[Part III of  UN YEARBOOK 1982 excerpts]

Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic
In 1982, the General Assembly as well as the Security Council dealt with the situation in the Syrian Golan Heights following Israel's December 1981 decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Israeli-occupied territory (see below, under ANNEXATION OF THE GOLAN HEIGHTS).

The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), established by the Council in 1974,(1) continued to supervise the observance of the cease-fire between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic in the Golan Heights area and to ensure, in accordance with its mandate, that there were no military forces in the area of separation. Its mandate was renewed by the Council twice during the year, in May and November, each time for six months. Composed of contingents from four countries and operating under a new Commander, it continued to be financed by assessments on all Member States, with costs totalling $33 million for the year ending 31 May 1983.

Resolution. (1) SC: 350 (1974), 31 May 1974 (YUN 1974, p. 205).
UN Disengagement Observer Force

Activities

With the mandate of UNDOF expiring on 31 May and 30 November 1982, the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council two reports, on 20 May and 18 November, giving an account of the activities of the Force for the two six-month periods from 21 November 1981 to 20 May 1982(1) and 21 May to 18 November 1982,(2) respectively.

The Secretary-General stated that UNDOF had continued to perform its functions effectively and that, during the periods under review, the situation in the Israel-Syria sector had remained quiet, with no serious incidents. The cease-fire in the area of separation between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic had been maintained, and no complaints had been lodged by either party. However, restrictions on the Force's freedom of movement still existed and efforts to correct the situation were
continuing.

As at 18 November, UNDOF maintained 34 positions and 12 outposts, and conducted 33 patrols daily and 26 at irregular intervals. It continued to conduct fortnightly inspections of armaments and forces in the area of limitation, and to clear land-mines.

The Secretary-General stated in each report that, despite the prevailing quiet in the sector, the Middle East situation as a whole continued to be potentially dangerous and was likely to remain so without a comprehensive settlement. In the circumstances, he considered the continued presence of UNDOF in the area to be essential and recommended, with the assent of the Syrian Arab Republic and the agreement of Israel, that the Council extend its mandate for further periods of six months each.

Reports. S-G, (1) S/15079, (2) S/15493.
Composition

As at 18 November 1982, the composition of UNDOF was as follows:

Country

Number of troops

Austria

528

Canada

220

Finland

388

Poland

131

United Nations  military observers

18

1,285

SOURCE: S-G report, S/15493.

In addition, observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization assigned to the Israel-Syria Mixed Armistice Commission assisted UNDOF as required.
Commander

By a letter of 28 April 1982,(2) the Secretary-General informed the Security Council President that the Commander of UNDOF, Major-General Erkki Raine Kaira of Finland, was resigning and that he intended, subject to consultations, to appoint Major-General Carl-Gustav Stahl of Sweden as Commander, effective 1 June. By a letter of 30 April,(1) the President replied that the Council members had considered the matter in informal consultations on 29 April and had agreed with the Secretary-General's proposal.

Major-General Kaira was repatriated on medical grounds and was replaced temporarily by the Chief of Staff, Colonel Walter Schmit (19 February-12 June), until Major-General Stahl assumed command on 13 June.

Letters. (1) SC President, 30 Apr., S/15020; (2) S-G, 28 Apr., S/15019.
Continuation

By resolutions of 26 May(3) and 29 November 1982,(4) prepared during consultations and adopted unanimously, the Security Council renewed the mandate of UNDOF for six months, until 30 November 1982 and 31 May 1983, respectively. It requested the Secretary-General to submit at the end of each period a report on developments and measures taken to implement a 1973 Council resolution calling for a cease-fire and peace negotiations.(5)

Following adoption of the resolutions, the President made the following statement on behalf of the Council:(1,2)

"In connection with the adoption of the resolution on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, I have been authorized to make the following complementary statement on behalf of the Security Council regarding the resolution just adopted:

'As is known, the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force states, in paragraph 28 [27 in the November report], that "despite the present quiet in the Israel-Syria sector, the situation in the Middle East as a whole continues to be potentially dangerous and is likely to remain so unless and until a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem can be reached." This statement of the Secretary-General reflects the view of the Security Council.'"

Notes. SC President, (1) S/15l24, (2) S/15504.

Resolutions (1982). SC: (3) 506 (1982), 26 May, text following; (4) 524 (1982), 29 Nov., text following.

Resolution (prior). (5) SC: 338 (1973), 22 Oct. 1973 (YUN 1973, p. 213).

Meeting records. SC: S/PV.2369, 2403 (26 May, 29 Nov.)
Security Council resolution 506 (1982)
26 May 1982       Meeting 2369  Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/15118).

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force,

Decides:

(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 30 November 1982;

(c) To request the Secretary-General to submit, at the end of this period, a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).

Security Council resolution 524 (1982)
29 November 1982      Meeting 2403      Adopted unanimously

Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/15503).

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations  Disengagement Observer Force,

Decides:

(a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973);

(b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is until 31 May 1983;

(c) To request the Secretary-General to submit, at the end of this period, a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).
Financing

By a resolution of 30 November 1982,(3) the General Assembly appropriated a total of $33,160,498 for UNDOF spanning the two six-month extensions of the Force's mandate approved by the Security Council in 1982 – 1 June to 30 November 1982 and 1 December 1982 to 31 May 1983. The amount for the first period was $15,973,998 gross ($15,784,998 net of staff assessment) and $17,186,500 gross ($16,984,000 net) for the second. Should the Council decide to continue the Force beyond 31 May 1983, the Secretary-General was authorized to enter into commitments at a rate not to exceed $2,864,416 gross ($2,830,666 net) per month for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1983. Under other provisions, the Assembly stressed the need for voluntary contributions and decided on the apportionment of expenses among Member States in a pattern similar to that for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (see above).

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 95 to 3, with 17 abstentions. The Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, on 29 November, had approved the draft, which incorporated cost estimates prepared by the Secretary-General, together with a text on suspension of Financial Regulations (see below), by a recorded vote of 73 to 3, with 14 abstentions.

The financing of UNDOF was considered by the Committee on the basis of reports by the Secretary-General and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).

In an October report,(2) the Secretary-General gave cost estimates for the period from 1 December 1982 to 30 November 1983 totalling $34,373,000 assuming an average strength of 1,290 troops. Among the major components of the total were $15.4 million for pay and allowances for troops, $3.2 million for salaries and related costs of staff $3.1 million for maintenance and operation of motor transport and other equipment, $2.4 million for premises and utilities, and $2.1 million for rations.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNDOF
(as at 31 December 1982; in US dollars)

