Assembly calls for Mideast peace conference, endorses aim of independent Palestininan state.

The call for a peace conference-- with the participation of all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), as well as the United States, the Soviet Union and other States concerned--had been originally made by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine held from 29 August through 7 Septermber 1983 in Geneva.

It was recommended that the conference be convened on the basis of the six guidelines put forward by the International Conference for efforts to resolve the question of Palestine (see Background). The International Conference considered it essential that the proposed peace conference have the aim of achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting solution, an essential element of which would be the creation of an "independent Palestinian State in Palestine". These recommendations were endorsed by the General Assembly.

The Assembly adopted a total of 10 resolutions under the two items on Palestine and the Middle East. Resolutions 38/58 A-E, on the question of Palestine, were approved on 13 December; resolutions 38/180 A-E, on the situation in the Middle East, were put to a vote on 19 December.

The Assembly's endorsement of the peace conference came in resolution 38/58 C, adopted by a vote of 124 in favour, to 4 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, United States), with 15 abstentions, asked the Secretary-general, in consultation with the Security Council, urgently to undertake preparatory measures to convene the peace conference and invited the Council to facilitate the organization of that meeting. Mr. Perez de Cuellar was to report on his efforts no later than 15 March 1984.

In response to the request for preparations for a peace conference, the Secretary-General initiated the process of consultation with the Security Council, asking the Council President to ascertain the views of Council members on the proposal.

In another resolution, 38/180 D, adopted by 101 votes in favour, to 18 against, with 20 abstentions, the Assembly also reaffirmed the call for the convening of the conference.

In the same text, it reaffirmed its convition that the question of Palestine was the core of the conflict in the Middle East; that a just and comprehensive settlement could not be achieved without the participation on an equal footing of the PLO; and that peace in the Middle East was indivisible and must be based on a comprehensive and lasting solution.

Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, was condemned all agreements and arrangements which violated the recognized rights of the Palestinian people were rejected.

The Assembly also condemned Israel's aggression, policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly Palestinians in Lebanon, and the imposition by Israel of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

Agreements on strategic cooperation between the United States and Israel that would encourage Israel in its "aggressive and expansionist policies" would have adverse effects on efforts towards a lasting peace, the Assembly stated. It called for an end to military, economic and financial aid to Israel. The continuing and increasing collaboration between Israel and South Africa was also strongly condemned.

By a third resolution, 38/180 A, adopted by a vote of 84 in favour to 24 against, with 31 abstentions, the Assembly determined once more that Israel's record, policies and actions confirmed that it was not a peace-loving Member State. Other Mamber States were called on to refrain from supplying to or acquiring from Israel weapons or military equipment, to suspend economic, financial and technological assistance to and co-operation with Israel, and to sever diplomatic trade and cultural relations with Israel.

The Assembly also reiterated its call to all Member States to cease forthwith, individually and collectively, "all dealings with Israel in order to totally isolate it in all fields".

By a fourth resolution, 38/180 E, adopted by 81 votes in favour, to 27 against, with 29 abstentions, the Assembly demanded that all States, particularly the United States, in the light of its agreements with Israel, refrain from taking any step that would support Israel's war capabilities and consequently its aggressive acts, whether in the Palestinian or Arab territories or against countries in the region.

In a fifth text, on Jerusalem-- adopted by 137 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 3 abstentions (Domincan Republic, Guatemala, United States)--the Assembly declared once more that Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on that Holy City was "illegal and therefore null and void and has no validity whatsoever". Resolution 38/180 C also deplored the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem.

The Assembly also condemned, by resolution 38/180 B, acts committed by the Israeli army, during its occupation of Beirut, which constituted "plundering the Palestinian cultural heritage". They included taking away archives and documents concerning Palestinian history and culture, including cultural articles from Palestinian institutions such as the Palestine Research Centre, manuscripts, film documents, literary works, paintings and objects d'art, research works and other articles.

The Government of Israel was called on to make full restitution of such property through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Secretary-General was asked to report on the matter to the 1984 Assembly. The text was approved by a vote of 121 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 20 abstentions.

