S/PV.2915 Security Council
In accordance with the
decisions taken at the previous meetings cm this item, I invite the representatives
of Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, the Syrian
Arab Republic, Tunisia, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the United
&public of Tanzania, Yemen and Yugoslavia to take the places
the side of the Council Chamber. I invite the representative
a place at the Council table.
Atthe), Mr. Al-Shakar
(Bahrain), Mr. Chowdhury (Bangladesh), Mr. Mousaa (Egypt), Mr. Menon (India),
Mr. Sutresna (Indonesia), Mr. Al-Anbati (Iraq), Hr. Bein (Israel), Mr. Salah
(Jordan), C4r. Treiki (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr. Rahhali (Morocco), Mr. Umer
(Pakistan), Mr. Al-Nasser (Qatar), Mr. Al-Kahtany (Saudi Arabia), Mrs. Dial10
(Senegal), Mr. Awad (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Chezal (Tunisia), Mr. Oudovenko
jukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), Mr. Nyakyi (United Republic of Tanzania),
Mr. Sallam (Yemen) and Mr. Pejic (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at
the side of the Council Chamber; Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine) took a place at the
Council table.
I should like to inform the
Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Afghanistan, the
Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait and Nicaragua in which they request to be invited
reserved for
them at
of Palestine
to take
to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council’s agenda. In
Conformity with the usual practice, I proposrj, with the amsent of the Quncil, to
invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to
Vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the
Council’s provisional rules of procedure.
There being no objection, it is so decided.
At the invitation of the President, Mr. Noor (Afghanistan), Mr. Kharraxi
(Islamic Republic of Iran), Mr. Abulhasan (Kuwait) and Mr. Vigil (Nicaragua) took
the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation fr jrn Arabic) t The Security Council Will
now resume its consideration of the item on its agenda.
Mr. FORTIER (Canada) (interpretation from French)* May I first of all
congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council
for this roDntb of March - a particularly busy month. I take this opportunity also
to thank Ambassador Alarcon of Cuba for the exemplary service he rendered the
Council during the Cub&n term of off ice as President, in February.
At this advanced stage of our debate, and having had the advantage of hearing
the View8 expressed by many speakers on this complex and ever-changing questiOnr we
shall confine ourselves to some brief obsenrations,
In our opinion, this question combines three principles long established in
international law and in Canada’s foreign policy.
The firet of these principles amounts to the following. Canada unequivocally
supports the right of any individual to leave any country, including his own. This
right i6 enshrined in article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
in article 12 of the International Cavenant on Civil and Political Rights. For
more than 15 years now, the Governmnt of Canada has been encouraging the Soviet
Union, axong others, to liberalize its emigration policies. In this respect,
(The President)
Canada has welcomed with great satisfaction the new political ciimate and the
democratization that have been in evidence in the Soviet Union and that have
brought with them radical changes in the emigration laws in that country. These
changes have made it possible for Soviet citizens , and especially Soviet Jews, to
emigrate aore freely. Furthermre, Canada has taken very favourable note of the
measures adopted so far by the Soviet Government to wunter the anti-Semitism that
has unfortunately been shown by sane organisations in that country. None the less,
if, as reliable indicators seem to predict , the pace of emigration were to be
stepped up, then many Soviet Jews would ba likely to nave to Israel and to other
countries in the wming years.
Canada, as a contracting party to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative t6 the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Tin& of war, has always advocated respect for
that Convention. In this context, and during previous debates an related issues in
the Security Council, Canada has often stated its opinion that the Fourth Geneva
Convention applies to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967. We have
always urged Israel fully to respect all the provisions of the Convention, and in
particular to apply them to the occupied territories. Article 49 of the
Cbnvention, whi& stipulates explicitly that the occupying Power shall not transfer
parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies, is particularly
relevant to our debate.
There is another principle to which Canada has always subscribed. Since ve do
not recognize the permanence of the Israeli control over the territories occupied
since 1967, we are against any unilateral rreasure taken by Israel in regard to
these territories, above all any measures that could pre-determine the outcome of
future pace negotiations. It goes without saying that such unilateral rreasures
include the esteblishmnt of new settlemnts - populated either by long-standing
Israeli residents or by recently arrived fmmfgrante.
(Mr. Fortier, Canada)
Hence, given its adherence to the principles of international law to which 1
have referred, Canada has always opposed and will continue to oppose any measure
taken by the Israeli Government with a vi- to mcdifying the dermgraphic structure
of the occupied territories, in particular in the coming months, when we shall
witness the arrival of many Jewish emigrants from the Soviet Union. We urqe the
Israeli Governsent to settle these immigrants exclusively within its borders
established before 1967 and to prohibit the settling of other Israeli citizens in
the occupied ter r itot ies. Canada is of the opinion that any contrary behaviour by
Israel would have a very negative impact on the delicate neqotia tions under way in
the quest for a peaceful, fair, lasting and comprehensive settlement, which many of
us have always wished for - and still wish for - and have actively encouraged in
past years.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) I I thank the representative
of Canada for the kind words he addressed to me.
(Mr. For tier, Canada)
Mr. TDRNUDD (Finland) I We are approaching the end of the month, Sir, but
my delegation has not yet had the opportunity in a public meeting to congratulate
you on your country’s assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the
current month. I should 1Li.e to do so now, and to extend to you our very best
wishes and our pledge of full m-operation with you in your important task.
I should like also to thank Ambassador Alarcon de Quesada of Cuba for his very
efficient handling of the presidency during the month of February.
Like other speakers before us we have been struck by the fact that in the
light of the settlement policy and Factices of Israel in the territories oazupied
since 1967, recent immigration of Soviet Jews to Israel has raised wide-spread
concern about the future of those territories, which in turn is connected with the
future of any peace effort in the Middle East.
The legal and political issues related to the question of Israeli settlesents
in the occupied Palestinian end other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, appear
very clear. According to the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is applicable
to those terr i tor ies, the occupying FUwet shall not deport or transfer parts of its
own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Ihe Security Council itself has previoutiy determined that all measures t.2
change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or
Stabs of the occupied territories, including the policy and practices of Israel in
establishing settlements there , are not permissible and have no legal validity.
Regrettably, such settlenmnts have nevertheless been established. NO
guarantees as to the future have been given. The existence of settlements, in
contravention of the Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council
resolutions, has been one of the factors considerably complicating the peace
process in the MiddLc East , thereby obstructing the achieveirent of a comprehensive,
just and lasting peace in the area. Under the current well-knorm circumstances in
the occupied territories, the mre possibility of settling nunbers of newcomers
there is highly disturbing and makes progress in the peace process more difficult l
For those reasons, Finland urges the Israeli authorities not to allow immigrants to
settle in the territories occupied since 1967.
At the same time, however, I vish to emmasize that freedom of movement and
the right to leave any country are basic human rights which should be respected by
all. We therefore appreciate the opportunity given to Soviet Jews to leave their
country in accordance with their own wishes.
In the present situation it would be vital for the Security Council to be alrA
to adopt a resolution along earlier lines , calling upon Israel to dismantle the
settlements and to cease the policy of allowing new settlers to move into the
occupied territories, whether from abroad or from within its own boundaries.
Against the background of recent developments , much emphasis has throughout our
debate been put on the importance of moving towards a comprehensive settlerrant in
the Middle East. Under current circumstances, it is indeed of extreme urgency to
proceed with the peaoe process so as to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting
settlement in the troubled Middle East.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) $ I thank the representative
of Finland for the kind words he addressed to me.