Country

Assessments in 1982

Paid in 1982

Total contributions outstanding

Afghanistan

317

2,841

Albania

630

20,271

Algeria

7,574

3,582

38,193

Angola

317

1,255

Argentina

49,229

34,100

15,129

Australia

577,483

577,483

Austria

224,051

224,051

Bahamas

630

315

1,875

Bahrain

630

630

Bangladesh

1,260

540

3,523

Barbados

630

630

Belgium

384,989

94,029

385,504

Benin

317

9,944

Bhutan

317

317

Bolivia

630

12,303

Botswana

317

452

116

Brazil

80,156

117,752

Bulgaria

10,099

107,339

Burma

630

630

Burundi

317

9,944

Byelorussian SSR

123,070

104,944

711,234

Canada

1,035,051

1,035,051

Cape Verde

317

135

4,354

Central African Republic

630

20,271

Chad

317

9,944

Chile

4,417

4,417

China

615,727

615,727

Colombia

6,943

6,943

Comoros

317

4,624

Congo

630

20,271

Costa Rica

1,263

1,855

Cuba

6,943

1,358

5,585

Cyprus

630

630

Czechoslovakia

261,918

245,707

845,353

Democratic Kampuchea

630

20,271

Democratic Yemen

317

5,024

Denmark

233,517

233,517

Djibouti

317

999

Dominica

317

999

Dominican Republic

1,893

9,554

Ecuador

1,263

1,224

631

Egypt

4,417

2,210

11,730

El Salvador

630

5,604

Equatorial Guinea

630

315

14,353

Ethiopia

317

317

Fiji

630

315

315

Finland

151,472

151,472

France

2,379,281

3,494,667

519,403

Gabon

1,263

552

7,227

Gambia

630

2,034

German Democratic Republic

38,635

300,000

1,748,715

Germany, Federal Republic of

2,622,341

2,622,341

Ghana

1,893

2,782

Greece

22,091

22,091

Grenada

317

159

6,589

Guatemala

1,263

2,313

631

Guinea

317

4,614

Guinea-Bissau

317

703

Guyana

630

630

Haiti

317

9,280

Honduras

630

611

315

Hungary

20,828

222,102

Iceland

9,467

9,467

India

37,869

37,869

Indonesia

10,099

10,099

8,725

Iran

41,024

132,511

Iraq

7,574

92,014

Ireland

50,491

50,491

Israel

15,779

29,810

Italy

1,088,698

1,055,025

544,598

Ivory Coast

1,893

6,023

Jamaica

1,263

632

631

Japan

3,023,106

2,929,073

1,511,596

Jordan

630

315

315

Kenya

630

250

926

Kuwait

12,263

12,263

Lao People's Democratic Republic

317

1,792

Lebanon

1,893

36,220

Lesotho

317

958

Liberia

630

13,125

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

14,515

188,445

Luxembourg

15,780

15,780

Madagascar

630

2,067

Malawi

317

1,153

Malaysia

5,678

9,584

1,002

Maldives

317

317

135

Mali

317

587

Malta

630

926

Mauritania

630

10,538

Mauritius

630

315

611

Mexico

47,966

48,318

182

Mongolia

630

315

8,441

Morocco

3,153

6,565

Mozambique

317

6,170

Nepal

317

568

Netherlands

514,370

514,370

New Zealand

85,203

85,203

Nicaragua

630

3,577

Niger

317

618

Nigeria

10,099

14,836

Norway

157,781

157,781

Oman

630

630

858

Pakistan

4,417

5,129

2,147

Panama

1,263

18,342

Papua New Guinea

317

421

Paraguay

630

20,271

Peru

3,783

22,375

Philippines

6,312

6,312

Poland

391,298

948,662

195,655

Portugal

11,991

11,955

36

Qatar

1,893

1,845

5,343

Romania

13,255

84,157

Rwanda

317

158

159

Saint Lucia

317

587

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

317

159

158

Samoa

317

159

969

Sao Tome and Principe

317

1,074

Saudi Arabia

36,606

36,606

Senegal

317

1,302

158

Seychelles

317

317

Sierra Leone

630

296

11,412

Singapore

5,047

5,047

Solomon Islands

317

999

Somalia

317

317

South Africa

132,538

2,720,044  

Spain

107,294

538,688

6

Sri Lanka

1,263

632

1,223

Sudan

317

159

6,271

Suriname

317

568

Swaziland

630

20,271

Sweden

413,390

413,390

Syrian Arab Republic

1,893

27,142

Thailand

6,312

6,312

Togo

630

815

Trinidad and Tobago

1,893

1,893

Tunisia

1,893

947

5,977

Turkey

18,936

19,627

Uganda

317

7,018

Ukrainian SSR

460,724

392,865

2,657,471

USSR

4,218,855

3,596,598

23,667,767

United Arab Emirates

6,312

13,500

3,156

United Kingdom

1,695,142

1,695,142

United Republic of Cameroon

630

1,472

United Republic of Tanzania

317

7,148

United States

9,612,689

9,612,689

Upper Volta

317

2,655

Uruguay

2,521

1,184

3,149

Venezuela

31,556

46,356

Viet Nam

1,893

10,733

Yemen

317

9,544

Yugoslavia

26,507

60,183

84,701

Zaire

1,263

4,065

Zambia

1,263

2,447

Zimbabwe

630

313

317

Total

31,679,813

32,116,673

37,203,032

NOTE: Total contributions outstanding includes contributions due for UNDOF from its inception on 31 May 1974 through 30 November 1982 and those due for the second United Nations Emergency Force (1973-1979); between 1974 and 1979 there was a single account for the two Forces.

SOURCE: Status of contributions, ST/ADM/SER.B/265.
The Secretary-General reported that, as at 30 September 1982, he had received $18.4 million in contributions for UNDOF for the period from 1 December 1981 to 30 November 1982. The balance due from Member States for this period amounted to 813.3 million, of which $0.1 million comprised amounts apportioned among States which had stated that they did not intend to pay.

For the period from 25 October 1979 to 30 November 1982, out of appropriations totalling $73.1 million, there had been a shortfall estimated at $3.4 million in contributions owing to non-payment by certain Member States. That situation, the Secretary-General said, placed a heavy burden on the troop contributors, as reimbursements to them had not been made in time or in accordance with agreed rates. No voluntary contributions had been received in response to a call made by the Assembly in November 1981.(5)

The Secretary-General's cost estimates for the 12 months beginning 1 December 1982 were approved by the Assembly as recommended by ACABQ in a November report.(1)

Introducing both draft resolutions, Canada, on behalf of the 10 Sponsors, explained that they were based on 1980(4) and 1981(5) resolutions on the same subject. Peace-keeping operations being among the most important United Nations activities, all Member States, particularly Security Council members, had a responsibility to support UNDOF. The refusal of some States to pay and the lack of voluntary contributions had resulted in the Organization's inability to reimburse the troop contributors, which was likely to lessen the ability of developing countries to participate in peace-keeping operations. The fact that China had joined those paying their contributions(6) was an example which others would do well to follow.

Though expressing appreciation for UNDOF the Syrian Arab Republic voted against the appropriation resolution, saying that, as the presence of the Force was a direct result of Israel's aggression and continued occupation of Arab territories in defiance of United Nations resolutions, its financing should be borne by the aggressor and those who supported it; by financing UNDOF through contributions from all Member States, no distinction was made between the aggressor and the victim of aggression.

A similar view that the aggressor should pay was expressed by Benin and Iraq, which voted against, as well as by Cuba, Democratic Yemen and Yemen, which abstained. In Benin's opinion, it was obvious that the peace-keeping operations had not produced any solution and were ineffective; international imperialism had even taken advantage of their presence by permitting Israel to continue its military operations. Cuba stated that it had not contributed to the financing of the Force in the hope that that would improve the Middle East situation.

Abstaining in the vote, the USSR said that, while it supported UNDOF in general, it could not support the increase in expenditures, for which neither the Secretary-General nor ACABQ had given any cogent reasons.

The Congo said it voted in favour in the hope that the great Powers and the United Nations would settle the Middle East question taking into account the inalienable rights of the Palestinians. Also supporting the resolutions, Israel said peace-keeping operations were by definition only temporary and could be no substitute for a peaceful settlement; as imperfect as they were in bringing about a final solution, they seemed better than any alternative in the current circumstances. Japan, stressing the valuable role of peace-keeping operations and the collective financial responsibility of all Member States, said the withholding of contributions was one of the main causes of the financial emergency of the United Nations and imposed an additional financial burden on contributing States.

Morocco remarked that the mandates of the peace-keeping forces had been renewed year after year with no thought given to the rights which had been violated, the populations displaced and the atmosphere of insecurity created by one country which continued its aggression; the United Nations must take steps to ensure security in the region. The United States said peace-keeping forces were the very essence of the principles for which the United Nations had been established and provided a means of maintaining peace while long-term solutions were negotiated; the withholding of contributions threatened the continued participation of some troop-contributing countries and the viability of the United Nations as a peace-keeping organization.

