United States vetoes draft resolution condemning Israeli acts in Lebanon.

A draft resolution by which the Security Council would have condemned the "Israeli practices and measures against the civilian population in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashava district which are in violation of the rules and principles of international law, in particular the provisions of the Geneva Confention of 12 August 1949" was vetoed by the United States in the Council on 12 March.

Under the draft resolution, submitted by Lebanon, the Council would also have demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, desist forthwith from its practices against the civilians in those three regions and immediately lift all restrictions and obstacles to the restoratin of normal conditions in the areas under its occupation in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and other norms of international law.

The United States, in opposing adoption of the draft resolution, said it was unbalanced, did not accord Israel "fair treatment", and applied "double standards".

The voting on the next (S/17000), was 11 in favour (Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, France, India, Madagascar, Peru, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukranian SSR, USSR) to 1 against (United States), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, United Kingdom). The draft resolution was not adopted due to the negative vote of a permanent member.

Under the Lebanese draft, the Council would have reaffirmed the urgent need to implement the provisions of previous Council resolutions on Lebanon, which demanded that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon.

The Council would also have reiterated its call for strict respect for the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries, and would have affirmed that the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 applied to the territories occupied by Israel in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district and that the occupying Power was duty bound to respect and uphold the provisions of that Convention and of other norms of international law.

The Council would also have requested the Secretary-General to establish a fact-finding mission to report to the Council on Israeli practices and measures in those three regions, to keep the situation under review, to consult with the Government of Lebanon and to report to the Council on the implementation of and compliance with the resolution as soon as possible.

The Council held four meetings, beginning on 28 February, in response to a request for an urgent meeting "to consider the continuing acts of aggression and abusive practices of Israeli occupying forces in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district" contained in a letter of 25 February from Lebanon to the Council President (S/16983).

The Council reviewed six documents. Four of them were letters dated 25, 25, 26 February and 4 March to the Secretary-General from Lebanon containing details of "continuing abusive Israeli operations and practices in southern Lebanon" (S/16974), S/16974/Add. 1, S/16990 and S/16997). In document S/16997 Lebanon said a "massacre" had been perpetrated by Israeli forces at Maarakah, south of the Litani River in the vicinity of the town of Tyre. It said Israeli forces had planted mines and explosives at the village mosque and had blown it up when villagers had gathered there on 4 March. According to preliminary reports, it went on, at least 15 people were killed, 45 were wounded, and "dozens" were trapped amid the rubble.

Israel, in a letter of 6 March to the Secretary-General (S/17007) rejected what it termed the "false assertions" made by Lebanon and stated that Israel had "no involvement whatsoever" in the explosion near the mosque in Maarakah.

A letter of 6 March to the Secretary-General from India (S/17008) contained the text of a communique adopted on that day by the Coordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-aligned Countries regarding the situation in the areas occupied by Israel in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district.

Rachid Fakhoury (Lebanon) said Israel had used its military machine to "lay siege to peaceful Lebanese villages, storming them and attacking their citizens, defenceless, unarmed old people, women and children" who were resisting the "occupying aggressor with the pride and sincerity of nationalism". Armed resistance was an inevitable result of the Israeli invasion and occupation and the "inhuman practices" against the Lebanese. The situation in the Israeli occupied territories had deteriorated. There had been a "continuing escalation of the siege of villages and towns, acts of oppression, killing, detention, forced exile, demolition of homes", humiliation of the inhabitants, indiscriminate firing into homes and streets and kidnappings.

Lebanon had sincerely attempted to help bring about a successful outcome to the military talks of Naqoura, called for by the Secretary-General with the aim of obtaining full Israeli withdrawal and making arrangements to achieve security and stability after the withdrawal. Israel continued to refuse to present the detailed timetable for withdrawal that Lebanon demanded. It refused to give any role to the "legitimate" Lebanese army, and continued to insist on putting power in the area from the southern Litani to the international borders in the hands of "illegitimate local forces created, armed and trained" by it. It had refused to allow UNIFIL to deploy to the international borders, in accordance with Council resolution 425 (1978).