Mr. RLANC (France) (interpretation from French) x I wish first of all to
congratulate you, Sir, on Democratic Yemen’s assumption of the presidency of the
Security Council for the month of March. I take this opportunity also to thank His
Excellency Mr. Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada , the brmanent Representative of Cuba,
who presided over our vork in February.
(Mr. Tor nudd , Finland)
We Government of France consider5 that the question now before the Council is
of particular concern. France has always deplored Israel’s settlement policy in
the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. Indeed, we view those
settlements as illegal under international law. They alter the demgraphic
structure of the occupied territories and thun violate the provisions of the fourth
Geneva Invention, which ws deem to be fully applicable tr, those territories. We
call once again upon Israel to respect its obligations under that Qnvention, as it
has been called upon to do on n5ny occasions by the international cornunity, and in
particular by this Council.
It is in that spirit, and based upon the same obligations we oonsider
incumbent upon Israel, that we define our position on the question before US
todays the threat posed by the settlement in the ocoupied territories of Jews from
the Soviet Union emigrating to Israel or already residing there, lb> proposals
made in that connection a few weeks ago by Israeli oeficials, including the new
call for increased Jewish settlement in the We& Bank, Gazer and East Jerusalem,
justify the aoncsrn expressed on this subject. Nor can such declarations create
the climate of confidence that is essential for any progress towards a peaceful
settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I want to reaffirm that France welcomes the new Soviet emigration policy,
notably the freedom to emigrate to Israel or elsewhere for Soviet Jews desiring to
do 50. The right of every individual to leave any country, including his own, and
to return to it is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. ----St-- A.L-L l.L- But. we Wl,~LuG.r. C,,OL WIG ex~re?z= of l -b *(t&C hv mvjet &wa mnt not bo C..l_ --3..- -,
to the detriment of the rights of Palestinians in the occupied terriL?ries. It
would be unacceptable and unjust for the exercise by Boviet Jews of their new-found
freedom to violate the rights of another people.
(Mr. Blanc, France)
The Israeli authorities must therefore not compromise the ptoapect of peace by
alloving or encouraging the settlement in the Arab territories occupied since 1967
of Israeli immigrant5 or residents. They must put an end without delay to the
settlement pAicy they have been pursuing in those territories.
lhe problem now before the Council highlights once again the urgent need to
achieve, by peaceful maans, a comprehensive, just and lasting settleant of the
Arab-Israeli conflict. Efforts undertaken to initiate an Israeli-Palestinian
dialogue oommand our support as a first step towards such a settlement. Mutual
recognition by Palestinian5 and Israelis of their respective tights and aspirations
ita the basis of a genuine lasting peace. The settlement to which we aspire nust
guarantee the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognised borders and the
egually important right of the Palestinian people to a homeland in which, through
the exercise of its self-determination, it can construct the structures of its
choice.
An intetna tional peace conference , under United Nations auspices, dealing with
all aspects of the conflict and with the participation of all patties concerned, is
the *St appropriate framework for direct negotiations among the patties.
Pot its part, Prance remains determined to spare no effort to promote progress
in that direction.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) t I thank the representative
of Rance for the kind word5 he addressed to me.
(Mr. Blanc, France)
fir. RICHARDSON (United Kingdom) I May I first congratulate you warmly,
sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Quncil for this mnth
and on the skill with tiich you have guided the Council’s work. Our thanks also go
to Ambassador Alarcon de Qwsada of Cuba for his efficient handling of the
Council’s affairs in the month of February.
My Government has long made clear its condermation of the practice of settling
Israeli citizens in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. Such
settlements are illegal under international law. They are, in particular, a
flagrant violation of article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which clearly states that an
occupying Fewer shall not transfer parts of its own civilian population into the
territory it occupies. The United Kingdom is ia no doubt that that Convention
aqpplies t0 the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including East Jerusalem.
The practice of establishing illegal Israeli settlenrents in the oocupied
territories has been going on for nearly a quarter of a century. There are now
over 65,000 Jewish settlers in the West bank, some 3,000 in the Gaza Strip and some
80,000 in East Jerusalem. A further 9,000 have settled in the Golan Heights.
Israel ha5 consistently ignored Security Council and General AsSeKbly resolutions
calling for an end t;o this settlement programme.
This problem is now being aggravated by the arrival of Soviet Jews in the
occupied terr itor ie5. Let there be no misunderstanding about my GOvernrent’s
views. Wy Governsent warmly welcomes the liberalization of Soviet emigration
controls, including the freedom of Soviet Jevs to emigrate to Israel and
elsewhere. The right af everyone to leave any country, including hia own, is
enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But it
would be ironfc and unjust if the freedom of the Soviet Jews were to be at the
expense of the rights, the homes and the land of the people of the occupied
territories.
The settling of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union in the o~upied
territories is not only illegal, it is also politically misguided because it
threatens the Middle East peace process. My Government condemns the reported
terrorist threats against airlines transporting Jewish emig& from the Soviet
Union to Israel. But the prospect of these emigrhs’ settling in the occupied
territories is an understandable source of concern to the Arab world, especially
the Palestinians and Jordanians, and we share their concern. Let us not forget
that the past 18 months have seen sone positive developments in the Middle East.
The decisions of the PI0 leadership in late 1988 to accept Security Council
resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1972), to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to
renounce terrorism have given fresh impetus to the search for peace in the region.
We have welcomsd the establishment of a dialogue between the United States and the
Pm. The proposals for elections in the occupied territories and an
Israel-Palestinian dialogue offer a realistic basis for the urgent task of taking
the peace process forward. We hope that the aoalition negotiations in Israel will
shortly produce an Israeli Government that is able and willing to contribute to
this process by entering into a dialogue with a credible and genuinely
representative Palestinian delegation. Such a step will have our full supPOrt. It
would be a grave mistake on Israel ‘a part if the pCOSpeCtS for such a dialogue wera
to bs impaired by the settling of further Jewish immigrants in those territories,
including East Jerusalem, whose atauus remains to be determined by negotiation.
In the past two mnths the 12 msmbers of the European Community have twice
issued statements calling on the Israeli Government not to jeopardize the prospects
of bringing peace to the MiddZe East bv either allowing or encouraging Jewish
immigrants to settle in the occupied territories. T reiterate that call tiday.
(Mr. Richardson, United _Kingdom)
I thank the representative
of the United Kingdom for his kind words addressed to me.
The next speaker is the representative of Algeria. I invite him to take a
plaoe at the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. BENDJAMA (Algeria) (interpretation from French) 8 In conveying to
you, Sir, the warm and fraternal congratulation; of the Algeria delegation, 1
should like to express ny great satisfaction at seeing you, the representative of
Democratic Yemen, presiding over the proceedings of the Security Council on a
question so crucial for the Arab nation. Your wide and well-known diplomatic
experience and distinguished professional qualifications are an earnest of the
success of the Council’s work urder your enlightened guidance.
I should also like to pay a tribute to Ambassador Alarcon de Quesada of atba
for the admirable way in which he presided over the Council last month.