Reports. (1) ACABQ, A/37/597; (2) S-G, A/37/534 & Corr. 1.

Resolution (1982). (3) GA: 37/38 A, 30 Nov., text following.

Resolutions (prior). GA: (4) 35/45 A, 1 Dec. 1980 (YUN 1980, p. 366); (5) 36/66 A, 30 Nov. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 296).

Yearbook reference. (6) 1981, p. 1298.

Status of contributions. ST/ADM/SER.B/265.

Meeting records. GA: 5th Committee, A/C.5/37/SR.45, 47 (26, 29 Nov.); plenary, A/37/PV.85 (30 Nov.).

General Assembly resolution 37/38 A
30 November 1982     Meeting 85  95-3-17 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/37/681) by recorded vote (73-3-14), 29 November (meeting 47); 10-nation draft (A/C.5/37/L.26, part A, approved together with part B (see resolution 37/38 B)); agenda item 114 (a).

Sponsors: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, as well as the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Bearing in mind Security Council resolutions 350 (1974) of 31 May 1974, 363 (1974) of 29 November 1974, 369 (1975) of 28 May 1975, 381 (1975) of 30 November 1975, 390 (1976) of 28 May 1976, 398 (1976) of 30 November 1976, 408 (1977) of 26 May 1977, 420 (1977) of 30 November 1977, 429 (1978) of 31 May 1978, 441 (1978) of 30 November 1978, 449 (1979) of 30 May 1979, 456 (1979) of 30 November 1979, 470 (1980) of 30 May 1980, 481 (1980) of 26 November 1980, 485 (1981) of 22 May 1981, 493 (1981) of 23 November 1981, 506 (1982) of 26 May 1982 and 524 (1982) of 29 November 1982,

Recalling its resolutions 3101 (XXVIII) of 11 December 1973, 3211 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, 3374 C (XXX) of 2 December 1975, 316 D of 22 December 1976, 32/4 C of 2 December 1977, 33/13 D of 8 December 1978, 34/7 C of 3 December 1979, 35/44 of 1 December 1980, 35/45 A of 1 December 1980 and 36/66 A of 30 November 1981,

Reaffirming its previous decisions regarding the fact that, in order to meet the expenditures caused by such operations, a different procedure is required from that applied to meet expenditures of the regular budget of the United Nations,

Taking into account the fact that the economically more developed countries are in a position to make relatively larger contributions and that the economically less-developed countries have a relatively limited capacity to contribute towards peace-keeping operations involving heavy expenditures,

Bearing in mind the special responsibilities of the States permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of such operations, as indicated in General Assembly resolution 1874 (S-IV) of 27 June 1963 and other resolutions of the Assembly,

I

Decides to appropriate to the Special Account referred to in section II, paragraph 1, of General Assembly resolution 3211 B (XXIX) the amount of $15,973,998 gross ($15,784,998 net) authorized and apportioned by section III of Assembly resolution 36/66 A for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1982, inclusive;

II

1. Decides to appropriate to the Special Account an amount of $17,186,500 for the operation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 1 December 1982 to 31 May 1983, inclusive;

2. Decides further, as an ad hoc arrangement, without prejudice to the positions of principle that may be taken by Member States in any consideration by the General Assembly of arrangements for the financing of peace-keeping operations, to apportion the amount of $17,186,500 among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and the provisions of section II, paragraphs 2 (b) and 2 (c), and section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 3374 C (XXX) section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 31/5 D, section V, paragraph 1 of resolution 32/4 C, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 33/13 D, section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 34/7 C, section V paragraph 1, of resolution 35/45 A and section V, paragraph 1, of resolution 36/66 A; the scale of assessments for the years 1980,1981 and 1982 shall be applied against a portion thereof, that is $2,864,417, being the amount pertaining on a pro rata basis to the month of December 1982, and the scale of assessments for the years 1983,1984 and 1985 shall be applied against the balance for the period thereafter;

3. Decides that there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided in paragraph 2 above, their respective share in the estimated income of $10,000 other than staff assessment income approved for the period from 1 December 1982 to 31 May 1983, inclusive;

4. Decides that, in accordance with the provisions of its resolution 973 (X) of 15 December 1955, there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraph 2 above, their respective share in the Tax Equalization Fund of the estimated staff assessment income of $192,500 approved for the period from 1 December 1982 to 31 May 1983, inclusive;

III

Authorizes the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force at a rate not to exceed $2,864,416 gross ($2,830,666 net) per month for the period from 1 June to 30 November 1983 inclusive, should the Security Council decide to continue the Force beyond the period of six months authorized under its resolution 524 (1982), the said amount to be apportioned among Member States in accordance with the scheme set out in the present resolution;

IV

1. Stresses the need for voluntary contributions to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force both in cash and in the form of services and supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to take all necessary action to ensure that the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force is conducted with a maximum of efficiency and economy;

V

1. Decides that Antigua and Barbuda, Belize and Vanuatu shall be included in the group of Member States mentioned in paragraph 2 (d) of General Assembly resolution 3101 (XXVIII) and that their contributions to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the resolution adopted by the Assembly at the current session regarding the scale of assessments;

2. Decides further that, in accordance with regulation 5.2 (c) of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the contributions to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 November 1982 of the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 of the present section shall be treated as miscellaneous income to be set off against the appropriations apportioned in section II above.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Albania, Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstaining: Algeria, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Hungary, Lao People's Democratic Republic,a/ Mongolia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam, Yemen.

a/  Later advised the Secretariat it had not intended to participate in the vote.
Suspension of Financial Regulations

By a resolution of 30 November 1982,(3) the General Assembly decided to suspend certain provisions of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations to enable the Organization to retain the surplus balance of $7,403,489 in the UNDOF account, instead of having to return this "book surplus" to Member States as a credit against their subsequent assessments.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 95 to 11, with 11 abstentions. The Fifth Committee, on 29 November, had approved the draft, together with the resolution on appropriations for UNDOF,(2) by a recorded vote of 73 to 3, with 14 abstentions. The drafts were sponsored by 10 nations and introduced by Canada.

According to the ACABQ report of November 1982 on UNDOF financing,(1) the surplus balance represented the interest and miscellaneous income recorded as at 31 December 1981 in the combined account of the former United Nations Emergency Force (1973-1979) and UNDOF. This amount remained on the books after the annual appropriation for UNDOF had been fully spent, although it had in fact been drawn upon to meet the Force's expenses as a supplement to income from contributions, because of the need to make up the short-fall resulting from withholding by some States.

The USSR, explaining its vote against the resolution, advocated strict compliance with the Financial Regulations to ensure economy and efficiency and the return of unspent funds to Member States.

Report. (1) ACABQ, A/37/597.

Resolutions (1982). GA, 30 Nov.; (2) 37/38 A; (3) 37/38 B, text following.

Meeting records. GA: 5th Committee, A/C.5/37/SR.45, 47 (26, 29 Nov.); plenary, A/37/PV.85 (30 Nov.).
General Assembly resolution 37/38 B
30 November 1982     Meeting 85   95-11-11 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/37/681) by recorded vote (73-3-14), 29 November (meeting 47); 10-nation draft (A/C.5/37/L.28, part B, approved together with part A (see resolution 37/38 A)); agenda item 114(a).

Sponsors: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden.

