Assembly adopts seven resolutions on Middle East and Palestine issues; calls for comprehensive settlement under UN auspices.

Assembly adopts seven resolutions on Middle East and Palestine issues; calls for comprehensive settlement under UN auspices

The General Assembly has stressed the urgent need for "additional constructive efforts by all Governments" to convene "without further delay" an international peace conference on the Middle East, a proposal emanating from the 1983 International Conference on the Question of Palestine, held in Geneva.

Israel and the United States were asked to "reconsider their positions towards the attainment of peace in the Middle East" through the convening of a peace conference. Both nations have opposed the convening of such a meeting.

The world body also declared once again that peace in the Middle East "is indivisible" and must be based on a comprehensive solution under United Nations auspices, which ensures Israel's withdrawal from occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and which enables the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable rights.

The Assembly acted after holding separated debates on two closely related items--the question of Palestine (2-4 December) and the situation in the Middle East (5-6 December). A total of 120 speakers participated in those debates.

Altogether seven resolutions were adopted--four on 12 December on the question to Palestine and three on 16 December on the situation in the Middle East. All seven were opposed by Israel, and all but one--on the status of Jerusalem--by the United States.

Among other things, the world body reaffirmed its conviction on that the question of Palestine "is the core of the conflict" in the Middle East, and that a just settlement could not be achieved "without the participation on an equal footing of all the parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the representative of the Palestinian people".

The Assembly called on all countries "to cease forthwith, individually and collectively, all dealings with Israel in order totally to isolate it in all fields". It declared that Israel was not a "peace-loving Member State" of the United Nations and called for suspension of economic, financial and technological assistance and for severing diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with that country. The Assembly also condemned "increasing collaboration" between Israel and South Africa.

It also deplored the negative vote of a permanent member of the Security Council which had prevented the Council from taking measures against Israel.

Israeli policies and practices of annexation of the occupied Arab territories violated international law, the Assembly stated. Agreements on strategic co-operation between the United States and Israel encouraged Israel's "aggressive and expansionist policies", it said. The Assembly also declared the imposition of Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem to be illegal, and deplored the decision of some countries to move their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem.

Explanation of vote: In explanation of vote, the United States said that "unbalanced and unfair" resolutions on the question of Palestine contributed to postponing the day when the parties to the conflict would sit down together to resolve their differences. The conference as envisaged would be "an ideological and propaganda exercise" directed against Israel. Resolutions containing "repeated and futile" condemnations and other "rhetorical posturings" did not advance the cause of peace. By placing the blame on one party, they tended to widen differences among the parties.

Israel said no resolution honestly tried to address the issue of the Middle East. Instead of properly addressing the conflicts in that region, the sponsors of the texts were trying to divert attention from them. The one road to peace was through direct negotiations.

Reports

The Assembly reviewed a number of reports relating to the situation in the Middle East, including that of the Secretary-General (A/40/779-S/17581).

The report detailed status of the cease-fire in the Middle East; the activities of the three peace-keeping operations in the area--the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO); the situation in the occupied territories; and the Palestine refugee problem.

The secretary-General also reported on his contacts with parties to the Middle East conflict and others concerned with a settlement there. Jordan, he said, had kept him informed of the agreement reached in February 1985 by King Hussein and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, under which Jordan and the PLO would move together towards a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question, and of subsequent efforts by King Hussein to bring about negotiations at an international conference within the framework of the United Nations, with the participation of the five permanent members of the Security Council and all parties to the conflict.

Since 1977, the Secretary-General went on, increasingly divergent policies on the Middle East among permanent members of the Security Council hd been a factor which had made it more difficult to use United Nations machinery in the peace process. A comprehensive settlement could best be achieved within the framework of the United Nations. The support of the major Powers, "especially the Soviet Union and the United States", was essential for any lasting settlement, he added.