In a seventh text, resolution 38/58 A, adopted by 126 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 19 abstentions, the Assembly endorsed the 1976 recommendations of the Palestinian Rights Committee (see Background). It drew the attention of the Security Council to the fact that action on those recommendations, as repeatedly endorsed by the Assembly, was long overdue. The Committee was alos authorized to continue to exert all efforts to promote the implementation of those recommendations.

In another resolution, 38/58 D, adopted by 144 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), the Assembly urged that specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, at a meeting to be convened in 1984 by the Secretary-general to co-ordinate a programme of assistance to the Palestinian people, should take into account recommendations of five regional preparatory meetings for the International Conference on Palestine concerning economic and social assistance.

Two other resolutions called for continued action by the United Nations Secretariat with regard to public awareness of the plight of the Palestinian people.

Resolution 38/58 B, adopted by 127 in favour to 3 against (Canada, Israel, United States), with 17 abstentions, had the Assembly request that the Division for Palestinian Rights be provided with the necessary resources to accomplish its tasks and to expand its work programme.

In resolution 38/58 E, adopted by 125 in favour to 3 against (Canada, Israel, United States), with 15 abstentions, the Assembly asked the Department of Public Information to disseminate all information on the activities of the United Nations system relating to Palestine and expand its activities in that area.

An eleventh text, put forward by Iran (document A/38/L.49), would have had the Assembly condemn the "recent United States-Israeli co-ordinated aggression in the region" and consider their "strategic alliance" as a factor of escalation of tension and aggravation of the situation. It was not pressed to the vote.

(Also see Resolution Round-up, beginning on page 18, for summaries of resolutions concerning the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories; the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA); Israel's decision to build a canal linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea; assistance to the Palestinian people; permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied territories; living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; and other decisions.)

The Assembly reviewed the closely-related items on Palestine and the Middle East in debates held consecutively over a 16-day period in November and December. Fifty-six speakers participated in the debate on Palestine, during five plenary meetings held between 28 November and 5 December. Another 56 spoke during the debate on the Middle East, which spanned eight meetings held between 7 and 13 December.

In launching the debate on the question of Palestine, Massamba Sarre (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and drawn the world's attention to the situation of that people.

The International Conference on the Question of Palestine had provided the broadest forum so far for consideration of the Palestinian problem, with participation by 137 States, some 100 non-governmental organizations, and several eminent personalities, including some from Israel.

Victor Gauce (Malta), Committee Rapporteur, said 1983 had seen a surge of support for the Committee's 1976 recommendations, which remained fair, legally founded and a practical basis for giving satisfaction to the Palestinian people in its quest for independent statehood within a wider, peaceful settlement of the Arab-Esreli conflict. Throughout the continents, he said, there was a deep awareness of the need for redress of the present unacceptable situation of the Palestinian people and a determination to act to change national attitudes, he stated.

During the two debates, a number of common themes were repeatedly stressed by speakers.

Most States said that the core of the conflict in the Middle East was the Palestinian problem, which should be resolved through peaceful negotiations. The Palestinian people should be allowed to exercise their inalienable rights, including their right to self-determination and to create an independent Palestinian State.

Many countries called for a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement, based on such principles as: the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem; recognition of the inadmissibility of the use of force in the acquistion of territory; recognition of the right of all States in the area to live within secure and recognized boundaries; and international guarantees for a peaceful settlement.

A large number of nations cited the peace initiative put forward by Egypt and France in the Security Council in July 1982 and the various initiatives proposed in September 1982 by United States President Ronald Reagan, the Arab Summit at Fez, and the President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

Many States said a settlement should be based on the elements detailed in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). These States said the International Conference on the Question of Palestine had provided a sound basis for progress towards a peace settlement. Many countries also supported the Conference proposal for an international peace conference.

Some speakers said mutual cooperation and trust between States of the region was necessary for a negotiated solution to the situation. Some countries stressed that Israel and the Arab Sates should recognize one another, accept each other's existence and live together peacefully. A number of States said partial or temporary solutions which did not involve the future of the Palestinians were not acceptable and would only exacerbate the situation in the area. Many countries reaffirmed their support for the PLO as the sole authentic representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO should participate in all peace efforts on an equal footing with other parties concerned, they maintained. The need for Arab unity was cited by many countries, some of which spoke with regret of apparent internal divisions within the PLO. Some countries said such conflict was natural to a revolutionary movement, adding it had been aggravated by outside interference.