Less than five months ago the Security Council was called u@on - for the
eighth time in two years - to deal with one of the mast reprehensible aspects of
the Israeli practices in the occupied Arab territories. lhere is no need to say
that it concerned Beit Sahur , a Palestinian area of 12,000 inhabitants that had
been besieged, starved, occupied and pillaged by the armed forces of the occupying
Power. At that time the brutality of the repression and the disproportionate means
employed to subjugate the village population, to humiliate them and to force them
to pay tribute to the occupier, provoked deep feelings and led to legitimate
condemnation by the whole international community. Is the fate of the inhabitants
of Beit Sahue not a perfect illustration of the tragedy being experienced by the
Palestinian people, which has been suffering from ruthless repression for more than
four decades? The Palestirriane have been spared nothing - harassments, laily
persecution, arbitrary arrests, administrative internrmnt, the dynamiting of their
homes and, finally, deportation and banishmant.
Indeed, tk rationale of Israel’s occupation has always been aimed at forcing
the Palestinian people into despair and exile in order gradually to clear certain
areas of the occupied territories of their legi timate inhabitants and to establish
new settlement colonies in them. It is precisely to such settlements that they are
now systematically attempting to direct Jewish immigrants, par titularly those from
the Soviet Union, who are being encouraged to settle in those plundered territories
with the help of religious propaganda and lavish subsidies.
It is this second aspect of Israel’s practices that we are discussing today.
We are confronted with the massive and organised transfer of Jewish immigrants from
the Soviet Union and their deliberately encouraged settlement in the ooxpied Arab
titrr itor fes. Such a phenomenon, with its undeniably tragic implications for the
future of the Palestinian people, demands that we consider its various aspects in
the light of the political, moral and legal standards that have brought us together
here.
Is there any need for me to emphasf ze, first, that the individual right to
emigrate, in absolute terms, is not in question here today? lhe recognition of
that right, enshrined in article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
ie one of mankind’s precious assets , and there has been nothing but praise for the
cecent lifting by the authorities of certain countries, and pxticularly by the
Soviet Union, of restrictive measures governing the emigration of their nationals
to other coun tt ies.
What we are oonsi&ring here is the continual and organised flak of Soviet
Jewish immigrants to Israel and the oft-stated intention of the Israeli authorities
t0 promote the settlement of a large number of them in the osupied Arab
terr itor iea. Need I delve into the “why ‘s” and *wherefore’s“ of that phenomenon,
which so seriously affects the vital interests of the Arab Palestinian people and
further complicates the situation in that troubled region?
(Mr. Eendjama, Alqeria)
As we have always known, and as Ambassador Belonogw of the Soviet Union
reaffirmed in his statement opening the debate , only a tiny minority of Jewish
emigrants from the Soviet Union really want to go to Israel to settle. They are
forced to do so Way only because their traditional destination of choice has
practically been mad? inaccessible to them because of restrictiorrs imposed since
last sumnmr by the United States on the granting of residence visas. They are also
limited by the nature of the travel documents - simple laissez-passer which can be
used only once - that they are given on leaving Soviet territory, which make it
difficult for them to be sure they can find another country to receive them or that
they can return to their country of origin.
Whatever the justifications given by the States concerned, the oorrbined effect
of these restrictions is directly to contribute to the forced channelling of Jewish
emigrants from the Soviet Union to Israel. Once there, without resources, wi’thout
papers, strangers in a strange land, they are veritable hostages as well as easy
prey for the many Zionist organizations which try to move them directly into the
occupied Arab territories.
Those, briefly, are the elements of this new tragedy threatening the Arab
people of Palestine. It will be agreed that even taken together they have only a
very remote connection with the universally acknowledged right of every human being
to live in the country of his choice. Rten If there were a mDre direct connection,
would it be conceivable to grant rights to one to the detriment of the fundamental
rights of another?
MOSCOW, Kharkw or Odessa , who have no links with the land of Palestine, the right
to settle there, while mre than a million Palestinians have already been forced
into exile, their sacred riqht to return to the land of their ancestors being
denied by an arrogant occhpying Power?
(Mr. Send jama, Algec ie)
If there is an irrefutable right to resettlement, that right belongs to the
tens of thousands of Palestinians still languishing under canvas. regarded as
refugees in their own country, w ho contin@ to suffer daily the horrors of a
ruthless oppression whose Purpose is ultimately to leave them no other choice but
the humiliation of subjugation or the pain of exile.
If there are rights that should be defended as a matter of priority, they are
the rights of the Palestinians of the occupied territories, whose fundamental
freedoms are regularly flouted and whose heroic intifadah, now in its third yeat,
illustrates their fierce determination to resist the Israeli annexationist
ambitions and to 8ee prevail their inalienable right to build their own State on
their own land, finally liberated.
We Cannot dissociate the question of the vW8 emigration of Soviet Jews from
the official Israeli policy of settlement and the strengthening of settlements in
the occupied Arab territoriee. Together with the establishment of a ruthless
juridical, fiscal, administrative and police structure aimed at impoverishing,
dismembering and ultimately expropriating the land that legitimately belongs to the
Pales tin fans, the Israeli admi nfstra tion gives every possible encouragement and
facility for the settlement of Jewish settlers. The facts are well known and well
documented. Since 1967 more than 200 settlements have been established in the
occupied territories and more than 200,000 Jewish settlers are already there.
The Rrab part of Al-Quds, whose suburbs, it is hardly necessary to recall,
cover almost a third of the occupied tJest Bank, is today the scene of the largest
land programrim in Israel. Only recently, when the Security Council had altea&
been cal.led upon to take stock of the dangers created by the settlement of Soviet
Jewish immigrants in the occupied territories, the Israeli Governsent had the
audacity to announce that work had hegun on 4,000 new housing units in occupied
(Mt. bendjama, Algeria)
Al-Quds, in the allocation of which the new arrivals would be given priority. Such
Practices are part of a constant policy of the Zionist regime, pursued in flagrant
violation of the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to
the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, the applicability of which to
occupied territories has regularly been reaffirmed by the international community.
Such practices also axtravene decisions of the Security Council, perticular:y
its resolution 465 (1980), unanimously adopted on 1 March 1980, in which the
Widwrs of the COUnCil stated that they regarded as illegal all the nrzasures taken
by Israel to alter the physical character, damgraphic composition and
institutional structure of the occupied territories.
Finally, those practices expose, if that were necessary, the determined
eXpanSiOniSt ambitions of Israel, which has 1~) hesitation in flouting the cardinal
rule8 of international law and defying the international community by proclaiming
the annexation of the Arab part of Al-Quds and the Syrian territory of the Golan,
and whidr is preparing for the same action in certain parts of southern Lebanon.
This new and painful blaw bo the Palestinian people is a tDta1 anachronism in
the neu climate in international relations, which is marked by the easing of
tensions and the gradual reduction of conflicts. Only the Middle East mnflict
reUHin8 untouched by this and continues to be the most immediate source ot tension
threatening international peace and security.
No one cm deny that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) , the sole
legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, has already played its part in
pe~~i~t~ OIIC nn tkn nnlh kc ~-P,-o. tka b.exlA Asr.4olnna +k~fi % t& hloak4na _ --- -._ --_- c --.. cw---, -..- e--m 1--e----- ----- --..-
National Council in Algiers in Noveher 1986 attest to the sincerity of its
initiative in the search for a just and lasting solution to the Middle Eaet
(Mr. Bendjama, Algeria)
conflict. (In the other hand, the recent vagaries of internal politics in Israel
give an illuminating indication of the sourc Q of the intransigence and of the
obstinate refusal of the Zionist leaders to engage in a process of negotiations
which they thenrselves have done so nuch to limit.