The General Assembly,

Having regard to the financial position of the Special Account for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, as set forth in the report of the Secretary General, and referring to paragraph 5 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Mindful of the fact that it is essential to provide the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force with the necessary financial resources to enable it to fulfil its responsibilities under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council,

Concerned that the Secretary-General is continuing to face growing difficulties in meeting the obligations of the Forces on a current basis particularly those due to the Governments of troop- contributing States,

Recalling its resolutions 33/13 E of 14 December 1978, 34/7 D of 17 December 1979, 35/45 B of 1 December 1980 and 36/66 B of 30 November 1981,

Recognizing that, in consequence of the withholding of contributions by certain Member States the surplus balances in the Special Account for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force have, in effect, been drawn upon to the full extent to supplement the income received from contributions for meeting expenses of the Forces,

Concerned that the application of the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations would aggravate the already difficult financial situation of the Forces,

Decides that the provisions of regulations 5.2 (b), 5.2 (d), 4.3 and 4.4 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations shall be suspended in respect of the amount of $7,403,489, which otherwise would have to be surrendered pursuant to those provisions, this amount to be entered in the account referred to in the operative part of General Assembly resolution 33/13 E and held in suspense until a further decision is taken by the Assembly.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Mongolia, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.

Abstaining: Algeria, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Grenada, Lao People's Democratic Republic,b/ Poland, Romania, Viet Nam, Yemen.

b/  Later advised the Secretariat it had not intended to participate in the vote.

Situation in the
territories occupied by Israel

Annexation of the Golan Heights

In 1982, the Security Council, at nine meetings in January, and the General Assembly, in January/February and November/December, dealt with the situation concerning the Golan Heights following the enactment by Israel's Knesset (Parliament) on 14 December 1981 of legislation to extend Israeli laws, jurisdiction and administration to the area.(29) Since 1967 the Golan Heights, a part of the Syrian Arab Republic near the borders with Israel and Lebanon, had been occupied by Israel. On 17 December 1981, both the Council and the General Assembly had decided that the decision was null and void and called on Israel to rescind it.

In January 1982, the Council, owing to the negative vote of a permanent member (United States), failed to adopt a draft resolution by Jordan calling for a condemnation of Israel and deciding that all United Nations Members should refrain from assisting and co-operating with Israel. In view of the lack of unanimity among its permanent members, the Council called on 28 January for the holding of an emergency special session of the Assembly. Accordingly, the Assembly convened its ninth such session from 29 January to 5 February and, by a resolution of 5 February, condemned Israel for not rescinding its decision and called for the severance of relations with Israel and for its total isolation; the Assembly termed the Israeli decision an act of aggression and effective annexation.

By several resolutions adopted in December at the regular session, the Assembly reiterated its demand that Israel rescind its decision. The decision was also condemned by the Commission on Human Rights in February, and by a number of States in communications to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council.

The situation in the Golan Heights was also examined by the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories. The Committee stated in its annual report, adopted in August,(15) that the decision to annex the area had triggered an unprecedented wave of resistance.

Communications (6-15 January). On 6 January 1982,(3) Cuba transmitted a communiqué of a 5 January meeting in New York of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, condemning Israel's action of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Golan Heights, and calling on the Security Council to take measures under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations (on action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression) to oblige Israel to restore all occupied Syrian territories to the full sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic.

On 8 January,(10) Jordan conveyed a letter of 7 January from the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the Security Council President, calling on the Council to adopt firmer and more effective measures against Israel in view of its annexation of the Golan Heights.

On 5 and 7 January, respectively, Mongolia(11) and Benin(2) transmitted government statements (Mongolia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs representative, 18 December 1981; Benin, Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Parti de la Révolution Populaire du Bénin, 28 December 1981) condemning Israel's action. Similarly, Cyprus, by a note verbale of 15 January,(5) informed the Secretary-General of the adoption on 14 January by its House of Representatives of a resolution condemning the annexation.

Security Council consideration (6-20 January), At eight meetings between 6 and 20 January 1982, the Security Council resumed its consideration of the situation in the Golan Heights resulting from Israel's December 1981 decision to apply its laws, jurisdiction and administration to that territory. The meetings were held in accordance with the Council's decision, in its December 1981 resolution on the question,(27) that in the event of Israel's non-compliance with its demand to rescind the decision it would meet again urgently to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter.

On 20 January, the Council voted on a revised draft resolution submitted by Jordan,(1) strongly condemning Israel for its failure to comply with the resolutions on the Golan Heights adopted in December 1981 by the Council(27) and the General Assembly,(24) and determining that Israel's measures in the area, culminating in its December 1981 decision, were an act of aggression under Article 39 of the Charter (the first Article of Chapter VII). The Council would have decided that all Member States should consider applying concrete measures in order to nullify the annexation and to refrain from providing any assistance to and co-operation with Israel, in all fields, in order to deter it in its policies and practices of annexation.

Acting under Article 25 (by which United Nations Members agree to accept and carry out Council decisions), the Council would have called on Member States to carry out its decision. It would also have urged non-members to act accordingly and called on United Nations bodies and agencies to conform their relations with Israel to the terms of the resolution. A committee would have been established to examine and report on implementation of the resolution.

The draft, which received 9 votes to 1 (United States), with 5 abstentions (France, Ireland, Japan, Panama, United Kingdom), was not adopted due to the negative vote of a permanent Council member.

The original version of this proposal would have had the Council decide that all Member States should refrain from supplying Israel with any weapons and related military equipment and should suspend any military as well as economic, financial and technological assistance to Israel. In addition, it would have requested that Members consider suspending diplomatic and consular relations with Israel.

Jordan, introducing the original version, said it was the unanimous draft of the Arab world represented in the League of Arab States and had the consensus support of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and the support of all other regions. The Arab world, facing all-out aggression, was determined to defeat and repel that aggression by all possible means provided in the Charter nevertheless, to facilitate acceptance, the proposal was selective in its choice of measures and was truly minimal.

Opposing the draft, the United States considered it an aberration of the very purpose of the Council because, far from preventing an aggravation of the situation, it had already exacerbated the problem by dividing people, sowing suspicions and feeding hostilities; although disapproving of Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, the United States would not be deterred from its search for constructive means to achieve peace for Israel and its neighbours.

Those abstaining in the vote nevertheless reiterated their condemnation of Israel's decision and considered it null and void. France and the United Kingdom felt that the draft did not provide the basis for a consensus. France thought a really constructive resolution should have recalled the need for withdrawal from the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and should have included provisions opening the way to a Middle East peace, including recognition of the rights of the Palestinians. The United Kingdom had doubts about a Council determination that Israel's action constituted an act of aggression; instead, the Council should have called on all States to refrain from any acts or dealings which would imply recognition of or lend support to Israel's decision, and should have required Member States to refrain from providing assistance that would be used in the Golan Heights, refuse to have any contact with Israeli institutions there and refrain from participation in events or activities organized there by Israel.

Ireland expressed similar views about the desirable contents of a Council resolution; it also found the call on Member States to refrain from co-operating with Israel in all fields to be too broad, adding that it would have preferred a call to refrain from aid or co-operation which would encourage Israel in its annexation policies.

Though demanding that Israel immediately rescind its decision and seeing grounds for considering some kind of punitive action, Japan questioned whether the draft would contribute to a real solution of the problem, which was rooted in the unstable Middle East situation.

The USSR felt that the draft was not enough, as it did not provide the necessary decisive measures against Israel, under the circumstances, however, its adoption would be in the interests of the Syrian Arab Republic and other victims of Israeli aggression. Zaire explained that the draft had to be seen as the outcome of intensive efforts at compromise in the group of the non-aligned countries members of the Council.

The Syrian Arab Republic stated that, by trying to absolve Israel, the United States was helping to legitimize and prolong Israeli occupation not only of the Golan Heights but also of other Arab territories, both the United States and Israel were blackmailing the Syrian Arab Republic to make it surrender its rights as well as those of the people of Palestine.

Because of permissiveness and depleted resolve, Jordan said, one or more of the major Powers was unwilling to go along with the draft, suggesting conditions and negotiations with the aggressor after he had eaten the cake. The draft was a mere first step towards implementation of Chapter VII of the Charter. The latest Israeli measures not only constituted a clear-cut act of aggression, but also a continuing threat to peace and security in the Middle East as in the whole world.