Many counties criticized what they termed Israel's policy of expansion and aggression, and, in particular, cited the growth in its settlements in occupied Arab territories. Fear of an ultimate "de-Arabization" or "judaization" of the areas in question was expressed.

A number of nations referred to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories as repressive and designed to alter their demographic, geographic, political, cultural, historic and administrative character. Some speakers said Israel was attempting to erode Palestinian national identity and plunder its cultural heritage through its actions. Some countries underscored the illegality of Israeli administrative actions with regard to the Syrian Golan Heights.

Support given to Israel, particularly that of the United States, was blamed by many States as a major contributing factor to the continuing deteriorating situation in the region. The recently concluded strategic alliance agreement between the United States and Israel was said by some countries to constitute a new stage of American policy in the region. Some nations said the United States had thus revealed imperialistic, hegemonistic intentions and goals.

A few countries called for the expulsion of Israel from the United Nations and the imposition of sanctions against it under Chapter vii of the Charter.

Some were concerned that if the situation continued to deteriorate, the great Powers, which maintained a military presence in the Middle East region, might be drawn into a direct confrontation, with unimaginable consequences for international peace and security.

The intentions of major Power involvement in the area were questioned by some, who cited the rich oil resources and strategic value of the region. A number of countries saw the United States presence as indicative of a change in its foreign policy, which they felt was aiming at establishing a neo-colonialist presence in the area. They said the United States was using as a pretext its expressed concern for security and vital interests in order to pursue long-term strategic goals.

The special responsibility of the United Nations in securing a solution to the situation was cited by many. The Security Council was called on to "shoulder its responsibilities" and implement relevant General Assembly resolutions. The veto of one super-Power--the United States-- was cited by some as the major stumbling block for Council action.

Speakers in the debate on the situation in the Middle East also touched on developments in Lebanon, particularly northern Lebanon, and the Iran-Iraq war. Some referred to the situations in Iran and Afghanistan.

Many States called for national reconciliation in Lebanon, ensuring its territorial integrity and sovereignty and withdrawal of unauthorized foreign forces from that country. Some States said Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 had contributed to a worsening of tensions in the entire area and a setback in efforts to negotiate a comprehensive settlement. A number of nations said the invasion was part of Israel's plan to obtain "lebensraum".

Some countries expressed concern regarding sectarian rivalries in Lebanon, continuing "fratricidal fighting", and the involvement of foreighn interests. Some countries deplored the increasing military and political pressure on Syria by the United States and Israel.

Suring the two debates, States of the region directly concerned and representatives of the PLO presented their views.

Egypt said it rejected the policy of fait accompli and an imposed peace, which would lead to further strife, deepen hatred and reduce chances for peace. It supported the right of all States in the region to exist in security, in accordance with Security Council resolution 242, and affirmation of the antional legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination and all that that would entail.

Israel should adopt confidence-building measures, through freezing the establishment of settlements and recognition of the integration of the people of East Jerusalem with all of the Palestinian people on the West Bank; the return of the expropriated land; lifting the ban on political meetings, thereby ensuring freedom of movement and expression; and granting amnesty to all detainees.

All the parties concerned in the Middle East had the right to call for a commitment to "even-handedness" in dealing with all dimensions of the problem. The increasing military imbalance militated in favour of expansion and impeded the peace process. Any miscalculations that could entail a renewal of military adventures would affect the stability of international peace and security.

Israel said the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict was the unwillingness of Arab Governments to accept and coexist with a sovereign Jewish State, irrespective of its size and boundaries. It objected to the "distorted presentation of the Arab-Israeli coflict as the root of all Middle East problems and as the sole danger in our region to world peace". The area was plagued by numerous conflicts and tensions, most of which reflected the "tendency for violence which characterizes Arab political life."

The deep-rooted inter-Arab rivalry had resulted in numerous continuing conflicts throughout the Arab world. The self-appointed Palestinian Arab leaders and the leaders of Arab Sates had led the Palestinian arabs "from disaster to desaster". Their refugee statuss had been perpetuated as a political expedient. The Arab States without exception preferred cynically to use the Palestinian Arabs as pawns, rather than to seek a viable solution to their problems.