Israel persisted in its attempt to empty southern Lebanon of UNIFIL and insisted on its deployment in areas north of the Litani, he stated. It had refused to continue to take part in the Naqoura talks, and had presented Lebanon and the United Nations with faits accomplis. It then unilaterally had begun to implement a redeployment of its forces. That "stubborn" Israeli stand had led to the end of the Naqoura talks, which were now at an impasse, despite the fact that during the talks, in response to an Israeli request, Lebanon had presented a complete plan for the deployment of the Lebanese army in the areas to be evacuated by Israel. Lebanon was still prepared to consider anything that would lead to arrangements that would help a planned Israeli withdrawal, when Israel provided a "clear, sincere response".

The unilateral nature of Israel's redeployment plan in three stages had made it impossible to co-ordinate with Israel. Lebanon continued to support UNIFIL's role as long as Israel provided a concrete timetable for its complete withdrawal from Lebanon. However, Lebanon continued to have doubts concerning Israel's last two stages in its redeployment plan because they still required new decisions by the Israeli Government. The third stage of redeployment did not constitute a "true" withdrawal so long as that decision set out a security belt in which Israel might maintain nominal forces--"a decision whereby Israel arrogates to itself the rights to re-enter any region from which it has withdrawn".

On 11 March, he said, Israeli forces had launched a large-scale raid against the village of Zarrariye, north of the Litani River, in the region from which Israel had withdrawn a few weeks earlier. They bombed the village, then captured 24 inhabitants, "mowing them down by gunfire before the very eyes of their families".

Speaking after the vote, Mr. Fakhoury said the American veto encouraged Israel to proceed with its "brutal policies" and its defiance of the Council. That stand would not affect Lebanon's insistence on liberating southern Lebanon, Bekaa and Rashaya from the yoke of Israeli occupation.

Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel) said Israel had agreed to meet the Lebanese at Naqoura to negotiate security arrangements which, among other things, would facilitate Israel's withdrawal. But Lebanon, under Syrian pressure, had refused. It was after that last Lebanese "abrogation of responsibility", after "all other avenues were exhausted", that Israel had chosen to act on its own. As Israel had chosen to act on its own. As Israel entered the second phase of its withdrawal to the international border, it still sought the widest co-operation to complete it in as orderly and peaceful a manner as possible. During the months that accompanied Israel's decision to withdraw, the Beirut Government did not respond to Israel's urgings to coordinate its withdrawal. It had not agreed to arrange an "orderly transfer of authority", including the use of United Nations forces, as a way of minimizing violence in the evacuated areas.

The Lebanese Government expressed its "seeming indignation" when the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), after "unusual restraint in the face of countless provocations", took the necessary action to protect its soldiers. Indeed, all Israeli actions had been directed at preventing "terrorists" from attacking Israeli forces and from organizing a "safe haven" for future attacks on them as they left Lebanon.

The claim that Israel was not sincere in its withdrawal plans because it had not published an exact timetable was unfounded. Israel had expressed its belief that the withdrawal was expected to take from six to nine months. "Specifying a more exact timetable is not practical, since conditions on the ground change with each phase of the withdrawal, especially since the terrorist attacks may require a modification in the IDF's timing and procedures."

He said the Lebanese Government had not only decided to "curry favour with terror"; it had actually decided to "incite" it. Israel did not have to justify to anyone its determination to continue to protect its soldiers and its people. "But let no one confuse our decision to depart with our commitment to continue to defend our towns and villages. Furthermore, as we leave we do not intend to permit murderous attacks on our forces to go with impunity. And as we leave we will take every measure necessary to prevent further killings." The Government in Beirut should help end terror in the south as well as everywhere else in Lebanon.

Speaking on 7 March, Mr. Netanyahu said the people, who were sick of violence, had rejected the "murderous incitement" of some local leaders "inspired by Khomeini and directed by Syria". But a few villages, mostly in the Tyre area, had "succumbed to the incitement from Damascus, Tehran and the realy station in Beirut". Israeli search and patrol missions had "tracked terrorists" to those villages. They had taken unusual care to place only the minimal restrictions needed to apprehend the terrorists and to uncover their hidden weapons.

