “Greater Israel”. The misgivings engendered by the positions taken and statements made by Zionist and Israeli leaders are no mere hyperboles unfortunately, they are all-too real. If we mnsider the historical facts oE the successive Jewish immigrations to occupied Palestine since the early years of this century we find a close relationship between immigration and settlement on Palestinian land. Successive Zionist schemes have played a fundamental role in attracting Jews from all over the world to transform Palestine into a homeland for them. It is curiolts that this horrendous crime shou1.d be perpetrated against the Palestinian people on the pretext of human rights and mankind’s right to travel (Mr. Al-Shakar, Bahrain) and to emigrate, Is it at all fair to invoke the human right to emigrate and travel for certain groups of people at the expense of others who are the rightful owners of the land in question? The new Jewish immigrants will inevitably displace the indigenous population, who will ba forced to emigrate to other areas as were those Palestinians who were forced tc leave their homeland in 1948 and 1967, turned into refugees and displaced in exile and diaopora. Israel’s settlements policy is systematic and has been firmly entrenched in the platforms of successive Israeli Governments. Since its inception Israel has been nibbling at and annexing occupied Palestinian and Arab territories and displacing their indigenous populations while at the same time antinuing to import ever-larger numbers of Jewish immigrants frau the far corners of the globe into the occupied Arab territories on a massive scale as settlers and simultaneously denying hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons the right to return to their land and their country. The occupied Palestinian territories are limited in siae. lhe more Jews that Israel and world Zionism can attract from all over the world, the lllore Israel will tighten its grip on the remaining Palestinians and the awe it will then bar the doors to the Palestinian refugees and displaced persons in diaspora and exile. The persistence of this systematic scheme to eettle thousands of Jews in the occupied Palestinian territories is utterly incompatible with the peace efforts of the international community . The establishment of settlements of new hWIigCantS in the occupied territories constitutes a cynical disregard of those peace efforts, of Ckr rarnl*.e4MI A0 L*r em,.. ,r.. ~as.~AI, W..” L w...s-“.e--..” “e U.” ..“1”S LC, ““-*.“-a -..A rO &I.- 4rtnrrrb4mnl ~411. 1: “..l v.. u..” m..---..“w--..-- ..---. addition, such action haa grave repercussions cm the prospects for peace and stability in the region as a whole and creates further impediments to a comprehensive, just settlement of the Arab-Israeli struggle. ‘Thus, the (Mr. Rl-Shakar , Bahrain) responsibility for putting an end to the growing Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union and other States is an international one and must be shouldered by the international community and, in particular, by the Security Council. In view of those facts, we feel that the Security Council should &al with the risk created by the influx of massive nUmbor of Soviet and East European Jews to the Palestinian territoriee and stand firm against the Israeli schemes &signed to thwart peace efforts, the implenmntatian of UIited Nations resolutions and the provisions of international law with regard to the situation in the Middle East and the rights of the Palestinian people , especially their right to self-determinatiar and to establish an independent State on their national soil. In the face of the risks inherent in the immigration, we can no longer accept the t the Security Council should delay further, for Israel’s settlements policy affects the essence of the peace process in the Middle East and goes against Security Council resolutions, particularly resolutions 242 (1967) and 465 (1980). (Mt. Al-Shakar, Bahrain) ‘Ihose two resolutions affirm the inadmissibility of the acquisition of the territory of others by force and the illegitimacy of establishing settlermnts in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territorrest they consider such settlements null and void, as settlement and immigration are blatant violations of international ~OCUIS and agreements, foremost among which is the fourth Geneva Convention, the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 1949, especially its Article 49, which prohibits the immigration and settlement of an alien population in the occupied territories. My delegation feels that the Council’s international duty and responsibility require it to undertake a comprehensive evaluation Of the SYStematiC Israeli settlenmnts scheme, which is thwarting peace ei”forts. Jewish immigration and expansion to include the owupied Palestinian territories are a growing danger, as they serve an Israeli strategy inimical to peace, based on aborting any prospects of achieving peace. This is an entrenched strategy which has remained unchanged and was affirmed by Shamir’s declaration regarding the so-called Greater Israel through the influx of more Jewish immigrants and settlement in the occupied Paleetiniar terr itor iee. To regard the immigration as having a humanitarian dimension is to exploit truih in the promotion of injustice , since the