Syria had become the paramount instigator of crisis in the eastern half of the region. Since last May it had moved between 5,000 and 10,000 Syrian Alawites into Tripoli as part of its bid to consolidate Syrian dominance there. It was "inexcusable" that the United Nations had not addressed itself to the problem in any form.

Lebanon, "the country that was long touted as the only democracy in the Arab world", had become a living symbol of what the Arab leaders' intrigues could really do to a country with no muscle to resist them. And the world slowly but surely grew accustomed to it and high-handedly ignored it. Lebanon had been and still was "deemed expendable", having been considered strictly an "internal Arab affair".

Israel stood for the full restoration of Lebanese sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, as well as its unity within internationally recognized boundaries, and for the restoration of the lawful authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout the length and breadth of the country. All foreign forces must be withdrawn from that country. Israel's legitimate securiry needs must be guaranteed and Lebanese territory must never again be used for attacks upon Israeli citizens.

Lybya, Israel went on, was the major threat confronting the region from the west, focusing on North Africa, whre Lbya at one point or another had sought to subvert its neighbours: Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia and Morocco.

A dangerous hotspot in the Middle East was the Persian Gulf, where the war between two totalitarian regimes had created a vast refugee problem which dwarfed "by far even the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's inflated figures" for the Palestinian Arab refugees. The "lawless majority" of the Assembly "shamelessly turns its back on the real problems facing mankind by indulging for so much of its time in barren anti-Israel exercises", it maintained.

It was "grotesque" that the United Nations should accord preferential treatment to the PLO, "a vanishing terrorist organization" which had been shown up to be expendable. It was nothing more than an umbrella of terrorist organizations, now rapidly falling apart, with each Arab State sponsoring a faction to act as an "arm of its clandestine or overt policy in the Arab world".

Israel drew a clear distinction between the Palestinian Arabs and the terrorist PLO. It was not fighting the Palestinian Arabs, nor was it ignoring their plight. Arab countries should forsake the barren path of sterile rhetoric and engage in an honest dialogue with Israel to achieve a long overdue peace.

Jordan said failure to bring stability to the region was the result of Israel's continued refusal to comply with international will. Israel was primarily responsible for the extreme violence now prevailing in the Middle East, because its continuous denial of the rights of the Palestinians and attempts to destroy those rights had "justified negative reactions and rejection on the part not only of the Palestinian people, but of every Arab people".

Israel was trying to shrug off its responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians and attribute that to Arab extremism. It wanted the Palestinians to return to a state of despondency and rejection, so that they would not only losee their ability to work to restore their rights, but would also lose their hope of restoring those rights. Israel was seeking to convert Lebanon into a permanent battlefield through which to drain Arab strength and divert attention from its strategy aimed at judaizing Arab Jerusalem.

Israel knew what it had to fear most was peace, and it had mobilized its entire potential to avoid that. It had used the argument of security to poison the situation in the region and to arouse ethnic, national and secratian factionalism. Israel wanted to keep the Arab world and the Middle East "at the boiling point".

Israel's establishment of settlements, its confiscation of Arab lands, its attempt by any means to expel the Arab inhabitants from those lands and its military manoeuvres beyond the borders of Palestine were policies intended to facilitate the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza in the wake of the annexation of Arab Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Israel's doctrine was to create new geographical and historical facts in the Middle East region. Israel had concocted and nurtured the myth of an Arab threat to its existence to justify its intransigence and expansionism.

Jordan considered the quest for a political settlement a principal aim of its foreign policy and welcomed all initiatives and efforts aimed at a political solution to the Palestinian problem. It also welcomed the "mature position" taken by the "responsible leadership of the PLO aimed at reaching a just political settlement".

Lebanon said for nine years it had been the arena for wars between many parties with different ambitions and interests. The fact that the international community had ignored the crisis and failed to respond to the calls of Lebanese officials and other friends, enabled the occupiers to seize Lebanese territory, settle there as if their occupation were to be eternal and behave as if they had an absolute right, unlimited by the legitimacy of the institutions of the Lebanese and undeterred by international agreements, laws and norms.