Those delaying tactics strengthen our conviction that any movement towards
peace in that long-suffering region can come about only in the framework of an
international conference convened under United Nations auspices, a conference in
which there would participate, with the five permanent metiers of the Security
Council, all the parties to the conflict, including the PLO, the sole, legitinmte
representative of the Palestinian people, on an equal footing. We share that
conviction with almost all the members of the international community, which have
regularly called upon the Security Council, and particularly its permanent metiers,
resolutely to engage in the preparatory process for the convening of such a
conference .
6fy delegation ventures to believe thst the Council can achieve unanimity in
taking stock of the serious danger presented by Jewish settlements in the occupied
Arab tettitorie8 and that it will reaffirm their illegal nature, declared in
resolution 465 (1980). It should once again reiterate the applicability of the
fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to the occupied Arab territories and call upon the
occupying Power to refrain from any policy that might alter their physical
integrity or demographic composition. It should also appeal to all States to
refrain from providing the Israeli authorities with any financial or mterial
aSSiStf3nce which might be used directly or indirectly to promote the establishment
or strengthening of settlements in the occupied territories. ii. shoiild al= decide
on effective measures to ensure adequate international protection for the
Pales tin ian people.
(Mt. Sendjama, Algeria)
Ihe unanimous adoption of these conservative measures is the very least the
United Nations could do, since, as we would remind metiers, it shares responsibility
for the plight of the Palestinian people. Pa ilure to adbpt them would mean
encouraging the policy of annexation and would be an incentive for intransigence.
We venture to hope that the Security Council will display the necessaey
determination in the exercise of its responsibilities and finally do justice to the
Arab people of Palestine.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) I I thank the representative
of Algeria for his kind words addressed to me.
The next speaker is the representative of Iraq. I invite him to take a place
at the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. AL-ANRARI (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic) t I ahculd like to
congratulate you, Sir, cm your election to the presidency of the Council for this
month and to cammsnd you on the competent way in which you have been directing the
Council% meetinga and the consultations with the parties concerned in connection
with the items before the Cbuncil this month.
I also wiah to congratulate your predecessor, His Excellency AmbassadX
Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada of Cuba, on the excellent manner in which he mnducted
the Council’s proceedings last month.
The Security Council has for sore than 40 years been considering the problems
of the Middle East and adopting resolutions in that regard. But it has perhaps
never mat to deal with a problem such as that before u8 tdayt the aollec tive,
----L- ByBWlEbStiQ 4iiii4rZtiGi; Of a?CCi to-r& the ooejeietl Arab territories and Jerusalem.
The problem has two aspac ts. The first is the Uisplacement of Israelis into
the occupied territories, and the other is the prevention of those who have left
those territories from returning , which msans the replacenrent of one people by
another.
(Mr. Rendjama, Algeria)
This policy of replacing one people by another is a grave development, a
colonial precedent in this twentieth century, the century that has witnessed
decolonisation and recognition of the right of peoples to self-determination.
Even when colonization was considered a legitimate act, the colonising
countries and the waves of immigrants entering colonized territories settled in
uninhabited areas or used the pretext that the inhabitants were not civilised. In
an effort to justify colonial territorial policy, we have been told that it accords
with the Covenant on human rights, which gives all individuals the right to
emigrate from any country. however, the Covenant does not recognise any right of
communities to leave their country collectively and settle on the land of another
people - in this case, the Palestinian people - thus preventing that People from
returning, which is in violation of resolutions of the General Assembly.
lbe right to emigration does not presuppose any right to acquire the territory
of others, to settle in the territory of others, to exploit their resources by
force or to use illegal means such as those practised by the Israeli occupying
authorities or bands of Israeli extremists against the Arabs in the occupied
terr itor fes.
In other worda, emigration becomes a crime when it is exercised with explicit
or tacit premeditation to displace the Palestinian people from the occupied
territories end to force thak people tv leave its land, failing which it would be
exposed to all sorts of arbitrary inhumane treatment and dangers.
The world has entered a new era, a hietoric era marked by rapprochement
between the two great Powers. More emphasis 1s being placed on the peaceful
settlement of regional conflicts and on respect for international instruments and
the rule of law in international relations, as well as the protection of human
rights and different national r4gfmes. As a result of this evolution, understanding
(Mr. Al-Anbari, Iraq)
has been extended even to the Security Council, thus enhancing its effectiveness in
the taking of categorical dxisions that promote the settlement of international
problems in accordance with the United Nations Charter, international instruments
and the norms of international law. This evolution should also allow the Council
to adopt the necessary measures and provisions to ensure the implementation of its
reSOlUtions and the attainment of those resolutions* objectives.
Of course, we welcome ell of this change and are optimistic in this respect.
But we nust recall here the situation that prevailed in the recent past, which was
characterised by the cold war and the policy of confrontation in international
relations, which thwarted the work of the Security Council or brought it to an
impasse.
In the past decades and throughout the mid war, Israel has pursued a
systematic policy based on mdifyinq the de facto situation and establishing a
fait accompli. Israel has benefited from the circumstances of the cold war and
used them to see ti it that the Council is unable to implement its resolutions end
decisions aimed at ensuring the rights of the Palestinian people and respect for
international law.
Israel has thus practised a policy of horizontal regional expansion by
annexing Palestinian territories, by acquiring them by force, and by attempting to
Control water sources in the region and to deprive the Palestinian people of freely
going about its daily activities - all this in violation of the Covenant on human
tights and of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention and other relevant
international instruments.
Now &at we have reached a new stage in international stente, now that the
Council’s ability to reach a minimum level of nutual understanding has been
strengthened, and now that the Palestine Liberation Organization is working towards
a peaceful solution and is prepared to co-operate with all international efforts
(Mr. Al-Anbari, Iraq)
having that aim, we see Israel resorting to intensive demgraphic expansion in the
framework of a global campaign at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian
people in the occupied tert itories and Jerusalem. Israel is trying to put pressure
on other States to encourage the emigration of Jews tc Israel. Lt is also
violating human rights in the occupied territories, and is perpetuating it8
violations of the Fourth Genevo Convention and the resolutions of the
Security Council, especially its resolution 465 (1980) , which explicitly states the
illegality of the settlement policy, including in Jerusalem.
Israel is thus attempting to thwart international efforts to find a peaceful
and fair solution to the problem of Palestine. It is also attempting to create
Greater Israel at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people and other
Arab peoples, and it ie doing 80 in such a way a8 to threaten the security of the
Arab nation. That would lead to an international and regional disaster.
(Mr. Al-Anbari, Iraq)
When any State pursues a policy that runs counter to the spirit and essence of
international d&tente and the peaceful settlement of regional conflicts, and a
policy contrary to the respect for human rights and the obliqations contained in
international instruments, that State is in violation of the law. It aust
therefore be prohibited from persisting in such a policy, lest we witness another
round of the cold war and racial and religious regional conflicts, endangering
peace and security in the Middle East and perhaps throughout the world.
I should like now to refer to the Commission established by the Security
Council in its resolution 446 (1979). That Commission was entrusted with examining
the question of Jewish settlements in the occupied Arab territories, including
Jerusalem . In its third report, the Comnission affirmed that the Israeli
Government was implementing a large-scale policy of establishing settlements in the
OCCupied tert i tor fes. The report linked the establishment oE settlements to the
expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied territories. It also mnf irmed that
there was a connection between the establishment of those settlements and the
expulsion of the Arab population.