political and military dimensions of the immigration have been disregarded, although they give military and human support for the Israeli military potential. fiey aleo affect the demgraphic structure of the territories. ir?itii. gives riee to euspicion is the fact that the flow of Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is taking place while Son@ Western &wers that have brought pressure to bear on the Soviet Union and the States of Eastern Europe over milny years to allw their citizens to emigrate are putting obstacles in (Mr. Al-Shakar, Bahrain) the way of Jews who wish to emigrate to them, thus preventing their entering this or that k&stern country. Jewish emigration, the erection of barriers to Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union, limiting the choice of their destination and where they will reside, closing the door to their immigration to Western countries and the antinued financial support by some State8 for Israel% settler-colonial schemes - all of this is a crime against the Palestinian people. The massive emigration from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe will inevitably be m;ltched by a forcible displacement of the Palestinian people from their land and country. This will also eupport Iecael’e continuous rejection of United Nations resolutions calling for the return of the Palestinians displaced from their homeland. l'berefore, we feel it ie imperative to open the doors to the immigration of Soviet Jews into Western countries in order to accommodate the large numbera of Jewish emigrant6 wha would rather settle in the United States and Western Europe. The opposition of SOme major Powers to the settlenmnt of Soviet Jews and others in the occupied Paleatinim territories needs to be translated into concrete terms if it is tx7 be credible at a time when the doors of emigration are still open and those states continue their financial support for Israel. To argue that Jewieh immigrants will not settle in *he Arab territories occupied in 1967 is baseless and unacceptable. The settlers of whom the Israeli leaders boast have spread like a cancer in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967. Israel did not ask any of the major Powers for their permission to establish those settlements. and has not honoured its commitments to the international community and the United Nations. The continued Jewish immigration has led to support for Israeli extremism and the erection of further obstacles to a comprehensive nettlement of the uab-Israeli (Mr. Al-Shakar, Bahrain) struggle, as wa8 clearly reflected in the recent Israeli st,rnce regarding peace initiatives. Needless to say, the Israeli-Arab conflict is primarily over land and recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to its land and country. lhe systematic Jewish immigration into occupied Palestine was, and still is, a brutal act of aggression against the Palestinian people. Moreover, since the beginning the successive Zionist immigration schemes have had a settler-colonialist basis aimed at usurping the land and expelling the Palestinian people. The Jewish immigration from all corners of the world into occupied Palestine and the settlemznt of the Jews concerned in the occupied Palestinian territories is taking place today under the pretext of human rights, including the right to travel and emigrate. Iherefore, we must wonder about the right of the Palestin ian people to its occupied territories and the right to return of the Palestinian refugees who have been expelled and displaced from their homeland by force and terrorism. fiumanitarian solutions to human tights questions should not be brought about at the expense of other peoples and their genuine, inalienable right to self-determination, to return and to exercise their sovereignty on their national soil. Attempts by Israel and others to bypass those rights are completely unacceptable and illegal, as is affirmed by United Nations resolutions and international legitfmacyt such attempts are unethical acts, incompatible with the claim to seek a just peace in the Middle East and with the ethical responsibility thnt the mpjer Qnware IIIotwmnaai\ t+ ahn+lder in rqc++rfi rn en i_nv+a!~ and t!hn - -.. -- - -- - --FT---- expulsion of a people from its homeland to be displaced by aliens. In view of those facts, the Security Council needs to translate into concrete terms an understanding of Arab and Palestinian misgivings about the flow of Jerish immigrants and to go beyond expressing sympathy to take action contributing to a (Mr. Al-Shakar, Bahrain) serious treatment of the problem , since the cfqht of the Palestinians to live in peace and stability on their own land cannot be abrc ,,lted in favour of the Jewish immigration, which is the Jewish mechanism exploited by Israel to make changes in the demographic structure in the occupied territories at the expense of their rightful owners. Israel also exploits that immigration in the service of its military machine and to finance and strengthen its designs for expansion and aggression to seize the territories and change their occupation into a fait accompli. In that context, we hope that the Security Council will be seized of the potentially grave dimensions of the Israeli settlements in th(b occupied Palestinian territories, especially since there is not a