Lebanese President Amin Gemayel had said the problem centred on the occupation of Lebanese territory and the shrinking of the authority and security forces of the State. The national will, he had said, had to be mobilized to end that occupation. It was also important to work with friendly major Powers to secure total Israeli withdrawal and to reach an understanding with Syria to set a timetable for withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon.

The international community and influential major Powers had an historic responsibility to support the Lebanese Government efforts to achieve those goals, including restoration of its sovereignty inside internationally recognized boundaries. Lebanon was determined to safe-guard the unity of its people and territory and to maintain its independence and freedom of decision. All Israeli forces and all unauthorized forces, without exception, must be withdrawn from Lebanese territory.

The multinational force was present in Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese Government, and their presence there was "a purely Lebanese matter". Regrettably, some countries continued to ignore that freely taken decision, "while there exist on the territories of some of the countries foreign forces invited by their Governments and as a result of the freely taken decision of those Governments". Lebanon paid tribute to all international and multinational forces standing by its Government and to the victims among those forces who had joined the thousands of innocent Lebanese who died so Lebanon would survive.

Lebanon had never interfered in the affairs of others, nor had it ever spoken on anyone's behalf. Therefore, it did not allow anybody to speak on its behalf or decide for it what to accept and what to reject. Some hid behind the words "Lebanese people" to say what they wished to say, not what the Lebanese people wished to say. The Lebanse people deserved life and survival and were capable of surmounting crises and reconstructing the country "without custodians or guardians".

The Syrian Arab Republic said talks between the United States and Israel had clearly showed "the aggressive intent against Arab Syria because Arab Syria is committed to the Palestinian cause". Syria stood with the Lebanese people and was the "impregnable fortress which stands in the way of attempts to impose Israeli authority in the Middle East and American hegemony in the region. The imposition of this American hegemony also includes Iran", it said.

The principal object of American-Israeli co-operation was the eradication of the Palestinian cause. Threats and terrorist attempts would "never subjugate us as an Arab nation in our struggle to liberate the land and regain our rights". The United States spoke of "moderate" Arab States and "non-moderate" Arab States, but it must learn there was one Arab nation committed to liberating its land, regaining its rights and defending itself.

The presence of American marines and the United States fleet in Lebanon was an attempt to subject the region to American provocation and blackmail and to protect the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, Palestine and the Golan Heights.

United States President Reagan had revealed an "obsession with the use of force" especially in the Middle East, with the aim of imposing hegemony and reating a spher of exclusive influence for it and Israel, at the expense of Arab national interests. The aim of the invaion of Lebanon was to make Lebanon dependent of Israel, to isolate Lebanon completely from the Arab homeland and to force Lebanon to pay the price of a war waged not by it but by Israel, on tendentious and fabricated pretexts.

The United States-Israeli alliance also threatened the African continent, especially since the United States was linked to the Pretoria regime by an alliance called "constructive engagement". The South African-Israeli-American alliance threatened both Africa and the Middle East.

The American action against Syria was the first result of the strategic cooperation and military alliance between America and Israel, Syria maintained. By its reckless action, the United States had put itself in cofrontation with all the Arab people. "American treachery against the Syrian forces which are in Lebanon to protect part of the Arab homeland against the expansionist zionist enemy represents full participation in Israel's achievement of its dream of dismembering Lebanon, bringing Syria to its knees and undermining the Arab ability to stand up to American-Zionist designs agaist us and against the entire region".

"We are not warmongers", Syria said. "We are defending ourselves and our nation, repelling aggression" in accordance with the Charter. The United States was prompting "certain Lebanese parties to aggravate the situation in Lebanon and to eliminate the prospects of reconciliation among the Lebanese parties, so that Lebanon and the entire area would remain volatile and a hotbed of tension".

The representative of the PLO said the main cause of the conflict in the Middle East, as stated in the Geneva Conference Declaration, was the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by Israel and supporters of its expansionist policies.

"Our people do not fight for the sake of fighting, but for the sake of justice", the PLO representative said. "Howver, there is a difference between the peace we seek and the capitulation that the United States and Israel are trying to improse upon us". Without exception, he said, the United States had stood against the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and had provided unlimited support to Israel and its policies of expansion and aggression. The Palestinian people were convinced that America and Israel would only accept full capitulation on its part without any conditions. But that people would refuse to capitulate and every day grew more insistent on achieving full rights. Palestinians who had stayed in their homeland under Israeli occupation lived as strangers in their land, denied the most elementary rights and subjected to oppression and suppression.

