CEIRPP meeting – Press release

U N I T E D    N A T I O N S

Press Section

Office of Public Information

United Nations, N.Y.

(FOR USE OF INFORMATION MEDIA — NOT AN OFFICIAL RECORD)

Committee on Rights of                               Press Release GA/PAL/15

 Palestinian People                                  8 April 1976

11th Meeting (AM)

PALESTINIAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE HEARS STATEMENTS BY CYPRUS, INDONESIA,

LAO REPUBLIC, AFGHANISTAN, GUINEA, INDIA

     The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable  Rights of  the Palestinian People heard six statements this morning in its continuing general debate. Speaking were the representatives of Cyprus, Indonesia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Afghanistan, Guinea and India.

     Comments were also made by the representatives of Cyprus, the German

Democratic Republic and Tunisia.

     The Committee also this morning granted the request of the League of Arab

States for observer status.  The Committee had previously agreed to observer

status for Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Mauritania, Syria and the Palestine

Liberation Organization (PLO).

     The Committee adjourned to meet informally and will hold its next open

meeting at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, 13 April, when the Representative of Greece

is listed to speak in the general debate.

     Statements Made

     ZENON ROSSIDES (Cyprus) expressed satisfaction with the working methods of the Committee whereby open meetings were alternated with informal working

sessions.  The mandate of the Committee, he noted, was to implement resolutions to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence and their right of return.  Although the matter was closely related to the Middle East problem it was a separate matter, he stated.

     Concerning the right of return, he said that that was vital because it

went to the core of the Middle East problems and dealt with a fundamental human right.  To be forced to live away from home was one of the greatest of human sufferings, he observed.

     The Committee's task, he continued, was important not only in respect to

the Palestinian people, but also in respect to its effect on the Middle East

problem and the world security.  The Committee must work in an atmosphere of

unquestioned objectivity.

     He said that there were certain principles and doctrines of universal

acceptance which must be taken into account, including principles which had

been articulated by the League of Nations.

     Accepting that Israel did not intend to change the demographic character

of the territory, which would be an international crime of magnitude, there

could be no objection by Israel to the return of the Arabs to their home,

he said.  If Israel did object, it would have to explain why.

     AUGUST MARPAUNG (Indonesia) said that his country had long recognized

that the question of Palestine constituted an integral part of the Middle

East problem as a whole, and that the debates in the past had proved futile,

largely because the central issue of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian

people was ignored.  Indonesia had always consistently supported the cause

of the Palestinians and maintained that the PLO must play its role in

representing its people and upholding their rights.

     Further, the Middle East question could not be considered apart from

its root causes, which were mainly two-fold, he said.  The first was the

injustice which had long been inflicted upon the Palestinians, who were the

indigenous inhabitants of what is today Israel.  The second root cause was

the continued occupation by force of arms of territories belonging to three

neighbouring Arab countries.  So long as those questions were unsolved,

it would be an illusion to imagine that the Middle East conflict would be

resolved.

     The 106 resolutions of the General Assembly and the 138 resolutions of

the Security Council on the subject left no doubt that it was the considered

opinion of those bodies that the rights of the Palestinians, whether living

as refugees or under Israeli occupation, must be respected and accommodation

of those rights was essential to the settlement of the conflict, he stated.

     The historic decisions of the thirtieth session of the General Assembly

symbolized not only the growing recognition that the problem of Palestine

had ramifications of vital importance to world peace, but also represented

concrete measures to help restore their fundamental rights to the Palestinians

and were augmented by the invitation extended to the PLO by the Security

Council to participate on an equal footing with other members in the

deliberations of the Council.

     His delegation hoped that several valuable proposals made by the

representative of the PLO during the course of his statements would be the

guiding elements according to which the Committee would formulate its

recommendations.  ???articular mention should be made to the proposal for the

return of the Palestinians to the territories occupied by them prior to 1967,

without linking that question to any other issues, he said.  Equally

important was the emphasis on such sacred and inalienable rights as self-

determination, national independence and sovereignty.