The United Arab Emirates expressed grave concern at the United States veto; had it not been for United States support, Israel would not have dared to commit acts of aggression against the Arabs and to treat the Council resolutions with defiance and contempt.

Prior to the vote, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, the German Democratic Republic, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, the Ukrainian SSR, the United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen and Yugoslavia, were invited, at their request, to participate in the debate without the right to vote.

At Jordan's request in a letter of 5 January,(9) the Council extended an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure f/ to the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations. The Council also decided by a vote, requested by the United States, of 11 to 1 (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Japan United Kingdom), to accord an invitation to a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to participate in the debate and that the invitation would give PLO the same rights of participation as those conferred on a Member State when invited under rule 37. g/ The latter invitation had also been proposed by Jordan on 5 January.(8)

f/ See footnote b.

g/ See footnote a.

Starting the debate, the Syrian Arab Republic reaffirmed its view that the annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel was an act of aggression and a grave breach of international law, as well as a unilateral breach of the 1967 cease-fire.(28) By changing the status of the Golan Heights from an occupied to an annexed territory, Israel was threatening the foundations of the international political system, returning to the time when States took the law into their own hands. The Council had the duty to determine the existence of a threat to peace, breach of peace and a flagrant act of aggression. The Syrian Arab Republic also reaffirmed its right to demand that the Council impose sanctions in order to compel Israel to abrogate its annexation, withdraw unconditionally from the occupied Syrian territories and thereby protect Syrian territorial integrity. If the Council failed to discharge its responsibilities, the Syrian Arab Republic reserved its right to deal with Israel's aggression under Article 51 (on the right of self-defence).

Israel stated that the Syrian Arab Republic had persistently and adamantly refused to recognize or negotiate with Israel, or even to maintain tolerable neighbourly relations. Between 1948 and 1967 it had made the Golan Heights the most advanced bridgehead for aggression and harassment of Israel and its population. In disregard of the Council's affirmation in 1967 of the right of every State in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries(23) and its 1973 call for peace negotiations,(26) it had refused to go beyond agreements on a cease-fire and military disengagement. The aim of the legislation for the Golan Heights enacted in the absence of peace or even negotiations, was to normalize the situation in the area. The rights of the local population, including property rights and the right to education and religious worship, were fully safeguarded. Israel declared itself ready to negotiate unconditionally with the Syrian Arab Republic and its other neighbours for a lasting peace in accordance with the 1967(25) and 1973(26) Council resolutions on principles for a Middle East peace.

Most of the other speakers condemned Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, urged its withdrawal from the area and urged the Council to take strong measures in order to bring about Israel's compliance and reinforce its own authority and credibility. Most of these specifically called for the imposition of sanctions, including Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burundi, China, Cuba (for the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries), Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen (as Chairman of the Arab Group), the German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, Togo, Uganda, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, the PLO Observer and the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States. Others calling for Council action to obtain Israel's compliance but not specifically urging sanctions were Greece and Senegal.

Portugal, stressing the unanimity with which the Council had acted in December 1981, asked it to ensure favourable conditions for the observance of principles agreed on by the international community; if the Council were again to act unanimously, it would increase its moral authority to which Portugal attached particular importance. Though regarding the request for sanctions as legitimate and well founded, Zaire remarked that any division in the Council on the means would complicate peace initiatives, whereas a unanimous position would have enormous moral weight, which Israel could not disregard because of its increasing isolation; Zaire suggested that the Council call on Member States to refrain from all actions that might imply recognition or support of Israel's decision to annex the Golan Heights, and that it consider having the Secretary-General or a committee undertake renewed efforts for a solution to the Middle East crisis.

In Spain's opinion, the Council could not remain inactive, because that would open the door to similar Israeli action in another territory; Spain would support measures to compel Israel to rescind its decisions and withdraw from the occupied territories.

Many speakers referred to Israel's latest action as an act of aggression. Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic cited the Definition of Aggression adopted by the General Assembly in 1974,(23) which included "any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof.

In the opinion of Algeria, Guyana, Mongolia, the Sudan, the USSR, Yemen and the PLO Observer, the annexation was another step towards the annexation of other occupied Arab territories. Without firm Council action, stated China, what had happened in regard to the 1,600 square kilometres of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel could recur in another Arab nation, and what had happened in the Middle East could recur elsewhere, with the result that aggressors would become even more reckless and unbridled. Democratic Yemen warned that the annexation might be a harbinger of more United States military involvement in the Middle East.

Guyana stated that, by annexing the Golan Heights, Israel was unilaterally seeking to alter the accepted basis for a Middle East settlement, which the Council must not permit. Others, among them Senegal, also felt that the issue of the Golan Heights had to be considered in the context of an overall solution to the Middle East problem. Togo said that, by increasing tension in the region, Israel's decision jeopardized efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement of the Israel-Arab conflict and the establishment of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. In the opinion of Poland and Zaire, the Israeli decision emphasized more forcefully than ever the urgency of achieving an over-all political settlement.

Yugoslavia expressed the view that the annexation had unforeseeable consequences for the Middle East situation as well as for wider international relations, and was a serious blow to all constructive efforts for a peaceful Middle East solution. Saudi Arabia considered the annexation a calculated move to undermine the Middle East peace process and to render a just, permanent and comprehensive solution an impossibility. Bulgaria said Israel's decision was a premeditated political provocation designed to heighten tension in the Middle East.

Ireland said any implication that Israel did not consider its decision as absolutely unalterable should be welcomed.

Several speakers said Israel was being shielded from the consequences of its aggressive moves by the United States veto in the Council, which prevented the Council from taking effective measures to deter Israel. Among those holding this opinion, or otherwise criticizing United States support for Israel, were Afghanistan,, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Mongolia Qatar, the Ukrainian SSR, the United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen and the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States.

India welcomed the fact that the United States had suspended its strategic co-operation agreement with Israel following the Golan Heights decision. However, the USSR remarked that the verbal acrobatics and pseudo-quarrels surrounding the revocation of that agreement did not alter the essence of the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv; Israel had virtually received its mandate for the annexation from the United States in spite of the latter's attempt to dissociate itself from the action through symbolic reprimands.

Further communication (25 January). By a note verbale of 25 January,(4) Cuba transmitted a communiqué adopted that day by a meeting in New York of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, expressing grave concern at the Security Council's failure to take measures against Israel under Chapter VII of the Charter and strongly urging the Council to convene an emergency special session of the General Assembly on the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights.

Security Council action (28 January). Stating that the lack of unanimity among its permanent members had prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council, by a resolution of 28 January,(22) decided to call an emergency special session of the General Assembly on the Golan Heights issue.

The resolution was adopted by 13 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (United Kingdom, United States). Its sponsor, Jordan, stated in introducing it that Israel's refusal to heed the Council's December 1981(27) call to rescind its decision compelled United Nations Members to decide on measures to restore and maintain international peace and security.

The United Kingdom was not convinced that a further discussion in the Assembly would help achieve the objective of getting Israel to rescind its decision and to refrain from similar actions; it would prefer to see the Council make a further effort to reach agreement on a resolution. The United States argued that no practical purpose would be served by holding another debate, which would be an exercise in futility that would not advance the cause of peace.

Agreeing with the convening of an emergency special session, France said it was prepared to join in measures designed to express the fact that Israel's decision was null and void, however, it could not support provisions which contravened the rules of competence applied to the Council and the Assembly as set forth in the Charter, and would oppose in particular any resolution involving sanctions.