Recalling a number of peace proposals--including those of United States President Ronald Reagan on 1 September 1982, the twelfth Arab Summit Conference at Fez on 9 September 1982, and of the Soviet Union, on 15 september 1982 and 29 July 1984--the Secretary-General said: "Although those proposals for various reasons are so far unaccepable to one or another of the parties concerned, they all contain important elements that could contribute to the formulation of a common approach."

The Security Council, he said, had a major and universally recognized responsibility for the "complex and potentially explosive problem" of the Middle East and could play "a vital role in the evolution of a just and lasting settlement". The success of that endeavour would depend on the agreement and co-operation of the major Powers without which United Nations machinery could not be used effectively. It would also require that the parties in conflict be willing "to make the necessary accommodations and adjustments without which no progress is possible."

The Assembly also considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (A/40/35). According to the report, the Committee's priority objective in 1985 was to promote the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East. The question of Palestine had "reached a critical phase"; the Committee urged "a renewed, concentrated and collective effort" to find a just solution under United Nations auspices "to end the unacceptable plight of the Palestinian people".

It also recommended that the Secretary-General continue contacts, in consultation with the Security Council, on convening such a conference, and appealed to all countries to "exert their best efforts" for its success.

The Secretary-General also report (A/40/168-S/17014) that the President of the Security Council had informed him of consultations on the proposed conference with all Council members. It was clear from those consultations, he said, that almost all members favoured the principle of holding such a conference. Many felt it should be convened as early as possible; others considered that the conditions that would make it possible to convene such a conference had not yet been met. The Secretary-General said he intended to pursue consultations on the subject and would inform the Assembly and the Security Council of any new developments.

Palestine Texts

On 12 December, the Assembly adopted four resolutions relating to the question of Palestine.

Resolution 40/96 D, calling for an international Middle East peace conference, was adopted by a vote of 103 in favour to 3 against (Canada, Israel, United States), with 41 abstentions.

An operative paragraph calling on Israel and the United States to reconsider their positions was approved by a separate vote of 89 in favour to 22 against, with 33 abstentions.

In a preambular paragraph, approved in a separate vote of 79-33-32, the Assembly noted the position of the PLO, which "condemns all acts of terrorism, whether committed by States or individuals, including acts of terrorism committed by Israel against the Palestinian people and the Arab nation".

Another preambular paragraph, expressing regret at the negative positions of Israel and the United States towards the conference, was adopted by a separate vote of 84 to 22, with 38 abstentions.

Under resolution 40/96 A, approved by a vote of 128 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 22 abstentions, the Assembly again endorsed the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, ande originally in 1976 and endorsed each year since then.

Those recommendations included basic considerations and guidelines for a settlement and a two-phase programme regarding the return of Palestinians, displaced as a result of the war of June 1967 and between 1948 and 1967, and specifically called for the Security Council to set up a timetable for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from areas occupied in 1967 and to request Israel to halt the establishment of new settlements and to withdraw from settlements established since 1967. The Committee also recommended that the evacuated territories should be taken over by the United Nations and subsequently handed over to the PLO, as the representative of the Palestinian people.

The Assembly drew the attention of the Security Council to the fact that action on those recommendations was "still awaited". It asked the Committee to keep under review the situation relating to the question of Palestine, authorized it to continue to exert all efforts to promote the implementation of its recommendations, and asked it to continue to extend its co-operation to non-governmental organizations in their contribution towards "heightening international awareness of the facts relating to the question of Palestine".

By resolution 40/96 B, adopted by a vote of 129 in favour to 3 against (Canada, Israel, United States), with 20 abstentions, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to provide the Division for Palestinian Rights with the necessary resources to accomplish its tasks and to expand its work programme.

In resolution 40/96 C, adopted by a vote of 131 in favour to 3 against (Canada, Israel, United States), with 18 abstentions, the Assembly requested the Department of Public Information to continue its special information programme on the question of Palestine for the biennium 1986-1987 and, in particular, to disseminate information on all activities of the United Nations system relating to the subject.

Resolutions on Middle East

Following debate on the situation in the Middle East, the General Assembly adopted three texts.