The Security Council adopted resolution 465 (1980), which I have already
mentioned, on the basis of the report of the aforementioned mmmission. In that
resolution the Council affirmed the illegality of the Israeli settlements,
declaring that the Israeli policy of establishing settleskents in the occupied Arab
territories was in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that it
jeopardised the prospects for a just and las tinq peace in the Middle East.
rFhn lmrrnl4 r,.cb..xw464aa t.run h-n.. ,&a+-.,4 M Chat rnp,,,,,C4nn. whl,.h ,aam riln,,toA -..- -“--s-a I”-..-* -“e-w .._.” --“.. --, -..- -.-- ---------.., . . ..--.. --- ---F---
unanimously by the Security Council, the suprene international body. Given the
international crime being perpetrated , the least the Security Council can rb is to
take measures to ensure the implementation of reeolu tion 465 (l-980), since that
resolution is binding &;pon all Hehers of the United Nations, especially
(Mr. Al-Anbari, Iraq)
the permanent lnembers of the Security Council. Respect for the principles espoused
by the Security Council nust not depend on electoral policy or internal changes
among the permanent members of the Council. lbey are international. commitments
which those States above all mnrt respect.
Indeed, the Security Council mrst ensure respect not only for the rights of
the Palestinian people - including human rights and self-determination - but also
for the Council’s own resolutions. The strengthening of the principles Of
international harmony that we have witnessed recently is equally important. That
is why my Goverument considers that the Security Council and the metiers of the
international community must take broader measures than those contained in the
resolution to which I refe-.red.
We are witnessing today an international crime of a new type, which must be
halted. To that end, a resolution must be adbpted that covers the following
elements :
Measure8 mrat be taken to ensure the full implementation of Security Council
resolution 465 (1980) and the Israeli authorities* compliance with its provisions.
The new Jewish settlement policy is undermining peaceful trends in the
international arena and withholding the right of Palestinian3 to return to their
territory, which they were forced to leave by the activities of the Israeli
authorities and Israeli extremist bands, contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention
and the Univereal Declaration of Human Rights. Member States - eopecially those
that give assistance to Israel or that close their eyes to the aid given by Jewish
organizations in those States - must be celled upon to abandon the practice of
settling Jews in tbe occupied Arab territories and of contributing funds for the
purpose. Menber States from which Jews emigrate must, for their part, be called
upon to proscte an end to that policy. An international organ must also be
established to over see the implementation of those measures.
(Mr. Al-Anbar i, Iraq)
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) t I thank the representative
of Iraq for his kind words addressed to me.
The next speaker is the representative of Kuwait. I invite him to take a
place at the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. ABULHASAN (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic) : It is a great
pleasure for my delegation to see a dear Arab brother from Derrpcra tic Yemen, a dear
and sisterly country, in the presidency of the Council this month. We know you,
Sir, as do the corridors of the United Nations, as a seasoned, distinguished
diplomat. Your experience and leadership have proved useful in bringing the
deliberations of the Council to fruition.
I should also like DJ avail myself of this opportunity to express our thanks
and appreciation to our predeLesaor , Ambassador Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada, the
Permanent Representative of Cuba, for his wise leadership of the Council and
management of the Council’s deliberations last month.
The Security Council’s debate of the question of the immigration of Soviet
Jews to Psrael and their settlement in occupied Arab territories brings to mind our
previous experience of Jews who came from throughout the world to Palestine to
oppress and displace Palestinians, confiscate their land, and establish on it a
State founded on the usurpation of land, a policy of oppression, hegemny and
expansion.
Since 1948, we have seen those immigrants who settled in the land of Palestine
turn into an expansionist military mwer at the expense of the rightful, indigenous
population. The indigenous Palestinian people has been displaced from its
terrftory through the cruelest kin& of treatment , exploitation and oppress ion.
The Israelis have not stopped there: they threaten the security not only of
neighbouring Arab countries, parts of whose territories they have occupied by brute
force, but also peace and security in the Middle East and throughout the world.
It naw appears that, in spite of all the positive steps taken by Palestinian
and other Arab leaders to find a just and lasting solution to the plight of the
Palestinian people, the entire issue is beginning to arise once again. &m like
yesterday is today!
We in Kuwait consider tihe immigration of Soviet Jews to oocupied Palestine one
of the mst dangerolls developments surrounding the Palestinian question. It
represents physical - human - support of the Zionist entity, an entity that uses
every mearts at its disposal to replace the indigenow population of the ikab
territories with foreign settlers.
(Mr. Abulhasan, Ruwa it)
Israel and its allies try to picture the emigration of Soviet Jews to the land
of Palestine a?. a natural phenomenon based on considerations of human rights, the
right of each person to choose his place of residence. But the Pales tinian people
has been defending its natural rights , foremost among which is its right to life,
to a dignified life. Like all other peoples, the Palestinian people cannot deny
that freedom to any other people. It regards human rights as sacred for itself and
for other peoples. However, neither the Pales tinian people nor the Arab world can
agree that another people’5 rights can trample upon the natural right of the
Palestinian people to live in its homeland. If that were to happen, it would be
contrary to principles of justice and international law , above all the principle of
human rights.
The emigration of Soviet Jews to the occupied land of Palestine wnstitutes in
our opinion a very grave conspiracy. Aspects of that conspiracy have become very
clear. The wnspiracy is being put into effect before the eyes of the whole world,
without any consideration for international laws or for Palestinian and Arab
rights, or even for the implied threat to Arab national security and the stability
of the Middle East.
Sis Royal Highness Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, the Emir of Kuwait,
Chaicmm of the Fifth Summit Conference of the Otganization of the Islamic
Conference, emphasized the gravity of this development and warned against its
continuation, in his statement on the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of
the Organization of the Islamic Conference. He referred to the role played by the
a-ra-- L1 Yaaas..“IIF,.W to th= t’n? tez staC;s 1-,,,.,,L‘- ,-.,- L‘ualry. P CZY,, -10. ma.--- I-.- --L-h1 Irhd t& LL.V.4.G *“IO GD LU”*.Y..--
number of persons who would be accepted as emigrants from the Soviet Union to the
territory of the United States; but, finally, when all doors were opened to SOVie t
Jews who wished to emigrate from the Soviet Union, the United States closed its
doors to them, thereby making Israel the only alternative. His Royal Highness the
Wt. Abulhasan, Kuwait)
Emit of Kuwait described this emigration as the most dzngecoue decision made at thrr
end of the twentieth century by the two super-Powers against the Palestinian
people. He said:
“Those who have made that decision talk about the right of a Jew to emigrate
from any place and to settle wherever he wishes. But they do not talk about
the right of the Arab human being in his land and the land of his ancestors.
‘Ihis means that they ace invoking the concept of human rights only to sanction
illegality. Nothing could be mxe illegal than this settler oczupation aimed
at uprooting a people from its territory and replacing it by settler strangers
who had no oDnnection with that land before. And this is being done before
the eyes of the en tire world. ’
It is ironic, indeed tragic , that all this settler colonisation is taking
place at a tinre when the Palestinian people is deprived of the right to the
reunification of families. The Israeli oooupa tion author ities have deported SO
many members of famiiies - husbands, wives, sons - on the pretext that they do not
have legal papers or thclt there are problems connected with their residence in
their homeland, in the land of their ancestors. ‘Ihe illegality of all this and the
nature of the mnspiracy need no further proof.