Israel held that there was no basis for convening an emergency special session simultaneously with the regular Assembly session (then in recess), even if one were to assume that an emergency situation did exist. Israel reiterated this opinion in letters of 28 January to the Secretary-General and the Council President.(6)

General Assembly action (February). In accordance with the 28 January Security Council resolution, the General Assembly convened from 29 January to 5 February in its ninth emergency special session.

By a resolution of 5 February,(17) adopted after 10 meetings of debate, the Assembly strongly condemned Israel for its failure to comply with the Security Council's and its own call to rescind the decision to impose Israeli laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Golan Heights. Declaring that the decision constituted an act of aggression and was null and void, the Assembly determined that all actions by Israel to give effect to it were illegal and invalid, and that Israel's continued occupation and annexation of the Golan Heights were a continuing threat to international peace and security. The Assembly strongly deplored the negative vote by a permanent Council member which had prevented the adoption of measures under Chapter VII of the Charter, and deplored any political, economic, military and technological support to Israel that encouraged it to commit acts of aggression and to consolidate and perpetuate its occupation and annexation of occupied Arab territories.

The Assembly firmly emphasized its demands that Israel rescind its decision, which had resulted in the effective annexation of the Golan Heights; reaffirmed the necessity of total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories; and declared that Israel's actions confirmed that it was not a peace-loving State. The Assembly called on Member States to: refrain from supplying Israel with weapons, related equipment and military assistance; refrain from acquiring weapons or military equipment from Israel; suspend economic, financial and technological assistance and co-operation; sever diplomatic, trade and cultural relations; and cease all dealings with Israel in order totally to isolate it. Non-member States, United Nations agencies and international institutions were called upon to conform their relations with Israel to the terms of the resolution. The Secretary-General was requested to report every two months on its implementation.

The resolution was adopted by a roll-call vote of 86 to 21, with 34 abstentions. Prior to its adoption, the Assembly rejected, by a roll-call vote of 76 to 39, with 19 abstentions, a motion by France to take separate votes on several paragraphs. Opposing that proposal, Jordan requested a vote on the text as a whole, saying it was coherent, balanced and logical and there was not a word in it that did not come from the Charter or Assembly or Security Council resolutions.

Introducing the draft on behalf of 56 nations, Cuba stated that the overwhelming majority of participants in the Assembly debate agreed in their total rejection and condemnation of the annexation, and in their collective determination to prevent acceptance of Israel's expansionist action; it was unfortunate that the Council had been prevented from imposing sanctions. By turning to the United Nations, the Syrian Arab Republic had demonstrated its willingness to act in accordance with international law.

Rejecting the text as a shameless document and a monument to moral degeneration and intellectual corruption, Israel said it would neither contribute to the advancement of peace in the Middle East nor deter Israel from doing everything necessary to ensure its existence and security.

Expressing agreement with many elements of the text, New Zealand cast a negative vote on the grounds that the resolution sought to have the Assembly assume the Council's responsibilities and did not improve the prospects of negotiations for a comprehensive and durable peace; New Zealand also could not support the proposed measures against Israel and the implication that future action could be taken to limit Israel's participation in the United Nations.

Australia, Belgium (speaking also on behalf of Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), Canada, Fiji, Finland, Ireland, Japan and Norway expressed similar views. Sweden said a series of provisions were unacceptable from the point of view of the Charter or for their substantive content. Belgium, Ireland and Japan cautioned that their vote should not be interpreted as condoning Israel's actions, and the others reiterated their objection to the Israeli decision on the Golan Heights.

Norway also voiced reservations on the determination that Israel's decision was an act of aggression, and on the provisions deploring the United States veto in the Security Council and support to Israel. The latter two provisions also met with the disapproval of Belgium and Ireland, Belgium remarking that the criticism was groundless and unacceptable. In addition, Canada and Sweden objected to the determination that the annexation decision was a threat to international peace and security, and Canada said it could not support any provision which attempted to prejudge the outcome of negotiations, such as the one reaffirming the necessity of total Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. Belgium and Ireland thought the appeal for sanctions would make the prospects for negotiations more remote; they suggested that the Assembly would be better advised to call on States to refrain from acts implying recognition of or support for Israel's decision. Norway believed the call for sanctions was wrong and unproductive and that such measures would only heighten tension and bitterness. Fiji believed that any State had the right to acquire arms for its defence commensurate with its genuine security needs, that the severance of relations with another State was the prerogative of individual States and that the resolution would run counter to the universality of United Nations membership. Portugal regretted that the resolution was deprived of the undisputed authority it would have had if it had reflected an international consensus condemning Israel's action; however, certain elements made the text clearly unacceptable.

France felt that the text was aimed at ostracizing and isolating a Member State, particularly in United Nations agencies.

Though disapproving of Israel's decision, the United States found the resolution profoundly objectionable and procedurally flawed for several reasons: it assigned to the Assembly responsibilities of the Security Council; it damaged prospects of peace, distorted reality, was unreasonably punitive, and sought revenge and retribution rather than conciliation and compromise; it described the Israeli legislation as annexation, when neither the United States nor the Security Council had recognized it as such; it attacked the United States by deploring the veto cast in the Council to block action which the United States deemed profoundly ill-conceived and imprudent; and it attempted to submit questions of membership to the Assembly, thereby striking at the principle of minority rights.

Abstaining in the vote, Egypt said that, while it fully sympathized with and subscribed to the just Syrian cause, it felt that the resolution had far-reaching consequences and could not be an optimally practical or practicable avenue leading to a Middle East solution.

Chile stated that some provisions did not reduce the scope of the conflict and, on the contrary, might contribute to spreading it; Chile also expressed concern about the absence of a reference to the 1967(25) and 1973(26) Council resolutions. Zaire said some provisions would not encourage efforts to find a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East solution, and might even lead to a more serious deterioration.

Costa Rica felt that the resolution involved questions of competence and legality incompatible with the treatment of the subject by the Assembly. El Salvador said some paragraphs were excessive and did not contribute to peace, while Spain held that some paragraphs went considerably beyond the draft resolution considered by the Security Council, and one of them raised problems with regard to the interpretation of the Charter; Spain would have preferred to have the text vetoed in the Council resubmitted to the Assembly with the required adaptations. Trinidad and Tobago said it had reservations on certain elements.

Argentina, observing that the Council alone was authorized to apply broad and binding sanctions said it did not consider itself bound by the sanctions provisions of the resolution. Barbados, Guatemala and Venezuela said the call for sanctions would not help achieve peace, or, Barbados added, enhance the Assembly's reputation for even-handed justice. The Bahamas, Bolivia, Chile, the Dominican Republic and Honduras also disagreed with the sanctions provisions, the Bahamas objecting that such extreme measures had proved unrealistic and non-productive in other situations and Bolivia stating that they were within the exclusive purview of the Security Council. Colombia stated that those provisions were contrary to the Charter, within the competence of other organs and encroached on areas within the sovereign competence of States. Ecuador reserved its position on what it regarded as provisions of questionable legality in regard to the relations of States with Israel, remarking that the establishment or non-establishment of relations with a country was a matter within each State's jurisdiction.

Brazil believed that the prospects of attaining Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories and the right of the Palestinians to establish their own State should not be curtailed as a result of the diplomatic isolation of one of the parties, even if that party was behaving in a manner incompatible with international law and United Nations resolutions; Israel should not be given any pretext to act with still greater contempt for the principles of mutually respectful relations. Saint Lucia's view was that, if the sanctions were ineffective because of non-compliance of a large number of States, Israel would only become more brazen; moreover, to ostracize Israel so completely would leave it aloof from the very States it must negotiate with.

Argentina, the Bahamas, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras and Turkey objected to the declaration that Israel was not a peace-loving State. Argentina added that it rejected any move to suspend a Member State or to reject its credentials. Chile believed that the principle of universality of United Nations membership was essential.