Resolution 40/168 A, by which the Assembly reaffirmed its call for the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East, was adopted by a vote of 98 in favour to 19 against with 31 abstentions.

The Assembly considered the Arab Peace Plan adopted at Fez, Morocco, in 1982 as an important contribution towards achieving a comprehensive peace and rejected all agreements and arrangements which "violate the inple and contradict the principles of a just and comprehensive solution to the Middle East problem."

A separate vote--64 to 33, with 41 abstentions--was taken on the paragraph covering agreements on strategic co-operation between the United States and Israel which "encouraged" Israel to pursue "aggressive and expansionist policies."

Resolution (40/168 B), detailing possible sanctions against Israel and describing Isreail as "not a peace-loving State" was adopted by a vote of 86 in favour to 23 against, with 37 abstentions.

In it, the Assembly also declared that Israel's continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights and its decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Golan Heights was "an act of aggression."

By resolution 40/168 C, adopted by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Costa Rica, Israel), with 10 abstentions, the Assembly determined that Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem was illegal and therefore null and void.

Debates

Sixty-one speakers participated in the debate on Palestine; another 59 spoke during the debate on the Middle East.

Common themes

During the two debates, many speakers stressed that the question of Palestine was the crux of the Middle East situation and that lasting peace in the region would remain elusive until the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination and to the creation of an independent State, were fully respected.

A large number of countries called for a just, durable and comprehensive settlement, which weould embrace the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, recognition of the right of all States in the area to live within secure and recognized boundaries, and international guarantees for a peaceful settlement. The importance of the inadmissibility of the use of force in acquisition of territory was cited by some.

Wide support was expressed for the early convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East as an instrument for reaching a negotiated settlement. Several speakers said partial and temporary solutions, such as the Camp David Accords, would only exacerbate the situation in the region.

Many nations felt the United Nations had an important role to play in the Middle East peace process. The Security Council should assist in implementing relevant United Nations resolutions, some said. The veto of the United States was cited by some as a major stumbling block for Council action. Co-operation between the two major Powers--the Soviet Union and the United States--was viewed by many as an indispensable prerequisite for a comprehensive solution to the Middle East problem.

Some speakers urged the parties to the conflict to come to terms with each other's existence and legitimate interests, with both sides demonstrating readiness for negotiations on an equitable and durable solution. Many countries reaffirmed their support for the PLO as the sole authentic representative of the Palestinian people.

A great number of nations expressed concern at a renewed escalation of tension in the Middle East and a new cycle of violence and terrorism; the Israeli raid on PLO headquarters at Tunis in October 1985 was often cited. Many countries criticized what they termed Israel's policy of expansion and aggression, which exacerbated tensions and prevented meaningful peaceful efforts. Israeli practices in occupied territories were described by some as repressive and inhumane.

Some States said Israel's intransigence regarding United Nations resolutions was due to continued political, economic and military support given to it by the United States.

Recent developments in Lebanon were widely discussed. Many speakers called for national reconciliation in Lebanon and restoration of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. There was a widespread call for total withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon.

Some countries called for an end to the ongoing war between Iraq and Iran, and for a negotiated settlement.

In opening the debate on the question of Palestine, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People said that during the past year, the concept of an international peace conference on the Middle East had gained growing acceptance, both at the level of Governments and at the level of world public opinion. Such a conference would make it possible to go beyond "the narrow strategic interests and the purely domestic concerns" of the States and to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

The international community had come to recognize that there could be no lasting solution to the Middle East conflict without recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The Committee's recommendations in that respect were based solidly on the fundamental principles recognized internationally and in the United Nations Charter.

The question of Palestine had reached a critical stage, making it imperative that collective efforts be increased to bring about a just solution to the "intolerable fate of the Palestinian people". The situation continued to worsen because of Israel's continued settlement policy and violation of human rights in occupied territories, he said. The United Nations must restore peace, security and stability in the Middle East while there was still time. The objective criteria had been laid down, as had the means. There was only one missing element, and that was political will.