glinnuer of hope in the short term that Israel will change its settlement policies and schemes. lhetefore, such policies and schemes will severely damage the rights of the Palestinians. In view of those facts, we hope that the Security Council will effectively and seriously put an end to lstaells cynical disregard of its eesolut!ona. The massive new Jewish immigration to Palestine and the settlements there constitute a new challenge, in view of whose gravity the Security Council must not stand idly by. (Mr. Al-Shakar, Bahrain) ‘Itie Security Council has repeatedly condemned Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories, in resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and others, affirminq the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and prohibiting the occupier from settling immigrants in the occupied territories, including the Holy City of Al-Quds , since such settlements are a blatant violation of international norms and agreements , especially the Fourth Geneva Convention. Given the need to respect Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, we call upon the Security Council and the major Powers fully to shoulder their responsibilities and secure respect for the human rights of the populations of the occupied Arab territories, includinq respect for the r iqhts of the Palestinians, and to prevent any immigration on the pretext of respecting the right to travel and to emigrate while the human rights of the Palestinians, the legitimate heirs to the land, are disregarded. Bahrain hopes that the current debate in the Security Council on this grave question will lead to the adoption of a strong decision commensurate with the seriousness of the situation with regard to this process of emigration and settlement that will put an end to it by placing all the parties concerned before their ethical, humanitarian and political responsibilities , so that the fundamental basic rights of the Palestiniana to their land and country are not undermined. Procrastination is no longer acceptable, given the risks inherent in such immigratiar that Cal3 upon thin lofty Council to put an end to the threat of settler-colonialism of Jewish immigrants in occupied Palestinian territories. Yes, a strong and firm resolution is needed , one that will thwart Israel’s expansionist schemes and fncltie deterrent measures under Chapter VII of the Charter should Israel refuse to abide by the will of the international community, which is opposed to the settlement of; new immigrants in the occupied Palestinian territories, and one that is compatible with the dictates of right, justice and human rights for the (Mr. Al-Shakar, Rahrain) Palestinian people and the other Arab peoples whose territories are occupied, or those threatened with expansion and aggression in the oontext of Israel’s expansionist schemes aimed at massive displacement of the Palestinian people. The Security Council’s adoption of necessary measures to prevent the settlement of Jewish immigrants and civilians in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories will enhance the Council’s credibility and its resolutions, especially since the quickening pace of events suggests that delaying the adoption of such measures will affect the peace process and stability in the region and, hence, expose it to incalculable consequences difficult to contain. We are awaiting proof of the Quncfl’s credibility when it is a question of ensuring Israel’s compliance with itu resolutions - resolutions embodying the will of the international community. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) t I thank the representative . of Rahrafn for the kind words he addressed to me. The next Bpeaker is the representative of Bangladesh. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. I. A. CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) : The Council is once again focused on a problem whose resolution has been far too long in coming. ‘Ihe pains of Palestine still persist, just a8 they have for decades. But today more than ever before the issue threaten9 to rip apart the fabric of peace SO laboriously knitted in our times. Must we stand helplessly by and allw this to happen? But before I proceed any further, Mr. President, I should be derelict in my reeponsibilities if I did not adequately express mj delegation’s pride and satisfaction at seeing you in the Chair - pride, because our two brotherly countries share the closest tiest satisfaction, because your prodigious capabilities are likely to bring success to our deliberations. We must also commend the splendid leadership Cuba imparted to the tiuncil last month. (Mr. I. A. Chowdhury, Bangladesh) Wuch of the eve&e unfolding in the world today are being perceived positively. We have a great deal to rejoice about. Tensions everywhere are easing. Yokes of domination are being lifted. Ratchets are being buried. We see all around ua the triumph of human rights. Where the hawks of war once Boared, the doves of peace fly. But amidst all this, there is one region where suffering8 continue unabated. There the cries of freedom are stifled by the jangle of prison chain% - I speak of Palestine. This incongruity is a sad commentary upon our age. The Palestinian does not share with others tne burgeoning sense of euphoria and exultation. a3 a-8 not know the taste