Bolivia, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Turkey disagreed with the provisions deploring the veto by a Council member; Turkey said it had consistently objected to singling out third-party Governments for condemnation. Turkey also had reservations on the call on United Nations agencies and international institutions to conform their relations with Israel to the terms of the resolution, saying that intent and ultimate purpose was not clear.

The Bahamas, Bolivia and the Dominican Republic disagreed with the provision deploring support to Israel.

Regretting the introduction of highly controversial elements with serious legal and political implications for the distribution of competences between United Nations organs, Austria expressed concern that the vote on the resolution had failed to express the unanimous rejection of the de facto annexation; in proper consultations, it would have been possible to arrive at a resolution that would have found the broadest support, would have been oriented towards positive action and, through a call for negotiations between the parties, would have contributed to promoting a process towards a peace settlement.

Though voting in favour, Burma, Nepal, Peru, Suriname and Togo had reservations on the provision declaring that Israel was not a peace-loving State. Togo remarked that the provision should be strictly interpreted as not going beyond an observation, which it hoped Israel would disprove. Nepal and Peru also reserved their position on the call for measures against Israel; Nepal believed such measures to be within the Security Council's prerogative, while Peru described them as extreme steps that would not contribute to a dialogue. Greece and Suriname voiced reservations on the provisions calling for suspension of assistance to Israel and of co-operation and dealings with it, and for the severance of relations; Greece said it would vote against the paragraph calling for a cessation of all dealings with Israel if there were a separate vote. Burma, Greece and Nepal reserved their position on the paragraph deploring the veto. Burma further had serious reservations on the provisions declaring Israel's action to be an act of aggression, deploring support to Israel, and calling on specialized agencies and institutions to conform their relations with Israel to the terms of the resolution.

Romania explained that it had been unable to participate in the vote since it had not been possible to achieve a resolution acceptable to the great majority of Member States; in its opinion, the Assembly would have been well advised to set up a committee of United Nations Members to try to bring about a comprehensive Middle East settlement through negotiations.

Democratic Kampuchea said that, although it supported condemnation of Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, it had not participated in the vote because Viet Nam was among the resolution's Sponsors.

Opening the debate, the Syrian Arab Republic said the usurpation of part of Syrian soil manifested Israel's aggressive and expansionist objectives, aimed at establishing a State extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. Its decision was only a chapter in a long series of aggressive, expansionist actions. Even Israel's friends were unable to justify and defend such a policy, in the face of which it was important to impose deterrent sanctions that would compel Israel to review its measures and abandon its aggression and racism. Those sanctions should include a suspension of Israel's membership in the United Nations, a halt to all military, political, economic and cultural dealings with it, and a call to the United States to desist from support to Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, charged that for over a quarter of a century the Syrian Arab Republic had been engaging in relentless hostilities against it, with the Golan Heights as the most advanced bridgehead for aggression until Israel stormed the area in 1967 and forced the Syrian army back to a point where it could no longer threaten Israeli villages. Israel could not be expected to maintain indefinitely a military administration on the Golan Heights merely to accommodate Syrian interests in persistent conflict. It was unconscionable for the Syrian Arab Republic to find fault with legislation which sought, in the absence of peace, to normalize the situation in the area and which in no way precluded or impaired the prospect of peace negotiations.

During the debate, most speakers denounced or condemned Israel's decision as a clear violation of international law, in particular the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and an action that increased tension in the region and threatened or was likely to threaten international peace and security. The doctrine as stated by Ecuador was that armed force did not create rights and armed victory conferred no rights.

Several of those regarding the action as a violation of international law cited the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, especially its article 47, stating that protected persons could not be deprived of the benefits of the Convention by a purported annexation of occupied territories. A number of speakers also regarded the action as contravening the 1967(25) and 1973(26) Security Council resolutions, specifically the provisions stipulating the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and the right of States in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

Jordan said the annexation of the Golan Heights would perpetuate the dispersal of close to 200,000 inhabitants who had lived there before the Israeli occupation and overnight transform the remnants – a mere 13,000 whose Syrian roots went back thousands of years – from Syrian into Israeli citizens. The Niger said that, according to information addressed to the Commission on Human Rights, the inhabitants of the Golan Heights had been subjected to new harassment since 14 December 1981, including the seizure of pastureland and water resources, arbitrary arrests, expropriation and unjustified dismissals, and the first Israeli magistrate's court in the Golan Heights had been opened on 3 February 1982 by Israel's Minister of Justice – all demonstrating that Israel had no intention of complying with the Security Council's injunctions.

Speaking for the European Community (EC) members, Belgium characterized Israel's action as tantamount to annexation – a view shared by most other speakers.

The Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia and Iran considered the annexation a direct consequence of the policy of separate negotiations. The USSR considered it quite instructive that the new hostile step against the Syrian Arab Republic had been decided on immediately after the signing in November 1981 of Israeli-American strategic co-operation agreements; Israel had clearly intended to punish the Syrian Arab Republic for its rejection of the Camp David accords, the USSR added. Madagascar and others also saw a connection between the strategic co-operation agreements and the Golan Heights action.

United States support of Israel was held responsible for Israel's defiance of the international community by a number of speakers, many of whom also said its use of the veto in the Security Council served to shield Israel from effective international deterrence. Among those expressing such views were Afghanistan,, Albania, Bahrain, Benin, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, the German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Hungary, Iran Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nicaragua, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Tanzania and Viet Nam.

Afghanistan, said the United States, besides giving Israel a mandate to appropriate Syrian lands, had encouraged Israeli extremists to go ahead with new territorial acquisitions. Mauritania regarded the United States veto as giving encouragement to Israel for its misdeeds and therefore dangerous encouragement to repeat them – a view shared by Malaysia. Similarly, Saudi Arabia feared that Israel would interpret the United States veto as a signal to annex other parts of the occupied territories and to pursue its expansionist policy. Viet Nam thought the Assembly should condemn the United States as the instigator and protector of the Zionist aggressors.

Sri Lanka, commenting on the view expressed in the Security Council that it was important to maintain consensus, said it was for that purpose that the draft resolution in the Council had been revised to make it non-mandatory; Sri Lanka asked whether the United Nations had no alternative but to provide through the consensus principle another display of forbearance to a State that had defied its principal organs.

Many speakers argued that no country had the right to use the defence of its own security or the existence of a state of war as a pretext for invading and annexing the territory of a neighbouring State. This point was made by, among others, China, Cyprus, Kenya, the Niger, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Suriname, the United Republic of Cameroon, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zaire.

In response to Israel's statement that its action was aimed at normalizing the situation in the Golan Heights, Uganda said the situation could be normalized only by restoring the territory to the Syrian Arab Republic, not by annexing it – a view shared by China, India, Madagascar, Pakistan, Singapore and Suriname. Somalia considered it a strong possibility that Israel would proceed to "normalize" in similar fashion the undoubtedly anomalous situation in other illegally occupied territories.

In the opinion of Senegal, Sweden, Turkey and others, Israel's action weakened the prospects for negotiations. Belgium, on behalf of the EC members, said the decision further complicated the search for a Middle East settlement – a view widely shared by others, including Egypt, Finland, Kenya, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, Romania and Venezuela. Malta said Israel had shattered any immediate prospect of reconciliation; Uganda believed the annexation was intended to block a peaceful settlement, and the USSR thought that Israel's decision on the Golan Heights reflected its lack of interest in peaceful relations with its neighbours. Singapore believed that the annexation further encouraged extremism in the Arab world and compromised the Camp David peace process. In order to create an atmosphere conducive to negotiations, Sweden stated, it was imperative that the parties show restraint and avoid provocative measures such as the decision taken by Israel.

New Zealand saw little chance of real progress towards a settlement until Israel was prepared to respect the rights and interests of other States and peoples in the region; at the same time there was little prospect for worthwhile negotiations unless all parties were prepared formally to recognize Israel's right to exist.