Egypt said arbitrary and oppressive Israeli measures had been undertaken in occupied territories to influence the cultural life of Palestinians, including organized violence, demolition of houses, expulsion of citizens, expropriation of land and administrative detention accompanied by a settlement process. Palestinian resistance to those policies had confirmed that the national flame of the Palestinians would not be put out and that their efforts to acquire their right to self-determination would ultimately be crowned with success.

The Arab side favoured a peaceful settlement. The Jordanian-Palestinian agreement of 11 February 1985 provided the necessary machinery for implementing the Fez Summit decisions. Egypt encouraged a dialogue by Palestinians and Jordanians with the international parties concerned in the conflict. Israel must move closer to the Arab proposals. Wide sections of the Israeli society desired a peaceful settlement of the situation; however, those whose objective was "expansion and hegemony" were still influential. Continuing attempts to expand at the expense of Palestinians would lead to more obstacles and further violence.

Israel said no other item consumed so much of the General Assembly's time and attention as the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the Assembly could not find the time to discuss the Iran-Iraq war, Libya's occupation of Chad, the "Syrian slaughter in Lebanon", or the spate of hijackings, kidnappings, assassiantions and other acts of violence "inspired and ordered by leaders of Middle East countries".

"Why has not the General Assembly found even a brief moment to discuss the international thuggery of Colonel Qaddafi? One would be hard pressed to find a region or a country which Qaddafi has not meddled in or committed aggression against", Israel declared.

Much had been said of the PLO's "supposed turn to modeeration", of its intentions to limit terrorist attacks to "occupied territories". However, nothing justified terrorism, not even its geographical limitation. Moreover, the PLO had admitted its aim was the liquidation of all Israel, considered "occupied territory" in its entirety.

Syria had massacred "droves of Palestinians" not only in Lebanon, but in Syria itself. The Palestinian question was nothing more than an "empty slogan used by extremists throughout the Arab world in their war for power and prominence". Arab moderates must refuse to submit to the rejectionists, and then they would find in Israel "a most enthusiastic partner for peace". Direct negotiations conducted in good faith by parties genuinely seeking a peaceful solution could quickly solve the problems.

If the Assembly were seriously interested in discussing the situation in the Middle East, it would consider a resolution which would: call for the immediate termination of the use of warfare forbidden by international law; call on all States in the Middle East to take tangible, immediate and effective steps to restore regional peace and stability; and invite all countries in the region to recognize that genuine peace could only be based on an effective dialogue between all States in the Middle East, based on mutual recognition and respect for soveregnty.

Jordan said Israel viewed the Palestinian problem as a demographic problem, with no regional or political aspects, a problem, which could therefore be dealt with by resorting to military force. Israel's repeated use of force had strengthened Arab dissent. The resulting "vicious circle of violence and terrorism" had been exploited by Israel to convince the world of the justice of its position, based on the denial of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. In fact, Israel had given that people only one choice--submission and obedience or extremism and dissent. However, the Palestinians and other Arabs would never accept submission.

The agreement of 11 February 1985 between Jordan and the PLO spelled out the privileged relations between the Jordanian and the Palestinian peoples. It was not an alternative, but something that would supplement "all bilateral or comprehensive agreements on co-operation with our brothers and our friends equally".

The basis of the proposed settlement would be the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967). Assembly resolutions 181 (II) and 194 (III) and Council resolution 338 (1973) should be taken into account in any effort to achieve a peaceful settlement. Principles in those resolutions must be implemented: total Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem; the right to return of Palestinian refugees; the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; and the right of every State in the area to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized boundaries.

Lebanon said the question of Palestine remained the essence of the problem, the consequences of which Lebanon had had to bear for 10 years. It was "only natural" that the Palestinian people should continue to strive to regain its land usurped by Israel. Lebanon had for years been subjected to Israeli acts of aggression and occupation in the south and in the Bekaa. Israel's justification for its 1982 act of aggression against Lebanon was the need to protect its northern border by eliminating Palestinian resistance and liquidating the PLO. But its most important objective had been "the elimination of Lebanese democracy, which is a challenge to the regime and the philosophy of the Zionist State".

Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the Bekaa was not a result of United Nations resolutions, but of strikes against Israel by the Lebanese resistance. Israel had prevented UNIFIL from assisting the Lebanese State in exercising its sovereignty throughout its territory.

The Security Council's inability to adopt a resolution seeking to end the Israeli practices in Lebanon would lead Israel to believe that it could persist in its aggression. The Council must implement its decisions to preserve the credibility of the United Nations.

The solution of the Lebanese problem depended on a solution of the problem in the south. Lebanon would never renounce any part of its sovereignty over its territory or its responsibility towards those who resided in Lebanon. Lebanon's commitment to the Palestinian cause was firm, but Lebanon would not allow any part of its territory to remain beyond national Lebanese sovereignty.

The Syrian Arab Republic said that a constant factor of the Middle East crisis was the continued Israeli escalation of aggression against the Arab people. The force option chosen by the United States and its ally Israel "will be met with intensive Arab resistance". The objective of the strategic United States-Israeli alliance was to expand the "sphere of influence" to all countries of the region. No other American Administration had ever employed the financial resources of the American people in the service of Israel's objectives to the extent that the current Administration had. Israel currently received 17 per cent of over-all American foreign assistance.

Israel, since its inception, had paid lip-service to peace but rejected all efforts at genuine peace. "Like any expansionist, racist, settler colonialist entity, Israel plans and acts to crush the Arabs, dehumanize them and threaten their cultural and national existence".

Both South Africa and Israel had adopted a dogma based on the genocide of the indigenous population and the deprivation of their rights. Their relations were growing stronger, especially in the military field.

The American and Israeli rejection of every constructive initiative testified to their pursuit of aggression and self-interest. Syria opposed partial and unilateral solutions. Attempts "to sell" the Amman agreement of 11 February 1985 were intended to liquidate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to statehood.

The PLO said the question of Palestine had been on the Assembly agenda since 1947, but the Palestinian people were still dispersed, oppressed and deprived of the most basic human and political rights.

For the past 40 years, Israel had violated "every letter of every resolution" adopted by the United Nations, denying the rights of the Palestinian people, continually practising acts of terorism and aggression and flagrantly violating the Charter.

The unqualified political, military and economic support provided by the United States to Israel was a decisive factor in Israel's continuing "arrogant policy of aggression". The paralysis of the international Organization was largely due to the United States policy of "hegemony and obstruction", particularly through its use of the veto in the Security Council. In so doing, the United States was striving to impose American solutions to serve its own interests in the region and to maintain Israel's occupation of the land.

After the Israeli air raid against Tunisia and the PLO, and the interception of an Egyptian civilian airliner by United States warplanes, "we can confidently say that the United States and Israel won a crushing victory against all efforts for peace in the Middle East". The United States had rushed to defend Israeli terrorism against Tunisia and the PLO, and then it had responded to terrorism in the case of the Achille Lauro by its own terrorism, the PLO stated.

To distort the struggle of peoples, the United States and the "imperialist mass media" described the Palestinian standing up to Israeli occupation of his homeland as a terrorist. It accused the PLO of being a terrorist organization. For 40 years, Israel had practised all types and forms of aggression and terrorism against the Palestinian people. With full United States support, it had attempted in vain to wipe out the PLO.

Despite the official, organized terrorism which the Palestinian people were facing daily in the occupied territories and outside them, the PLO had always condemned terrorism. At the same time, it maintained the right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation with all available means. "We shall continue our resistance to Israeli occupation, however long it may take and whatever sacrifices may be needed".

The conditions that the United States was trying to impose on the Palestinian people and the PLO, such as the prior recognition of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and the prior recognition of the right of Israel to exist, were biased and illogical and could not serve the efforts to ensure peace. "We do not accept in any way whatsoever that we should be treated as a group of refugees."