The Zionist movement not only inflicted harm on the Palestinian people but also on the Jews themselves, whom it had mobilized in a large ghetto called Israel--isolated from humanist values and principles and from the tolerant spiritual heritage of Judaism, making its citizens into soldiers, destroying, murdering and showing hatred and rage everywhere.

Israeli society had become a society which lacked internal peace, a society torn apart, suffering from economic and ideological bankruptcy, from social class and ethnic contradictions. There was a growing realization among Israeli Jews themselves of the gravity of the persistence of that aggressive racist policy which was transforming Israel into a fascist State controlled by a handful of terrorists and extremists who still lived outside the mainstream of history.

As for events in northern Lebanon, the PLO representative did not deny "some internal problems which are natural to all revolutions and societies". It was only natural that there would be different views and opinions. The problems involved had become more complicated due to feelings of frustration and despair on the part of "some of our people", due to the prolonged suffering and the harsh tragedies and events which had befallen the PLO because of the American-Israeli policy of aggression. "These events would not have taken such a tragic form without foreign intervention", he said.

The PLO representative said the Security Council and the Assembly should take practical action to end the aggression through the deterrent sanctions provided for in the Charter and not settle for mere condemnation and denunciation.

The representative of the Leageu of Arab States said the question of Palestine was a pivotal issue in all the tension and all the bloody conflicts ranging for decades in the Middle East. All efforts by Zionist forces before or after the establishment of Israel to obliterate the national character of the Palestinian people and their identification with their homeland and the Arab nation had not destroyed their determination or their ability to resist.

Millions of Palestinians continued to declare their adherence to the PLO. They had public and private institutions which served political, educational, cultural and social purposes and proved their struggle would not be extinguished until their aspirations were fulfille. By the year 2000 their number was expected to rise to nearly 7 million, he said.

The policies of Israel and its supporters would escalate the conflict in the Middle East and pose a threat to international peace and security. The restoration of rights to the Palestinians would, conversely, contribute immensely to peace and stability in the region.

A settlement which overlooked the rights of the Palestinians would not prove just, durable or comprehensive. Israel had proved it was not a peace-loving Member State; therefore, positive and deterrent measures had to be taken against Israel under Chapter vii of the Charter and the United States must stop its assistance to Israel.

He asked: "will the General Assembly that recommended the establishment of one State for the Jewish minority and another one for the Palestinian majority now stand idly by, watching its resolutions being totally diregarded? Or is it high time that the General Assembly and the Security Council put an end to Israeli arrogance, expansion, and denial of the rights of the majority"?

United States policy in the Middle East ignored the existing realities in the region and the real causes and motives of the core issue--the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Albania said the two imperialist super-Powers--the United States and the USSR--had further intensified their plotting policies and activities in the Middle East, "with a view to elbowing each other out so as to keep the Arab countries under their yoke, plunder their resources and stifle the just national liberation and anti-imperialist movements of the peoples of the region". They were increasing their military presence in the area. They were also trying to keep alive the fratricidal war between Iran and Iraq and were doing their utmost to stifle the anti-imperialist revolution of the Iranian people.

China said the actions taken by the Israeli authorities in the occupied Arab territories were "inseparable from the political protection and military and economic support of the United States", which through its veto had made it difficult for the Security Council to fulfil its duty in safeguarding international peace and security in the Middle East. Only through the realization of the right to self-determination by the Palestinian people, including the establishment of an independent State in Palestine, would a gradual realization of peace and stability in the Middle East region be possible.

Greece, on behalf of the European Economic Community, said events in Lebanon had made progress towards settlement of the wider Middle East problem even more difficult. The security and legitimate interests of all States and peoples in the region had to be taken into account. The Ten remained deeply conscious of the importance of the problem of Palestine for future peace and security in the Middle East, and a just solution to that problem had to be an essential element for any comprehensive peace settlement.

They were deeply concerned that Israeli policies in the occupied territories had led to mounting tension and continued unrest, particularly its policy on settlements. Any changes in the status of those territories were illegal under international law.