of freedom. He rmst sacrifice his right%, so that others are able to obtain theirs. To him this bitter logic must s&m a fallacy of gargantuan proportions. Is it o&I, therefore, that he should react by resisting? The intifadah has been hia response. It is many thing%. It is not just a reaction to per%ecution, though it is also that, but a product of pride, of human dignity. It ie the exp.es%ion of the desire of the Pale%tinian% to build a future for themeelvee. There i% no vengeance inhefent in the intifadah, nor the intention to deny others the came aspiration. ‘Ihe world cannot begrudge them this thirst for freedom. It is bad enough to be denied basic human right%. It be unfair enough to be punished for daring to speak out. ft ie worse to be thrown out of your land% and homes to make room fog others. It ie mre than illogical, it is inhuman, to explain thie away a% a humanitarian act. lhe world cannot, mu& not, condone the faettlempnt of SnvZet &wi& i~&grant% in the ~upied A:* L-~-~L~-4-- -sz* L a b”. ADO. t%th eeleative humnitarianiem will %ow the eeeds not juet of perennial discord but alao of the groaseat injustice. Thie is wrong on many count%. First, the exerciee of right by a group of (Mr. X. A. Chowdhury, Bangladesh] violation of prevalent mores, the Fourth Geneva Convention and fundamental human rights. Thirdly, it will undermine the peace process and jeopardise all efforts undertaken in that respect so far. Finally, it will forever become a source of friction between the two concerned communities. To have us believe that all this is being done purely to advance humanitarian interests is to dc unspeakable violence to oue intelligence. Surely, Israel cannot turn a blind eye to the writing on the wall and a aeaf ear to the voice of reason. In a swiftly changing world, the changelessness of Tel Aviv~8 obduracy is a sad anomaly. For a myriad of reasons, the issue of Palestine is close to any Bangladeshi heart. Bangladesh is an active nember of the Non-Aligned Qrnnittee of Nine on Palestine. Like most others, Bangladeshis want a comprehensive, just and durable solution to what is the core problem of the Middle East. This can only be an the basis of full recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. We ask nothing more for the Paleetinians than what we see nmny other peoples achieving even now. Israel must withdraw fram all occupied Arab territories. The Palestinians mst have an unfettered right to a State in what has been, is and will always be their home. Such a solution is possible only if the sole and legitimate repreaentative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), participates in the peace process on an equal footing with other concerned parties. The Security Council has a crucial. role in this. We urge the nmbers to proceed to the preparations for convening the international peace conference on the heata nC the cht%!rri~‘e ___--” ..--,,” 1-S rn,x,.l..,4rrrs 9A? (z?$?; and 238 ;:gyz;. None of this will be posaible unless the settlement of the Jewish immigrants in the occupied territories ceases. We appeal to all parties that this be done forthwith. (Mr. Chowdhury, Hangladesh) That fragile situation, where a proverbial straw could break the camel’s back, will not be able to withstand the weight of such in justice. Pales tine belongs to the Pales tin ians. They must be allowed to call it homa. Till such time as they can do so, peace cannot, will not, come to the Middle East. And we, the global community, cannot, will not, be immune from the consequent blame. The PRESKDENT (interpretation from Arabic): I thank the representative of Bangladesh for his kind words addressed to m?. The next speaker is the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. NYAKYI (United Republic of Tanzania): Mr. President, allow me at the outset to express my delegation’s appreciation for the opportunity to address the Council on this important subject. I should like to thank you and your colleagues on the Council for making this possible. To address the Council at any time is a great privilege. To do so while its deliberations are under your guidance is a matter of particular pleasure for my dolega tion. Allow me therefore to begin my remarks by extending to you Tanzania’s sincere congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of March. We share the confidence expressed by previous speakers that your well known diploma tic skills and experience will ensure a successful presidency. I uhould also like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the tact, understanding and sensitivity with which your predecessor, The winds of freedom which have swept across many parts of the world in the past year, and which have so dramatically hanged the political landscape OE l?UrOpe during the last six months, have yet to reach the Middle East. There, the (Mr. Nyakyi, United Republic oE Tanzania) Arab-Israeli problem, and particularly its root cause, the continued denial of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, especially their inalienable right to self-determination and to an independent State of their own, renrains intractable. The reason the Council is meeting today is not because the situation has been improving in keeping with the spirit and mood oE the moment. The contrary has been the case. The intifadah continues relentlessly