The PLO had welcomed every effort and constructive international initiative to achieve peace in the Middle East, and supported the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East. In February 1985, the PLO established a framework of action for peace with Jordan, a framework which expressed the special relationship between the Jordanian and the Palestinian peoples.

The PLO appealed to the Assembly and the Security Council to take measures to defend the Palestinian people and to end Israel's arbitrary practices and violation of human rights in the occupied territories.

Other views

The League of Arab States said Israel's arrogance and the policy of escalating terrorism against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples were encouraged by the unlimited support it received from outside. Despite the attempts to undermine the people of Palestine, the Arab States and the PLO continued to abide by international legitimacy and United Nations principles.

Extremist leaders in Israel must realize that terrorism did not lead to peace and that bullets did not kill ideas and convictions but, instead, increased the determination of people to fight even harder in defence of their heritage and ideals.

The time was opportune to advocate the plan for an international peace conference on the Middle East. The United States would reduce its strong opposition to that conference, when it realized that the Middle East crisis, if left unresolved, would be an explosive threat to the stability of the region. The Arab States urged the United Nations to use intellectual, political, moral and organizational capacities to create the structure of the international conference and to win over those still reluctant to support the plan.

China resolutely supported the just struggle of the Palestinian people for the restoration of their national rights and strongly condermned the Israeli policy of aggression and expansion. A settlement through peaceful means was the best way to solve the Palestinian issue. China supported the basic principles affirmed by United Nations resolutions, namely, that Israel must withdraw from the Arab territories; the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people must be restored; and that all the countries in the Middle East were entitled to peaceful coexistence. China also favoured an international peace conference under United Nations auspices to discuss ways to solve the Palestinian issue.

Luxembourg, on behalf of the European Economic Community, Portugal and Spain, said the main responsibility for finding a peaceful solution to the problem lay with the parties directly concerned. Until they were prepared to make substantial reciprocal concessions, discussions in the Assembly would continue without any decisive result. Acts of violence and terrorism were particularly harmful and counter-productive. On the contrary, it was necessary to establish a climate of confidence and understanding. All parties concerned should refrain from any action that might hinder the development of such a climate. The Assembly could contribute to this by using moderate and conciliatory language when it discussed the problems of the Middle East.

A settlement of the problems of Palestine and the Middle East must be based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). It must encompass the right to existence and the security of all States of the region, including Israel, justice for all peoples of the region and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, with everything that that implied. The PLO must be associated with the negotiations.

The EEC, Portugal and Spain also appealed to all parties concerned, both inside and outside Lebanon, to ensure that national reconciliation and the establishment of a balanced situation, including protection of Lebanon's sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity and independence, could take place. There should also be a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces, as well as of all other forces which were not there at the request of the Lebanese Government. UNIFIL should be respected by all and must be given every possible assistance in carrying out its duties.

India said the Non-Aligned Movement supported the Palestinians, represented by the PLO, and their inalienable rights, including the right to a State of their own in Palestine. The majority of United Nations resolutions in that respect had been adopted on the initiative of the non-aligned. The 1983 New Delhi Summit had set up a Committee of Eight on Palestine to support the rights of the Palestinian people in accordance with international law and the will of the non-aligned countries.

Iran said the United Nations, due to the permanent presence of "Western imperialist forces", was simply not the right place for solving the problem of "the Zionist occupation of Palestine". It was not an international problem of a secular political nature; Palestine was not simply a piece of land; it was not a country; it was "an inseparable part of the Islamic territory, whose defence is a great unforgettable obligation for every Moslem". The Moslems of the world would never sleep comfortably until they ensured that "the charter of Palestine will prevail over the Charter of the United Nations".