They were also deeply concerned over hostilities in northern Lebanon. The Ten stressed the importance of humanitarian aid operations in Lebanon. The continuing war between Iran and Iraq was another aggravating factor in the Middle East, and they deplored lack of progress towards a solution.

India, which serves as the Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the majority of United Nations resolutions on the question of Palestine had been adopted at the initiative of the non-aligned countries, whichhad also been particularly active in mobilizing international support against Israeli actions in the occupied territories and its invasion of Lebanon.

The Non-Aligned Summit at New Delhi in March 1983 had reaffirmed fundamental principles for solution of the Middle East problem, and a Committee of Eight, at the level of Heads of State or Government, had been established to co-operate with the seven-member Arab committee to support the rights of the Arab Palestinian people in accordance with international law and the will of the non-aligned countries and their peoples.

The Non-Aligned principles for a solution were cited by Cyprus as follows: the question of Palestine was the core of the Middle East problem and the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict; the question of Palestine and the Middle East problem formed an indivisible whole, and could not be dealt with or resolvea separately; a just peace in the region could be based only on Israel's total and unconditional withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian and Arab territories and the restoration of all national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to establish their own independent and sovereign State in their national territory; West Jerusalem was part of occupied Palestinian territory, and Israel should withdraw unconditionally from it; the PLO was the sole representative of the Palestinian people and must participate in efforts on an independent and equal footing towards a peace settlement; and all measures taken by Israel in the Arab and Palestinian territories since their occupation were null, void and illegal, as were all settlements in those territories.

Iran said resolution 181 (ii), by which Israel was created, was the problem and not the solution, and peaceful coexistence with aggression was impossible and morally wrong. Occupation of Palestine was not a linguistic problem. It was not Arab or Arabic. It was an Islamic matter and as such the concern of all Moslems. The racist enemy, which had tried to Arabize the problem and solicit the presence of Arab regimes at the nogotiations, had been "satanically banking on the ethnic identity of Arab nationalism in order to dilute the primordial Islamic character of the issue".

The "criminal usurpers", Iran said, had better know that "in our Islamic front we do not have 'Palestinian arabs'; we have the great Moslem nation of Palestine". Full mobilization of all potential against the enemy should occur, including reduction of oil production and withdrawal of assets from United States banks.

As for Lebanon, the American and French forces "under the guise of peace-keeping" had been engaged in combat activities against the local Moslem militia and Syrian forces stationed in Lebanon under the Arab League agreement. France and the United States favoured the Israeli aggressor and had therefore lost the basis of whatever claim they could have for the maintenance of peace and order in that country.

Iraq said in its expansionist and aggressive designs, Israel was clearly acting on the basis of faits accomplis, using "fallacious arguments and pretexts and doing so with the support of certain major Power". That policy encouraged "those entities that have expansionist designs to pursue policies of aggression and of acquisition of the territories of others by force. Thus precedents are established that violate national severeignty and the independence of peoples".

The Assembly's consideration of the situation in the Middle East, thanks to Israel's spiralling escalation of acts of aggression, now included Israeli aggression against Iraq and its massive invasion and occupation of Lebanon. The concept of "Eretz Yisrael", coined by the Zionists, was reflected by "the complete zionist colonial grip over the whole of Palestine and the relentless affirmation that Arab Palestine lies east of the Jordan".

Libyan Arab Famahiriya said the United Nations should expel the "Zionist entity" from the Organization and its specialized agencies. Also, the Charter should be amended to abrogate the "unjust right" of the veto in the Security Council, in light of the United States position in the Council and its use of the veto.

Libya supported Syria in its attempts to defend itself. Libya would contribute to the liberation of Palestine "so as to expel the Zionist entity and create a Palestinian State in its place, just as Zimbabwe took the place of Rhodesia". It was convinced that Israel would be "ousted from this hall, as was Formosa".

Qatar said Palestinian refugee camps had become fixed targets for Israeli bombers and artillery, the political objective of which was the destruction of the Palestinan revolution and the permanent stifling of free Palestinians to enable Israel ultimately to deny the existence of the Palestinian people. The real difficulty preventing a solution was the traditional rivalry between East and West, or between the Soviet Union and the United States, for spheres of influence. That narrow concept ran counter to all achievements in the development of international relations and took the world back to the tension of the cold war and the policies of brinkmanship.

