GENERAL ASSEMBLYS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON TERRORISM DISCUSSES POSSIBLE HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE20000221
In Press Release L/2942 issued 15 February, the two statements of the representative of Lebanon on page 4 should read as follows:
HOUSSAM ASAAD DIAB (Lebanon) said that, in answer to the representative of the Israeli occupying forces, his statement yesterday had not been an attempt to discuss the problems of the Middle East. The issue of State terrorism did come under the mandate of the Committee. Isnt the use of force or the threat of use of force by a certain group against a civilian population or against civilian targets for political purposes the definition of terrorism? And when Israel used its air force against civilians, was that not State terrorism? That was what happened when Israel chose to walk out of the April Understanding instead of withdrawing from Lebanon, and to intentionally bomb civilians and civilian targets in Lebanon. That was clear-cut evidence of acts of international terrorism.
Mr. DIAB (Lebanon) said when a State occupied the territories of another country, it had to expect losses among its forces. The occupying force was so arrogant and haughty that it had tried to convince its citizens that occupation and stealing land was not costly, as in building settlements at the expense of the Arab territories. Israel continued to try to fasten its occupation on the Lebanese territories, through terrorizing the Lebanese population, destroying its vital infrastructure and the massacre of Quana and other acts of killing and kidnapping. Israeli attacks had failed after Lebanon refused to succumb to such terrorism. If Israel was serious about establishing peace, it needed to withdraw from the Golan Heights to the borders before 4 July 1967, and to withdraw completely from southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa, in compliance with Security Council resolution 425.
* *** *