as a cwnstant reminder that Palestinians will no lonqer accept their daily humiliation and oppress ion. The fact that the detention of more than 100,000 Palestinians since the intifadah began has not been able to subdue the uprising tells us something about the resolve of the Palestinians to resist oppression. After 22 years of occupation, they are Saying “Enough is enough*. It is ironic that the Council, which should have been meeting to advance the various plans intended to put an end to this intolerable situation and to advance a comprehensive and lasting peace settlement of the Middle East problem, is now being called upon to address a new problem which amounts to adding insult to in jury. We applaud the decision of the Soviet Union to allow Soviet Jewa to emigrate. This is an act which enhances human free&m. Under normal circumstances, it would be a development which should be the cause for rejoicing for the whole of humanity. It is ironic that this act of free&m has been the cause of such anguish and anxiety, not just in the Middle Fast but in many places around the vorld where people are still yearning Eor freedom. For the freedom of a people shouLd enhance the freedom of all humanity and inspire the struggles of those still fighting for their om freedom. The Council has been convened to discuss fsraet’s decision to settle immigrant Soviet Jews in occupied Palestinian territory which Israel holds in flagrant violation of international law and numerous resolutions of the United Nations. It (Mr. Nyakyi, United Republic of Tanzania) is an act which provides further proof, if prcof were at all needed, of Israel’s intransigence and contempt not only for its Arab neighbours but also for the international community as a whole. The international a>mmunity cannot and does not question the right of I srael to to accept migrant Jews. Those migrant Jews wishing, of their own free will, settle in Israel should be allowed to do so. It is their right. But that r ight should not be taken by Israel to be a 15cence for the annexation of occupied Palestinian and Arab lands. yet this is precisely what Israel’s action in not only allowing but encouraging immigrant Jews to settle on occupied Palestinian lands amounts to. It is an attempt by Israel to grant immigrant Jews rights which entail the trampling underfoot of the rights of the Palestinian people. No one people should be ellwed to infringe on another people5 right’s, on whatever grounds. Israel is seeking to justify its latest policy on the grounds that the new arrivals should have the right to settle in any place of their choice. We have no quarrel with this. But that right cannot, by any stretch oE the imaqination, be interpreted to mean the right to settle on lands other than those within the internationally recoqnized boundaries of Israel. TO allow Israel to get away with this is to acquiesce in actions that carry with them the danger of placing the international community in league with an occupying Power. This, needless to sayI is totally unacceptable. It would be a negation of the United Nations, and in particular the Security Council’s role as the principal organ Cor *he maintenance of world peace and security. Yet inaction on the part of the international community can have no other interpretation or outcome. If the Uhf ted Na tians does not Proceed to take action effectively to bring home to Israel its rejection of this condemnable act, it will find itself faced with with a fait accompli which seriously undermines United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and (ME. Nyakyi, United Republic of Tanzania) 338 (1973), through which the international community has for years been seeking to resolve the Diddle Fast question. It has been pointed out in the past that inaction or half-hearted action by the Council has tended to place its credibility in jeopardy. Situations such as these do little to enhance it. So let the Council be seen to act decisively to thwart this latest violatian of the will of the international community by leaving Israel in no doubt whatsoever about its outrage over these actions. Let the ’ Council go beyard condemning this latest show of defiance by a Metier whose record Of observing international norms of behaviour has been consistently contemptuous. Let the Council ensure that for once Israel is made to respect the will of the international Community. Tanzania applauds the resolve of the Palestinian people to face up to the military might of Psrael. We cardenm unreservedly the continued illegal occupation of Palestinian ma Arab lands. We call on the world to demand an immediate end to the occupation and to the latest flagrant acts of aggressiar committed against the Palestin ian People. We call upon the friends and backers of Israel to bring home to Israel that this tiae they have gone toa far and that unless they relent they should expect no protection from the wrath of the world conrnunity. The PRESfDENT (interpretetion from Arabic): I thank the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania for his kind words addressed to me. There are no further speakers for this meeting. !ihe next meeting of the Eecurity Council to continue its wnsideration of the item on its agenda viii take place tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. The meeting rose at 1.10 P.m.