Speaking on 12 March, Mr. Netanyahu said Israel would continue to "track our attackers back to their havens, confiscate their weapons and thwart their plans to murder us". What Lebanon had said about the action in Zarrariye was "flatly, completely false". Israeli forces, after receiving "reliable intelligence" that armed terrorists were preparing to launch further attacks against them from that village, had entered Zarrariye and were met with gunfire and rockets. Over 30 terrorists were killed, several dozen were captured and an enormous amount of weapons, explosives and mines was uncovered. Israel's actions against its attackers were "exaggerated and distorted beyond belief". As for attacks on Israel and its citizens, Israel would hold Lebanon responsible for failing to live up to its international obligations. The adoption of the draft resolution would be a "truly historic surrender to blackmail" by Council members.

Council members

Mohamed Ibrahim Shaker (Egypt) said Israel's "indiscriminate practices" in Lebanon, which were a violation of international law, the Geneva Conventions and United Nations resolutions, should be ended immediately. Israel should completely and unconditionally withdraw to international borders. The fact that in southern Lebanon the citizens had "shouldered their national responsibility for defence and resistance" represented a "natural reaction to the Israeli occupation".

Repressive measures would not be able to turn the tide of national resistance. There should be an accelerated Israeli withdrawal within a clear and comprehensive time-frame. Israel should be compelled to respect and to implement the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and of Council resolutions 425 (1978), 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), and to respect Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United Nations should support peacke-keeping machinery in Lebanon "within the framework of complete Lebanese sovereignty" and with Lebanon's agreement and full co-operation.

Warren Clark (United States), speaking on 28 February, said it was essential to do everything possible to "expedite an orderly and rapid" Israeli withdrawal. Lebanon and Israel should return to the military-to-military talks between them at Naqoura to find practical ways to implement the second and third stages of Israel's withdrawal.

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (United States), speaking on 7 March, said her Government had been subjected in the previous week to "direct threats" against its nationals serving in peace-keeping functions for the United Nations in Lebanon. Those threats had been specifically linked to the United States' actions in the Council, "in a gross and vile attempt to influence the participation and vote of the United States". Prior threats to the United States concerning a prior Council meeting in a "not dissimilar context" had resulted in the loss of American and Lebanese lives.

Two were directed against United States officers serving with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in southern Lebanon "if the United States vetoed the Lebanese draft resolution". A United Nations military official in Lebanon was told by "an important Amal representative" that countries which used their veto in the Council would "face strong problems". The United States and the United Kingdom were specifically mentioned. Other, "less specific" threats had also been received.

She said she had brought the United States' concerns about threats to American personnel to the Secretary-General's attention, "and the United Nations Headquarters saw fit, on the basis of its own review of the situation, to call for the withdrawal of United States personnel from United Nations peace-keeping forces in Lebanon". The Council was directly threatened by threats against any of its members "in relationship to any process" of the council. The United States called on all Council members to repudiate the threats against its "deliberative process".

The United States continued to be an active supporter of United Nations peace-keeping functions in Lebanon and outside it. It strongly supported the Secretary-General's recommendations concerning the restoration of peace in the area. The best hope for peace and security for the people of southern Lebanon would be a rapid and co-ordinated Israeli withdrawal resulting in the restoration of Lebanese Government sovereignty and control over the region "and, indeed, the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon and the restoration of the full sovereignty of the Lebanese Government in all its territory". The cycle of violence in Lebanon was "fed by unbalanced, unfair resolutions, as by terrorism, aggression, retribution and hate".

Vinay Verma (India) said the latest Israeli acts in the village of Maarakah, which resulted in numerous casualties and injuries, were in violation of the principles of the Charter, the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention and the norms of international law. Responsibility for the hardships of civilians in southern Lebanon rested with Israel, which should be made to discharge its obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the norms of international law.

It must be ensured that there was no repetition of the "atrocities" committed by Israel against Lebanese and Palestinians and of the "genocidal massacres of Sabra and Shatila". Council resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982) should be speedily implemented to ensure the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Israel should indicate the "exact and full time frame" for its complete withdrawal plan, to permit the resumption of the Naqoura talks with a view to securing, without further delay, a peaceful and orderly Israeli withdrawal. The Council must act decisively and with a sense of purpose to halt Israeli aggression and intransigence.