&ports from the occupied territories indisate that the Israeli authorities
have obstructed the settlement of Jews from the Soviet Union in Palestine ocxupied
in 1948, on the pretext that there is no housing for them there, but that they are
trying to settle the Soviet Jews in Israeli settlements established in the Arab
territories occupied after 1964 - that iti, the zest Ptnk and the Cane Strip.
Does the international community need to listen to statements by Shamir on
Greater Xscael in order to ba aware of the oonspiracy involved in this immigcatiot~
and of the reality of the policy involved in the Zionist expansionist philosophy,
which is an obsession with the ruling establishment in Israel, particularly its
(MC. Abulhasan, Kuwait)
hard-line wing? Doas the international community not realise that this intensive
Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to the occupied Arab
territories would only bolster this expansionist philosophy and the aggressive
i&as for which Israel is only too well known, and that it would undermine all the
peace efforts designed to find a just and lasting solution to the Palestine
question?
We pose these questions in order to shed light on the gravity of the
situation, the danger inherent in this illegal campaign regarding the Jewish
immigrants - a campaign which Israel tries to base on the changes in the Soviet
Union, in Order only to consecrate the denial of the right of the Palestinians to
their homeland and completely to eliminate any opportunity for peace in the
region.
The right of the Soviet Jewish citizen to leave his homeland cannot be
exercised at the expense of the right of the Pales tinian Arab to live in safety in
his homeland, in the land of his ancestors. Every Jew who emigrates to the
Occupied Arab territories becomes an armed henchman living in the land of others.
If anyone has the right to enter the occupied Palestinian Arab territories and to
live there, it is the deported Palestinian, the displaced Palestinian, the uprooted
Pales tinian. No one has the right to settle in those territories in the mnditiam
of aggression and occupation.
From this table, Kuwait appeals to the Security Council and all the nr?mbets of
the international community to use all possible mF?am to stop this illegal
settlement in the occupied Arab territories of the West Bank and the Gasa Strip, to
prevent these immigrants from eettling there and depopulating the territories of
their indigenous Arab population, so that we shall twt dash the hopes for the
achievement of a lasting , comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
(Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait)
We expect the Security Council to reaffirm its determinatfon that the Israeli
settlements are illegitimate and illegal. We expect the same with respect to the
Zionist entity’s decision on the annexa tiar of East Jerusalem. We expect the
Council to demand that Israel adopt no measures to change the demographic
composition of the occupied terr itor iea.
I thank the representative
of Kuwait for the kind word8 he addressed to me.
The next speaker is the representative of Wrocco. I invite him to take a
place at the Council table and to make hi8 statement.
Mr. RAHHALI (Morocco) (interpretation from Arabic) I I thank the Council
for this opportunity to participate in this discussion of the problem of Soviet
Jewish emigration to Israel, a problem to which Ebrocco attaches particular
importance.
I wish an behalf of my delegation to express to you, Mr. President, our great
satisfaction at seeing the representative of a fraternal country, the Democratic
Republic of Yemen, to which W-Q are bound by ties of brotherhmd and co-operation,
in the Chair for this month. we are certain that your vast experience and profound
kmwledge of the problem8 on the United Nation8 agenda will guarantee the success
of the Council ‘8 work.
Let rm also abngratulate Fur predecessor on the wisdom with Which he
conducted the work of the Council last month.
The Security Council is nmeting once again to examine an tapxtant question
which ha8 poisoned the atmosphere in the occupied Arab territories. ii ii2 ii6
exaqgetation to say that since 1967 the stakes have been higher in those
territories than anywhere else in the Middle East because of the crucial situation
in that regim. The question before the Council is the flrw of thousands of Saviet
(Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwa.s)
Jewish emigrants to Israel and their settlement in the occupied Arab territories in
an intensive and systematic immigration which ignores the fundamental human rights
of both parties: the immigrants themselves and the Palestinians whose persons*
homes and land are beinq threatened.
From the very beginning Mxocco, at the highest level, has condemned this
operation, its goals and the inhumane way in which it is being carried out. His
Majesty King Hassan II stated on 1 February 1990 that
.We do not deny the right of Soviet Jews to visit Israel and see their
relatives. What we do not accept is that they should come to Israel and
settle in the occupied territories without a passport enabling them to lea$e
Israel when they decide to do so. That settlement p~lfcy flouts the human
rights of the Palestinian citizens; it also ignores the human rights oE the
Soviet Jews themselves’.
His Majesty also appealed to international public opinion and the international
conscience, oaying that
“‘Phi8 does not violate only Arab rights. It also violates the rights of
Soviet Jews, who are channelled to a certain country without papers or
paaapfx ts. They thus enjoy no human rights*.
In article 13 (Z), the Universal Ueclaration of Human Rights states that
everyone has the r ight to leave any country, including his awn, and to return to
his country . The International Covenant on Civil ana Political Rights reaffirms
that right.
Rut the exercise of that right is rat absolute or without its limits and
regula t! one. It must not be allowed to deprive another individual of his rights
and must not bolster a phenomenon contrary to the principles of the United Nations
Charter, which reigns suprerne in international law. The emigration of these
(Mr. Rahhali, Morocco)
thousands of Soviet Jew5 to Israel and their settlement in the occupied territories
threatens the legitimate rights oE the Palestinian Arabs, who are the victims Of
occupation, ckaprivation and exile. Moreover, the way in which Israel is carrying
out this operation makes it difficult to believe its claim that it is mativated by
a desire to enable the soviet Jews to enjoy the human rights guaranteed in
international ins trumenta. In fact, this operation is but another link in the
chain of the systematic settlement policy adopted by Israel. Israel*8 aim is to
transform the demographic composition of the occupied territories with a view to
entrenching its occupation, which is intended ultimately to lead to the annexation
of the territory to Israel.
In a number of resolution0 the Security Council has already condemed Israeli
practices in the occupied territories. Those practices take different forms and
constitute the means Israel uses to pursue its settlement palicy.
The problem of the creation of settlements in the occupied territories is an
important one, and the Council has addressed it in the aur5e of its consideration
of the situation in the territories. An indication of the importance the Council
attaches to the problem is the establiehment under resolution 446 (1979) of 8
three-member Cornmiss ion. After an in-depth analysis of the situation the
Corarission came to a number of conclusions, of which we shall quote only one
paragraph:
*‘In complete disregard of United Nations resolutions and Security Council
Qcia ions, Ierael is still pursuing its systematic ma relentless process of
colonization of the occupied territories. This is evidenced by the stated
policy of constructing additional settlenmnts in the most viable parts of the
West Sank and by the expansion of others already in existence, as well a5 the
Long-term planning of still mre settlemnts”. (S/13679, para. 46)
(Mr. Rahhali, Morocco)
In light of the thnmi55ion's report the Security Council, on 1 March 1980,
unanimously adopted resolution 465 (1980), in paragraphs 5 and 6 of whiti the
Quncilt
‘5. Determines that all mmsures tnken by Israel TV change the physical
character, demDgra&ic composition, institutional structure or status of the
Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including
Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy
and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those
territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Qnvention relative
to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also omstitute a
serious obstruct&m to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in
the Middle Eastl
.6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in
pursuing those policies and practices and call8 upar the Government and people
of Israel to rescind those measures , to dismantle the enisting aettlelrents and
in particular to cease, on an urgent basis , the establishment, construction
and planning of settlements in the Arab territories cmxpied since 1967,
including Jer u3alenP.