Iraq said none of the efforts made by zionism and the Powers supporting it "to wipe out the national identity" of the Palestinian people and to deny their rights had succeeded, because of the resolve of that people and their commitment to their right to life and dignity. During 1985, the Zionist occupation of the Arab territories and Israel's inhuman practices had only intensified. Israel had constantly resorted to aggression, to raids, to occupation by force. Acts of terrorism committed by zionism were reminiscent of the actions of Hitler and Mussolini. It was regrettable that the aggressor found support and sympathy among some Powers, particularly the United States.

The Libyan arab Jamahiriya said that although the problem of Palestinian refugees was the most important aspect of the Palestinian question from the humanitarian point of view, it was only one element in that question. Any attempt to depict the question of Palestine as exclusively a refugee problem was foredoomed to failure.

The United States was a "direct accomplice" that bore a "lion's share" of responsibility for all aggressive and expansionist wars the "zionist entity" had waged to establish Eretz Israel. Libya was facing the "arrogance of power" and the policy of intimidation of the United States, designed to terrorize the people, to force them to bow to American hegemony and to hand over their wealth. The United States blamed Libya for anything that happened to any of its allies anywhere. All those accusations were part of its attempt to justify any act of aggression occurring anywhere near Libya. The United States had also taken a series of economic steps against Libya in an attempt to starve the Libyan people.

Saudi Arabia said that Israel, "the ungrateful son of an unjust resolution" adopted by the Organization in 1947, had left no rule of international law unassailed and left no norm of international relations unviolated. Zionism had the illusion that it was possible for it to consider the Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere as a people that could be disposed of, like the population of the countries that were discovered in the Middle Ages. The Arab people in Palestine were captives in their own country and aliens in their own homeland.

Israel continued to mobilize for war as well as to disrupt peace efforts. The Zionist leaders, in their efforts to reshape Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and its population, were trying to change it into a Jewish city. They encouraged Zionist extremists to attack the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The continuation of those attempts would turn out to be a historical misfortune for zionism. "We will all see how the whole Islamic world will explode."

The USSR said Tel Aviv was doing everything "to bury the Palestinian question once and for all and erect a cross on the grave" of the right of Palestinians to self-determination and the establishment of their own independent State. Reliance on brute force, State terrorism, and disregard of the rights of the Arab peoples remained the cornerstone of Israel's foreign policy.

Israel was able to continue for so long its defiant violation of all basic rules of international law and of interState relations because of its senior "strategic partner", the United States. The guarantee of Israel's security lay not in its wasteful and fleeting military supremacy, but in the establishment of peaceful, good-neighbourly relations with the Arabs. For that, Israel should renounce its excessive, unrealistic ambitions, stop seeing the whole Arab world as "a defence perimeter" and start genuine and constructive negotiations.

The 1984 Soviet proposals were based on the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. Israel should return to the Arabs all the lands it had occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

If the United States really desired to promote a settlement of the Middle East conflict, it should renounce its unconditional support for one of the parties in the conflict, abandon the idea that the region was its own backyard, reject the policy of separate deals and make use of the machinery for a peaceful settlement which had been proposed a long time ago--an international conference on the Middle East.

The United States, in explanation of vote, said that it had worked ceaselessly for the establishment of a just and lasting peace without which restoration of legitimate Palestinian rights was impossible. It also rejected the allegation that its co-operation with and assistance to Israel threatened the security of the region and had an adverse effect on peace efforts. Strong Afmerican relations with Israel and with other States in the region were "essential to the pursuit of peace".

There was but one route to peace which could provide positive results, that of direct negotiations. The process begun at Camp David in 1978 and the Egypt-Israel Treaty of 1979, which were firmly based on the principles of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), had established peace between two neighbours, which had been at war for a generation, and had lead to an Israeli withdrawal. President Ronald Reagan's proposals of 1 September 1982 still embodied the "most workable elements" for a peace which could reconcile the legitimate security concerns of Israel and the legitimate needs of the Palestinian people. The United States invited the parties to the conflict "to take up the challenge of peace" and to resolve in direct negotiations the issues involved in the long-standing dispute.