Oleg A. Troyanovsky (USSR) said Israeli occupation had caused incalculable suffering and privation for hundreds of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians. Recently, massive repression against the Lebanese had been greatly escalated. The "occupiers" had imposed a blockade of Lebanon's southern regions, and had "perpetrated there a bloody massacre". Israel had turned southern Lebanon into a "vast dungeon where every day, every hour more and more crimes" were committed. It would be hard to find any provisions or norms of international law, or of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israeli forces had not violated. Israeli forces had frequently employed force against UNIFIL personnel that were attempting to carry out the functions entrusted to them by the United Nations. The Council should secure respect for the flag and the forces of the United Nations in Lebanon and insist that there be no interference in their activities.

It would be desirable for the Secretary-General to keep the Council informed on a regular basis with regard to the state of affairs in the area occupied by UNIFIL and of all instances in which that Force was not in a position to perform its functions. It was "quite natural and logical that Lebanese patriots should rise up" to protect their homeland. Israel was practising "State terrorism" on Lebanese soil. The present Israeli "reign of terror" in Lebanon was, to a large extent, a direct consequence of the attitude taken by the United States, "as well as of the entire policy of Washington, which is aimed at giving every encouragement and support to its junior strategic partner". Israel should withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to Lebanon's internationally recognized boundaries.

Leandre Bassole (Burkina Faso) said Israel was not only refusing to submit a comprehensive plan for the withdrawal of its troops from southern Lebanon, a region it had occupied illegally, "thereby raising doubts about its true intentions"; it was also "massacring the civilian populations and destroying entire towns and villages". Israeli troops had no respect for the elementary principles of human rights. It was time for Israel to abide by the relevant Council and General Assembly resolutions and decisions by withdrawing from southern Lebanon and by facilitating the peaceful and comprehensive settlement of the Middle East issue, under United Nations auspices.

The resumption of the Naqoura talks had become necessary. To bring that about, Israel would have to submit a complete and comprehensive plan for the withdrawal of its forces from southern Lebanon with the necessary guarantees for respect for those commitments. Matters before the Council should be debated with no pressure brought to bear from any quarter on any Council member.

Peter M. Maxey (United Kingdom) said there should be an early, complete and orderly Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. All foreign forces in Lebanon, except those present at the Lebanese Government's request, should withdraw early from the country, whose sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity within its international recognized boundaires must be respected. Israel should scrupulously respect international conventions on humanitarian law applicable to armed conflicts. Such security measures as Israel might find it necessary to institute must be within the framework of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israel and all others concerned should show full respect for, and cooperate with, UNIFIL, which must continue to perform its present functions. The Naqoura talks should be reconvened without delay. Everything possible should be done to ensure an "orderly and co-ordinated" Israeli withdrawal. United Nations machinery, including UNIFIL, could play an important role in assisting that process. In the meantime all concerned should exercise maximum restraint. A diplomatic solution was "still both right and possible".

Speaking after the vote, he stressed the "unacceptability of threats to United Nations personnel". Despite certain positive aspects, he said, the draft resolution took "insufficient account" of the need to "dampen the cycle of violence", and to promote the urgently needed peaceful diplomatic solution.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) said Israel should withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon. Denmark had urged Lebanon and Israel to show flexibility in establishing security arrangements in southern Lebanon and to do everything possible to prevent new acts of violence in the area of the Israeli withdrawal. A speedy and total Israeli withdrawal was needed. Denmark urged all parties to show the utmost restraint. Israeli occupations forces should uphold the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as of other norms of international law.

Both Lebanon and Israel should give priority to promoting an orderly and complete withdrawal of Israeli forces. The framework of the Naqoura talks would be useful in securing arrangements for a complete Israeli withdrawal and early restoration of the Lebanese Government's authority in southern Lebanon. The Secretary-General and UNIFIL would be able to play a valuable role in the zones to be evacuated, especially as regarded ensuring the safety of the region's inhabitants and guaranteeing Lebanon's territorial integrity.

Cavan Oliver Hogue (Australia) said there should be strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized boundaries. Australia deplored all acts of violence in Lebanon, especially those which endangered civilian lives. All foreign forces, except those in Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese Government, should withdraw from that country. A complete withdrawal of Israeli forces according to an agreed timetable was essential. Australia supported the Secretary-General's call for the reconvening of the Naqoura talks as a means of achieving that objective.