     He said his delegation also found merit in the Yugoslav suggestion that

the Committee maintain contact with the parties directly concerned, as well

as hold consultations with the members of the Security Council.  It was a

matter of urgency that the Permanent Members, jointly as well as separately,

make use of their power of persuasion and exercise their influence to help

solve the conflict.  The Committee could also play a role to ascertain what

constructive moves towards a settlement could be, and it was incumbent on

the Council to determine the steps to be taken in order to overcome the

impasse and to attain a general settlement.

     The Security Council, he said, could not maintain its authority and

credibility as the organ primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace

and security if it was unable to act against Israel's continued defiance of

its decisions.  If it was incapable of restoring to the Palestinians their

just rights, it would then be incumbent upon the Committee, in the formulation

of its recommendations, to take into account as General Assembly resolution

3230 (XXX) stated, "all the powers conferred by the Charter upon the principal

organs of the United Nations".

     He said it was equally important that the holy city of Jerusalem be

restored to Muslim hands, so that the adherents of Islam might be ensured

free and open access to their sacred shrines.

     It was most important that a time-table should be established as regards

withdrawal of occupation forces, the dismantling of settlements already

established, the return of the Palestinians to their homes and the return of

the refugees displaced between 1948 and 1967, he said.  His delegation also

envisaged a vastly increased role for the United Nations not only to promote

a solution to the question but also to facilitate the transitional period,

which would inevitably follow the implementation of recommendations.  It

might even become necessary at some stage for the establishment of a special

United Nations machinery, analogous to the United Nations Council for Namioia,

as had been proposed by one of the delegations.

     He said that as a matter of priority, those refugees who had left Palestine in the aftermath of the 1967 war should be given an opportunity to return to their land, without in any way linking that action to the over-all settlement of the conflict, with such a return taking place no later than 1 June 1977. Furthermore, the resources and expertise of the Red Cross, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) or some such body should be utilized in order to facilitate the return of the refugees.  The Security Council might also play its role by providing

temporary peace-keeping forces.

     KHAMTHONG BOULOM (Lao Republic) said that delegates might be surprised

at his Government's presence on the Committee, since in the past it had

abstained on almost all questions relating to the Middle East, including the

Palestinian question.  The explanation, he said, lay in the fact that his

country had been in the grip of an inherently feudal and corrupt regime and

subjected to American imperialism which was a natural ally of Israel.

     His country now lent its firm support to the cause of the Palestinian

people.  Those people had suffered and were still suffering from the most

serious injustice of the age, he said.

     He said his country's votes during the thirtieth session of the General

Assembly on resolutions 3375 (XXX), 3376 (XXX) and 3379 (XXX) on Zionism as

a form of racism, as well as his Government's decision to break diplomatic

relations established by its previous regime with Israel, showed the firm

determination of his Government to stand resolutely on the side of the Arab

people in their efforts to wipe out the consequences of Zionist aggression

and to recover the occupied territories.

     His country felt that, if no equitable solution was found in the

foreseeable future, there was danger of the Middle East being plunged into

military trials which could engulf the world.  The main urgent and difficult

task of the Committee was to translate rights into fact, he stated.

     The two-phase programme which had been proposed by the PLO representative

was wise, in his view, and his delegation supported it.  As for the time-table

for the return, he would support any proposal that had the best chance for

implementation.

     It was essential, he said, that Israel abandon its policy of establishing

new settlements in the occupied territories.  Israel should also withdraw its

nationals from established settlements and should comply with the provisions

of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

     MIR ABDUL WAHAB SIDDIQ (Afghanistan) said that the present tragedy was the product of the struggle waged by the indigenous Palestinian people against

aliens who had converged from abroad upon an Arab-inhabited country with the

sole intention of creating a Jewish state.  The origin of the problem and

the root cause of the present conflict, as well as the key to its resolution,

rested upon that issue.  The problem also involved the seizure of both the

national resources of the people of Palestine and the private property of its

individual inhabitants, with the refusal of the Arab world to acquiesce in

that attempt to destroy a nation  explaining the bitterness and the

persistence of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

     He said that, at the twenty-ninth session, the following facts were

accepted by the United Nations General Assembly:  ???hat the question of

Palestine was at the heart of the over-all issue in the Middle East conflict;

and that durable and lasting peace in the Middle East could not be achieved

without the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people

to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in their

fatherland.  That decision had been endorsed by the thirtieth session of the

General Assembly with respect to the question of Palestine.