As everyone ktws, the creation of settlements has continued - and, indeed, has
increasei - ever since, and is now even being extended into southern Lebanon.
Less &an two months after the adoption of tesolution 465 (1980) Israel
expelled the Mayore of Hebton and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Eebron. In
resolutions 468 (1980) and 469 (19$0), adopted in f&y 1980, the Securiw Council
called upon Israel to rescind that illegal memute. Israel continued to
allw - and, indeed, to assiet - its citizene bo settle in the OcFupiell
territories, to the detriment of the legitimate inhabitants. Even harder to
(Mr. Icahhali, &wocco)
condone is 18rde1’8 allowing such settlers to bear arms amidst unarmed Palestinians
in crder to sow terror and bo “encourage” the Palestinian inhabitants to leave.
The Council expressed its deep concern at such actions in resolution 471 (1966) I
adopted on 5 June 1980.
With regard to the Holy City of Jerusalem , the Secuti ty Council has on sore
than one occasion censured Israeli actions to alter or purport to alter the
charact;er and status of that City, regarded as holy by the three monotheist
religions, with a view to its judaization. lhe Israeli “basic law’ on the
annexation of the Arab City of Jerusalem, which, in 1980, proclaimed the City as
its capital, aroused the indignation of the international community and prompted
the Security Council to adopt resolution 478 (1980), in which the Security CoUnCilt
‘1. Censures in the strongest terrre the enactment by Israel of the
*basic law’ on Jerusalem and the refusal l-o comply with relevant Security
Council resolu tfons8
l 2. Affirms that the enactment of the *baeic law’ by Israel constitutes
a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application
of the Geneva anvention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Tire of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories
occupied eince June 1967, including Jerusalem”.
It ie well known that over the course of the last 23 vears the Council has
adopted a number of resolutions. In resolution 608 (19Sfl), for example, the
Council expressed its deep regret that Israel had deported Palestinian civilians
and called upon it to ensure their safe and immediate return to occupied
Palestinim territories and to desist frcm deporting any others. In its
resolutions the Council has always aimed, first, at recalling the need to respect
the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
(Mr. Pahhali, Morocco)
Time of War in all the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. As we all know,
article 49 of that Convention prohibits the occupying Power from deporting or
transfering any part of its ow civilian population into the territory it
occupies. We all knew, too, that the Security Council has declared Israel’s .
Ltteampts to alter the status of the inhabitants of the occupied territories to be
without legal validity and that it has called upon Israel to rescind all masures
adopted to that effect, qualifying them as serious obstructions to achieving a
comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region. The SeMr ity Council has also
called upon State8 to refrain from assisting Israel in its settlements policy.
Deepfte all thO8e decisions, Israel has continued to defy the Council and to
disregard its resolutions. The Israeli leader8 continrre to maintain that the
Faurth Geneva Convention ie not applicable TV the occupied Arab territories.
Ierael persistently continues along the course it has followed since its occupation
beg8n despite all the successive appeals by the international community, which
recognizee that tho8e territories are indeed being occupied. In that connection I
should like ti et8te that His Majesty’8 Government welcooaee the mst recent
ststemsnts by Rlembere of the United States Administration, fncluding atatemente by
President George Bush, a8 well as the recent etateraent issued by the menbere of the
European Community . It is regrettable, however, that the United States Senate
should recently have been the Only body to encourage Ierael b con&inue its
occupation of East Jerusalem.
The recent etatements of certain Israeli leaders, who have referred to the
---~(--CL- n@ tb Arm nB 5 Greeter Israel in order TV attract immigrant Jews, .SU--a#“---.. -- -.- -- _-.. _-
have exposed Ierael’e expansionist ambitiona. Israel is attempting to divert the
attention of the international community from the escalation Of its campaign of
(Mr. Pahhali, I-ixocco)
repression and terror against the intifadah of the Palestinian people in the
occupied tetrftories and fro&O the imigration of Soviet Jews and their settlement
in those territories. The Security Council must confront this problem with
determination, Our present concern is a legitimate one, s!nce the immigration i8
occurring at a time when peace effotte in the Middle East have reached a crucial
8 tage .
(Mr. Rahhali, ~&~occo)
These efforts have taken a historic turn today. This is because of the
positive stands taken by the Arab States at the 1982 Fez Summit, reaffirmed at the
Arab Summit Conference in Casablanca last May, and of the responsible attitude
taken by the Palestinian leaders in Algiers in Novetier 1988, reaffirmed by the
President of the State of Palestine, yasset Arafat, at the forty-third session of
the General Aesenbly in Geneva in DeceWer the same year , which gave new impetus to
this historic turn. Today there is every ho,= to free the Palestinian qlleotion,
the gore of the Middle East problem, from the impasse imposed & Israel.
m flow of new immigrants into the region will have the effect of changing
all the elements of the situation and strengthen the Israeli leaders in their
intransigence. lhey have refused all the arguments recognized by the international
community for a global settlement. In his report to the Security Council presented
at the end of last year the Secretary-General expressed apprehension at seeing the
peace proepects disappear and called on the Council to take the opportunity to aeek
peace and reach a just settlement.
All that makee abaolutely clear the responsibility incumbent upon the
international oomnwnity, particularly the Security Council. It ehould not let the
oppor tunf ty slip. It has a fnndamental role to play, for it muet resist this
immigration by taking every possible neceseary measure to put an end to the
settlements policy aimed at changing the at:? us and character of the occupied
territories. It must also provide protection for the Paleetinians and compel
Israel to wmply with the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Israel from persisting in error and pursuing this occupation of Arab and
Paleetiniar territoriost it must also prevent lerael from clinging to any attitude
which would impede efforts to bring about peace and security in the region and
enable the Palestinian people to exercise its legitimate rights, particularly the
(Mr. Rahhali, Morocco)
right to self-determination and the creation of its own independent State ar its
own soil, aa well as the right to return.
We reaEfirm here that the holding of an international peace conference on the
Middle East, with the participation of all the parties concerned, including the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PM), the sole and legitimate representative of
the Palestinian people, is the appropriate framework to reach a just, comprehensive
and lasting solution to the Middle East problem.
International detente, which has been welcomed by all States, has so far
helped to solve many hitherto intractable problems. Consequently, it would be
wrong and ironic if the Middle East problem were not to benefit frau thie new
international climate and if efforts to eliminate the spectre of war in the region
were not to be intensified because of the maintenance of tension owing to the
intransigence of Israeli leaders. It would be blind not to take advantage of these
radical changes and set the international communf ty cn the path towards a world of
peace, security and co-operation.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) 8 I thank the representative
of Morocco for the kind words he addressed to me.
The next speaker is the repreaentutive of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I
invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. KRARRAZI (Islamic Republic of Iran) ( At the outset, I should like to
take this opportunity to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the
presidency of the Security Council. I am delighted to see you, a distinguished
diplomat fran the friendly an brotherly country of the rbasooratic Yemen, presidLng
over the deliberations of the Council. I am confident that because of your skills
and vast diplomatic experience you will efficiently guide the Council’s
deliberations on this important subject. I should also like to extend my
(Mr. Rahhali, Morocco)
gratitude to the Parmanent Kepresenta tive of Cuba, and hio able delegation, for a
valuable and effective performance as President last month.