Israeli forces in withdrawing had been subject to attacks, and some IDF actions might have been undertaken in self-defence. But other IDF actions appeared to have been "severe" and had caused concern to Australia because of their severity. Their should be strict respect for the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and for the rights of the civilian population. Australia continued to support the role of UNIFIL "in the difficult environment in which it is required to function". All acts of violence against UNIFIL " from whatever quarter" were to be deplored.

Ling Qing (China) said Israeli troops had "seriously trampled underfoot" the provisions of the 1949 Geneva conventions by their recent "atrocities" and the heavy losses of life and property inflicted by them on the Lebanese. Certain "chieftains" of the Israeli occupying troops had asserted that they were going to take further actions of terror. "As the memories of the tragic massacre of innocent civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982 are still fresh, we cannot but worry about the recurrence of similar bloodshed."

By invading and prolonging its occupation of Lebanon, Israel had seriously violated the basic norms governing international relations and the purposes and principles of the Charter. Israel must withdraw its troops from Lebanon immediately, completely and unconditionally. Under no pretext should Israel continue its occupation of southern Lebanon, pursue its "iron-fist policy" and "bully" the local inhabitants.

Birabhonge Kasemsri (Thailand) said the brutal reprisals by Israeli forces against the civilian population in southern Lebanon appeared to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. It was incumbent on Israel to desist from such actions. The root cause of the bloodshed and suffering was the continuing illegal occupation of Lebanese territory by Israel. With the increasing difficulties, there was even greater urgency that the total withdrawal of Israeli forces to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon be accomplished expeditiously and in an uninterrupted manner.

Thailand supported the Lebanese Government's efforts to extend its authority over all of its territory. All foreign forces must withdraw from Lebanon, unless the Lebanese Government chose otherwise. All relevant Council resolutions must be implemented without undue delay. Thailand hoped that an agreement could be reached to enable the Israeli withdrawal to proceed unimpeded with an expeditious timetable.

Claude de Kemoularia (France) said France deplored acts of violence of "any sort" which could make the search for peaceful solutions more difficult. Council members were "surely unanimous" in rejecting any form of external pressure on one or more Council members that could violate the independence or the functioning of a principal United Nations body. Israel must scrupulously implement provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. There had been several deeply regrettable clashes between Israeli forces and UNIFIL elements carrying out a mission of peace and protection of civilian population.

It should be possible to reduce considerably the present tension by returning to the negotiating table. France hoped that the parties concerned would resume their talks to develop security arrangements which could make a real contribution to restoring calm, facilitate the total withdrawal of Israeli forces and permit a re-establishment in the region of the Lebanese Government's authority.

Guennadi Oudovenko (Ukrainian SSR) said the situation in southern Lebanon was extremely dangerous. During recent days, the scale of mass punitive operations had become particularly cruel. Israel, as the occupying Power, had "crudely violated" the relevant norms of international humanitarian law, the Charter and the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and of the 1907 Hague Convention. The "aggressor" would not behave so "insolently and provocatively" were it not for the "comprehensive assistance and support" of the United States.

The United States was to blame for the fact that the unanimously adopted Council resolutions 508 and 509 on the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces to the internationally recognized borders of Lebanon--a "most important prerequisite" for a settlement of the situation in Lebanon--remained unimplemented. It was necessary to ensure respect for Lebanon's territorial integrity and independence, and to end the "arbitrary will" and violence of the Israeli occupiers concerning the civilian population. The Secretary-General should regularly inform the Council about all cases where obstacles were created by Israel to UNIFIL carrying out its functions.

Ricardo V. Luna (Peru) said the situation had worsened significantly. The Council should make use of the "precarious machinery" that existed for a dialogue between the parties and work for the effective and speedy resumption of contacts between the military authorities to complete the withdrawal process already under way, so as effectively to guarantee the human rights of the civilians in keeping with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

If that was not attained, the present "critical situation could worsen even more radically, jeopardizing any potential rapprochement or initiative aimed at disentangling the complex situation in the Middle East". Although the Council had not heard any denial of the Lebanese complaints, condemnations should be "in keeping with facts that are suitably corroborated at the international level". It was the duty of all States individually and of the United Nations as a whole to reject categorically the "blackmail by certain boscure extremist groups in a crude attempt to influence" the United States' vote on the current problem.

Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) said the area occupied by Israel had become a "real battlefield--for an unequal battle between civilian populations and highly trained and over-armed occupiers". The repeated, systematic and flagrant violation of a number of articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not constitute selfdefence. Israel had given its armed forces carte blanche to repress "nationalists who are obliged to oppose occupation by all means". Israel knew full well that the Shiite opposition in that area had always been very strong. Israel's occupation of part of Lebanon was illegal. The origin of the cycle of violence must not be sought in Lebanese resistance.

Israel's "iron fist" policy, instead of suppressing resistance, had only encouraged it. Lebanon, and in particular the civilians of southern Lebanon, western Bekaa and the Rashaya district, had basically become victims of the controversy in Israeli political circles--those favouring total withdrawal and those who grudgingly had accepted phased redeployment. Israel had deliberately placed itself outside international law and had engaged in reprehensible acts in occupied Lebanese territory. The Council had an obligation to condemn Israel's present practices in occupied Lebanese territory and to demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its occupying forces from Lebanon.

Hamid Mohammed (Trinidad and Tobago) said his Government was very concerned by reports of the increased violence accompanying the withdrawal of Israeli troops--reports of the death of "innocent civilians, imposition of restrictions, imprisonment, human degradation and general devastation". His Government could not condone either the earlier violations of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty or the more recently reported violations of the Lebanese and their land.

Both Israel and Lebanon could usefully engage in consultations and discussions aimed at working out the modalities that would ensure a peaceful Israeli withdrawal. Those consultations might also provide a forum and an opportunity to draw up a programme and timetable for "the total and complete withdrawal". Such consultations might yield "insights into the subsequent requirements" for the maintenance of law and order in the evacuated areas, and might also indicate possibilities for an enhanced role for United Nations peace-keeping operations.

Other speakers

The representatives of Qatar, the Syrian Arab Republic, Algeria, Yugoslavia, Iran, League of Arab States, Democratic Yemen, Cuba, Jordan, German Democratic Republic, United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, Viet Nam, Palestine Liberation Organization, Cyprus, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Poland, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Pakistan, Sudan and Czechoslovakia also participated in the debate.

Dia-Allah El-Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic) said the "barbaric acts perpetrated by Israel" in southern Lebanon were serious violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel, which was using "State terrorism" as a means of perpetuating its occupation, remained in southern Lebanon to realize its economic and political ambitions. Israel's withdrawal from Sidon and its environs was merely a redeployment of forces in lands that "lie within Israel's expansionist plans". Council resolutions 508 and 509 should be implemented. The events in Lebanon since 1982 had shown a "complete collapse" of the United States foreign policy concerning Lebanon and that region. The Syrian Arab Republic would continue to provide assistance and aid to the Lebanese so that they could liberate their land from the "Israeli invaders".

Farouk A. Kasrawi (Jordan) said Lebanon's complaint was justified by the "tyranny, high-handedness and brutality of the Israeli occupation forces and the repressive arsenal mercilessly put into effect" against the civilian population of the area under Israeli occupation. That population had suffered a "whole range of atrocities". Israel had "trampled underfoot" the Fourth Geneva Convention. The resistance that Israel was encountering in southern Lebanon was only a normal reaction to its own use of force. The only solution for southern Lebanon was a withdrawal by the Israeli forces from all the recently occupied Lebanese territories, "not recourse to repression".

Hamad Abdelaziz Al-Kawari (Qatar), speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group, said the Lebanese people's "legitimate resistance" to the "brutal Israeli occupation--invoked by Israeli in a vain attempt to justify its barbaric acts--was the right of every people whose lands had been occupied by force, particularly when the international community was unable to put an end to the occupation or to restore the land to its rightful owners". The Israeli attempt to describe that "national resistance" as "acts of aggression" fooled no one.

Noting the success of the Lebanese resistance in "compelling the forces of occupation" to withdraw from the Sidon area, he said: "We have no doubt that, in the event that international legitimacy fails to end the occupation, the Lebanese resistance will be capable of making the occupying forces withdraw from the other Lebanese territory which continues to be occupied by Israeli forces, without a legal leg to stand on, and flagrantly flouting the resolutions of this Council."