     Thus far, he said, many useful proposals had been made with respect to

the fulfilment of the mandate of the Committee, including the proposal that

the Palestinians' right to return to their homeland should be recognized and

implemented.  As a first step towards that end, it had been recommended that

the Palestinians displaced in June 1967 should be allowed to return

immediately and without any conditions to the occupied territories, he noted.

     His delegation fully supported the point made that the Security Council

should recommend that Israel desist from establishing new settlements in the

occupied territories and that it withdraw its citizens from the settlements

already established since June 1967.  While the first stage of the return

of the Palestinians was being implemented, a programme of return should be

outlined for the Palestinians displaced in 1948 from the territories occupied

by Israel.

     In the event of Israel's refusal to allow the Palestinians to return

to their homeland, and on any other relevant legal matter, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice could be requested, he suggested.  In order to implement the right of return of the Palestinians, it might be necessary for the United Nations to perform certain functions or to create new bodies and agencies.

     ABRAHAM DOUKOURE (Guinea) recalled that Israel had accepted without

reservations all obligations to comply with the provisions of the United

Nations Charter.  Israel, however, was far from scrupulously abiding by

those provisions, and the violations had required the Security Council to

ask that Israel withdraw  its forces from the occupied territories.

     He went on to say that Israel was a pillar of imperialism.  Israel had

massacred women and children on the Golan Heights, he added.

     It must be recognized that the PLO was the legitimate representative of

the Palestinian people and should be a spokesman on an equal footing with all

the participants concerned, he said.

     With regard to the right of return, he said that it should be in two

phases:  a return upon the liberation of the occupied territories and another

return of refugees who had left their homes before 1947-1948.

     RIKHI JAIEAL (India) said that the Committee was limited to formulating

a programme of implementation of the rights of the Palestinians.  Those rights

had been defined as the right to return and the right to self-determination

and national independence.

     The views of the PLO, he continued, were very relevant to the work of

the Committee.  With regard to the programme for the return, as proposed by the ??? representative, he noted that it was a good plan and would be practical if given a time-frame.  Nevertheless, the programme should be without prejudice to the wishes of those who wished to return immediately.

     In his view, it was essential for the Committee to come up with a practical programme within a fixed time frame and with the assistance of the United Nations.

     Comments Made

     Mr. ROSSIDES (Cyprus) said that the Committee must proceed in a practical

manner.  It would be a wise policy for Israel not to refuse the return of the

refugees as that would place it in an untenable position and affect the whole

Middle East situation.  Therefore, he said, there was hope that Israel would

not refuse the return of refugees.  If it did, then, of course, the Security

Council would become involved.

     However, he was concerned that the Security Council did not seem to

mind the failure to implement its resolutions.  How could the Committee rely on such a body? he asked.

     It would be a good thing, in his view, if the Security Council embarked

on a course of enforcement of its resolutions.  He supported the remarks

made by the representative of India.

     GUENTER MAUERSBERGER (German Democratic Republic) said it would be useful

to have some indication as to whether the parties concerned which had been

invited to participate in the work of the Committee had expressed any interest

in doing so.

     The Chairman, MEDOUNE FALL (Senegal), said he would reply to that question in a closed meeting.

     RACHID DRISS (Tunisia) referred to the statement by the representative of

Cyprus and asked what position he held concerning the homes of the Palestinians who had left before 1967.  He expressed support for the statement by the representative of India; that approach was realistic and practical.

     Mr. ROSSIDES (Cyprus) said he had not mentioned the refugees from 1948

because he was concentrating on the first stage of the return of Palestinians.

However, he had long supported the cause of the Palestinian people and was

surprised that his position was in doubt.

     Mr. DRISS (Tunisia) said he had merely wished a clarification and was

not questioning the position of Cyprus or of Ambassador Rossides.

* *** *