These meetings of the Security Council are being held at a time when the
glorious uprising of the Palestinian people - the intifadah -- has been going on for
arxe thw two years and the Muslim people of Palestine, in spite of all pressures
and repressive practices of the occupying regime of Al-Quds, have proved, by
offering dear martyrs and unique sacrifices against the aggressors, that they
neither hesitate to resist nor abandon their struggle until their justified
aspiration is realized and their suppressed rights are restored.
The subject nQw being addressed by the Security Council is of paramount
importance and has various dimensions, particularly as regards its effects on
strengthening the domination of the Zionist regime over the occupied Palestinian
territory.
It fa an undeniable fact that, throughout more than 40 years of occupation of
the Islamic L~Iu~ of Palestine and of history of agony and suffering of the
oppressed people of Pales tine, it has been the generous assistance and support of
arrogant Powers, especially the Uni ted States, given to the aggressive policies and
practices of the Zionist regime that have had more effect than any other factor in
the continuation of aggression and the strengthening of pillars of the occupying
regime of Quds.
The history of occupied Palestine clearly demonstrates that one of the
well-known policies and traditional tat tics of the Zionist chime in perpetuating
its domination and extending its aggression in Palestine has been the absorbing of
Je#ieh people fraa different parts of the world under the humanitarian pretext of
their settlement in the cccupied territory of Palestine.
(Mr. Kharrazi, Islamic cpublic of Iran)
In the wake of the remarkable changes in East-West relations the Government of
the Soviet Union’s granting of permission for accelerated emigration of its Jewish
people to the Islamic land of Palestine , resort by the Zionist r6gime to such a
policy has become widespread in recent months. There is no doubt that this move is
part of the futile effort by the Zionist occupiers to eradicate the Islamic
uprising in Palestine.
fn fact, the recent immigration of the Jewish people to the occupied
territories, which is an integral part of systematic efforts by the Zionist r&Ok?
to alter the Islamic nature, cultural and demographic status of the usurped land of
Palestine, is a flagrant challenge to the Islamic world. unfortunately , the
silence and indifference of the international community towards these moves has
made the Zionist r6gime’s authorities more impudent, as the Prime Minister of that
regime has &clared shamelessly that a Greater Israel is needed for settlement of
the newly arrived immigrants.
In view oE the depth of the political, economic and strategic support extended
by world arrogance, particularly the United States , to the Zionist t%gime, it is
obvious that the Zionist regime has ominous and widespread schemes to strengthen
its aggression and extend its domination in the region, and has accelerated the
trend of implementing such schemes by taking advantage of the pteeent atmosphere in
intetnational telations and the subsequent changes in East-west relations.
It is incumbent upon the intetnational community, particulatly the Secui’ity
Council, to adopt serious and necessary measures in order to put an end to such
moves and prevent the Zionist regime from aontinuing its aggression in the azcupied
Palestinian territorfee.
(Mr. Kharrazi, Islamic Republic of Iran)
It is regrettable that the United States ha5 5o Ear, by resorting to veto
power, obstructed the adoption of any decision and measure by the Security COUnCil
against the expansionist policies of the Zionist regime and has prevented the
Security Council fulfilling the duties entrusted to it by the United Nations
Charter.
The Islamic Republic of Iran , while condemning the illegal practices of t’he
Zionist regime in the settlement of Jewidr immigrants in occupied PaleCtine,
deplores any move conducive to the implementation of such a policy and once again
reaffirm5 that the only way to solve the old problems of Palestine and establish
justice in the Middle East is to establish an independent Palestinian State in the
entire land of Palestine.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) x I thank the representative
of the Islamic Republic of Iran for his kind words addressed tie me.
The next speaker is the representative of Afghanistan. I invite him to take a
place at the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. NOOR (Afghanistan) 2 May I at the outset, Sir, expre55 to you my best
congratulation5 on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for
the month of arch. Your vast diplomatic skills and experience, we are confident,
will outstandingly contribute to your successful stewardship of the Council’s
activities during this month. May I also express our appreciation to your
predecessor, Ambassador Ricardb Alarcon de Quesada of Cuba, for his succeesful
guidance of the Security Council during the oPnth of February.
!Jhe recent Zionist drive to accelerate the pace of Jewish eettleroent in the
illegally occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, through the infusion
into the aree of a new wave of Jewish immigrant5 arriving in Israel, is yet another
(Mr. Kharrazi, Islamic Republic of Iran)
sign of the expansionist policy persistently pursued by Tel Aviv over a long period
of time. This policy, condemned time and again by the international community,
constitutes the root cause of the complicated situation cf instability, conflict
and sIar in the Middle East. It has constantly posed a grave danger to
international peace and security in this part of the world, and has brought nothing
but bloodshed and enormous human SUfferil. J to the peoples of the region.
The recent intensification of this expansionist policy is all the mre
unsettling because it takes place at a time , and in the face, of recent promising
stepe towards the restoration of a just and durable peace in the Middle East
through the solution of the question of Palestine, which lies at its core. It. is,
in fact, a total and arrogant defiance of the international consensus on the need
for the restoration of the full rights of the Palestinian people, including the
right to have its own State on its own territory. lhe Israeli actions being
deliberated upon in the Council are nothing but an attempt further to complicate
the restoration of this Palestinian right, without which, we all know, no durable
resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is conceivable.
what is mOre, this new surge in the Israeli expansionist policy also comes in
the wake of a heroic intifadah of the Palestinian people, which has clearly
demonstrated its will to get back frcan the aggressor what rightly and legitimately
belongs to itr its freedom, its independence and its territory. While the
international community rightly expects Israel to put an end to its brutal
suppression of the Psleetinian people and join the efforts to bring peace to the
peoples of the Middle East, Tel Aviv’s reply comes in the torm ot new designs for
perpetuating its Usurpation Of Palestinian and Other Arab territories. This Israel
must not be allwed to do.
(Mr. Noor, Afghanistan)
We also deplore the fact that while the leadership of the State of Palestine
has taken 80 many important steps towards an honourable solution of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, Zionism not only persists in its illegal occupation of the
Palestinians’ land and denial of their rights, but also comes out with a new
demnstration of its expansionist designs. Israel’s persistent efforts to change
the demographjc composition of these lands through continued Jewish settlements
runs counter not only to peace efforts but also to the 1949 Geneva Conventton
relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which clearly
precludes such attempts.
(Mr. Noor, Afghanistan)
For all these reasons, It is our earnest hope that by taking resolute action
against this illegal Israeli move the Security Council will not fail ~.CJ send a ~DE)(:
clear signal to Israel tha’. the intzcna tional community cannot and does not
tolerate Israeli expansionist designs and its constant attempts to block efforts
for the restoration of peace in the Middle East. We also believe that such
intransigent actions on the part of Israel indicate that there 13 no room for
postponing the convening of an international conference towards finding a just and
durable peace in the Middle East with the participation, on an equal footing, of
all the sides concerned, including Pales tine. ?he tinp for sw% a conference has
clearly come.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic) t I thank the representative
of Afghanistan for his kind words addressed to me.
There are no further speakers for this neeting. The date and time of the next
meting of the CounciL to continlle its consideration of the item on its agenda will
be omnunicated to members by the Secretariat.
The meeting rose at 12.50 P.m.
04~. Noor, Afghanistan)