Saudi Arabia said Israel and the Zionist movement had been waging a relentless campaign of vilification throughout the world, particularly in the United Staes, against the United Nations and the international community, castigating them with the vilest accusations, because the United Nations had ceased to be a "tool to be manipulated for the purposes of Zionist aggression and a convenient vehicle for Zionist racist opression." The United States must realize it would be impossible to defeat a people in its homeland. Israel threatened the security of the region. Its continued acts of aggression affirmed that fact.

If Zionism wanted peace in the area, it would have informed the United Nations of the boundaries of the Israeli entity. Saudi Arabia challenged the Zionist to declare the boundaries of the State of which they dreamt.

Sweden said absent from Council resolutions 242 and 338 was an explicit reference to the rights of the Palestinians as a people. "They are referred to as refugees and, one must passume, indirectly as one of the 'parties concerned' mentioned in resolution 338". Sweden felt that both justice and political realism demanded that the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people--including their right to a State of their own-- be recognized as a fundamental premise for negotiations towards a comprehensive settlement of the conflict.

The USSR said that over the last year substantial chasnges had taken place in American policy on the Middle East, and that was the main reason why the Middle East situation was growing even more dangerous. It had shifted to direct intervention in the affairs of Arab States and peoples and had a clear-cut anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian character.

Tel Aviv's "piractical policy" now included Lebanon. Systematic military blackmail and pressure had also been directed at Syria, which was now daily the subject of gross military provocations. "Behind the Israeli aggressor, its senior strategic partner and protector has now stood up to its full stature". The Middle East had become the setting for "truly feverish military and political activity on the part of the United States".

One quarter of the entire United States military budget consisted of expenditures for preparing and launching interventions against newly emancipated countries. The United States' rapidly growing military threat to third world countries, including the Arab States. Its policy relied on strong-arm tactics, blackmail, unceremonious interference in the internal affairs of Arab States and encouragement of Israel's aggressive leanings.

In their struggle, the Arab people could continue to firmly rely on the support and aid of the Soviet Union. "The Soviet Union has never been, and will never be, a passive observer of events in the Middle East, a region in immediate proximity to our southern boundaries, a region in which the United States and Israel are trying to perpetuate a flagrant injustice against the Arabs".

The total failure of American aggression against Viet Nam would inevitably be folowed by the total failure of United States aggression against the Arabs, the Soviet Union concluded.

The United States did not participate in the debates on either Palestine or the Middle East. However, on 13 and 19 December, in explaining its votes on resolutions on those issues, the United States said that it was deeply concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people and shared many of the concerns expressed during the debate. It had given concrete expression to those feelings, unlike many who had spoken, in contributing to United Nations activities which sought to alleviate their suffering. Some Governments which professed at the rostrum devotion to the Palestinian cause actually had "a long and dishonourable record of killing Palestinians, of promoting internecine fighting among the Palestinians and of cynically manipulating the Palestinian issue for their own narrow political ends".

Free and unconditional negotiations among the parties to the conflict had to take place. The 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israel treaty, both firmly grounded in resolutions 242and 338, had led to Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territory and established a framework for future negotiations on the West Bank of Gaza.

Once again, the time of the Organization had been taken up by an assortment of drafts better described as "emotional polemics". The resolutions adopted would do nothing to further the cause of peace, which could only come about through direct, unconditional negotiations among the parties to the conflict. The United States remained firmly committed to helping create the conditions in which such nmegotiations could be realized. It opposed any resolution which would hinder negotiations among the parties peacefully to settle their difference, which sosugh to put the burden of blame on one party to the conflict and to dictate the results of a political settlement. Thus, it oppsed all the resolutions on the Middle East, which would only contribute to the continued diplomatic deadlock.

In particular, one resolution was "especially repugnant" to the United States, as it represented an inadmissible intrusion on the right of one sovereign State to conduct relations with another. The strengthening of the relationship between the United States and Israel was central to the pursuit of peace and not aimed against any State in the region. The meeting between President Reagan and Prime Minister Shamir had been prom

pted in part by "a mutual concern over insidious influences from outside the region" which sought to block peace efforts.