In Japan's view, Israel's attitude would never contribute to the consolidation of its own security but would only result in deepening mistrust of Israel on the part of the Arab countries and increasing isolation in the international community. Jamaica felt that the annexation had intensified the animosities between the Arabs and Israel. Peru feared that Israel's counter-productive policy encouraged retaliation, while Benin believed that its actions, and the failure of the United Nations to respond, left the Syrian Arab Republic with no choice other than recourse to the right to self-defence – or, as Nigeria put it, redress through force.

In Senegal's opinion, Israel seemed determined to oppose a peaceful settlement, except perhaps one that would accord with conditions Israel itself had imposed by force. A similar position was held by the Congo and Madagascar. Egypt said Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity were matters and principles not subject to negotiation and must not be the object of bargaining or blackmail. Sri Lanka questioned whether the Syrian Arab Republic could be expected to negotiate on the basis of a fait accompli and under duress, a position also held by Ethiopia. The United Republic of Tanzania said Israel could not call for unconditional negotiations while, through its continued occupation of Arab territories and illegal annexation of Syrian territory, it was in fact creating conditions for such negotiations' A similar point was made by Somalia. Bulgaria considered the formula of negotiations without pre-conditions as a pre-condition in itself; by insisting that the Arabs recognize the consequences of Israel's aggression against them, Israel attempted to camouflage its refusal to engage in genuine negotiations and sought to cover up its expansionist plans.

Israel was urged to rescind its decision by most delegations, including Austria, Belgium (on behalf of the EC members), Egypt, Finland, Gabon, Jamaica, Japan, Nepal, New Zealand, Panama Peru, the Philippines, Romania, Singapore Thailand, Turkey, the USSR, the United States and Yugoslavia. Panama said Israel could give concrete proof of its good will by speedily rescinding its decision.

Albania, Bhutan, Czechoslovakia, Djibouti, Grenada, Guyana, Jordan, Mali, the Sudan, Togo, Uganda and others regarded Israel's decision and its refusal to rescind its law as an act of aggression under the Charter and as defined by the Assembly in 1974.(23) Benin considered it an act of war. The German Democratic Republic charged Israel with suppressing legitimate protests of the Syrian population in the area and openly threatening war against the Syrian Arab Republic.

Many States saw the annexation of the Golan Heights as part of an Israeli design to annex or otherwise consolidate and perpetuate control over all occupied territories or even to expand beyond its original boundaries. This was the opinion of Albania, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, the German Democratic Republic, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sweden, Togo, Turkey Uganda, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates the United Republic of Cameroon, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zambia. The Byelorussian SSR, Democratic Yemen, Guinea, India, Iran, Morocco and others said the decision marked another stage in the escalation of Israel's expansionism. Qatar considered the annexation to be another stage in a long series of Israeli violations of United Nations resolutions.

Kenya believed that the annexation was part of an overall policy which sought the extinction of the Palestinians, and Somalia and Uganda said it had to be seen in the context of creeping annexation through expropriation and establishment of Jewish settlements on occupied Arab lands.

Iran said the annexation of the Golan Heights was certainly not the last stage of Israel's expansionism; having come to an agreement with Egypt and separating it from the liberation forces of Palestine, Israel was trying to annex other Islamic lands in return for its withdrawal from the Sinai peninsula and also to increase its pressure on the Arab steadfastness front headed by the Syrian Arab Republic.

Yemen warned that Israel might in the near future annex the West Bank and Gaza, a fear also expressed by others, among them Czechoslovakia and Democratic Yemen. Bahrain, Pakistan and Somalia saw the possibility that southern Lebanon might become Israel's next target. Cuba said the annexation of the Golan Heights formed part of a chain of events which, if not broken by collective action, would continue with large-scale military aggressions against Palestinians in southern Lebanon as well as against the Syrian Arab Republic Lebanon was convinced that the seizure of the Golan Heights would intensify the risk of an explosion of the Middle East situation and compound the complexity of the Lebanese problem. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said the annexation of the Golan Heights was aimed at making Damascus the target of Israeli fire.

Jordan, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and others charged that the annexation had been pursued systematically and according to premeditated plans. In Albania's opinion, Israel had acted at a time when events in the world and in the Middle East had taken a dangerous turn and because it believed that the difficulties the peoples of the Middle East were encountering in their struggle against many enemies would prevent them from dealing with Zionist expansionism. Also in Austria's view, Israel had acted unilaterally at a moment when tensions in the area had markedly increased and, on the other side, efforts were being intensified to keep the peace process from collapsing.

In Yugoslavia's opinion, Israel's action underlined the need to protect the rights of the Syrian Arab Republic and of the people in the occupied territories.

The Lao People's Democratic Republic believed that the latest turn of events had made more necessary and urgent than ever the search for a comprehensive Middle East settlement. Brazil stated that acts of aggression such as the annexation of the Golan Heights must come to an end before an accepted basis for a settlement could be found.

A large number of delegations called for strong measures, and many of them specifically mentioned sanctions, to compel Israel to rescind its decision and to put an end to its expansion and annexation policy. Among them were Afghanistan,, Algeria, Bangladesh, Benin, the Byelorussian SSR, China, the Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, the German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, the Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Cameroon, the United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen and Yugoslavia.

Suspension of Israel's United Nations membership was advocated by the Syrian Arab Republic, a demand also supported by Afghanistan,, Bahrain and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Nicaragua and Qatar suggested that Israel's right to membership be reconsidered. On the other hand, Ecuador said it valued the universality of the United Nations and would not agree with any step aimed at its disintegration.

In India's view, the Security Council's failure to take further action as a result of the negative vote by the United States raised strong doubts as to its ability or willingness to preserve international peace and security; the negative vote had seriously undermined confidence in the Council's special responsibility for safeguarding international law and ensuring world peace. Yugoslavia said the use of the veto even in unquestionable cases of annexation and aggression reflected a wider negative phenomenon: that collective security, built on implied agreement – above all, of the permanent Council members – on the need to maintain world peace and security could not be achieved in the existing division of the world into blocs; such a situation stressed the urgency of efforts to strengthen the role of the Council and the Assembly as the most democratic organs for the maintenance of peace and security.

In Bulgaria's view, the Assembly must adopt a resolution containing an unequivocal condemnation of the aggressor's illegal acts, demanding that its decision to annex the Golan Heights be rescinded and calling on Israel's overseas protectors to cease providing it with the massive support which was at the root of its intransigence. Zaire believed that the Assembly's response should be to call on Member States to refrain from action which could imply any recognition or support of the Israeli decision to annex the Golan Heights and also to consider the possibility of new efforts to settle the Middle East crisis as a whole.

If a few Members failed to see the sinister nature of Israel's actions, said Pakistan, the rest of the membership could not escape the responsibility to take firm action to compel respect for the rule of law. The Council's failure to discharge its responsibilities did not relieve the Assembly of its obligations to take effective measures, the Sudan said. In Tunisia's view, the Assembly was vested with the competence and responsibilities, transferred by the Council itself, to take steps to ensure respect for justice and law. A similar view was held by Algeria, Bhutan, Guyana, Jordan, Zambia and others.

Mexico said that to fail to compel Israel to abide by international law and to continue to tolerate the flouting of United Nations decisions would be to admit that the Charter had no substance; an institution whose authority was continually questioned would become a historical remnant barely cloaking the resurgence of a policy of force. Somalia said the Assembly must use its moral authority to call on the Council to take effective measures to check Israel's continuing policies of expansion, belligerency and contempt.

Bhutan hoped that peaceful and practical measures would be taken so that the Golan Heights and all occupied territories could be restored to their pre-1967 status. Guinea felt that the seriousness of the situation required that the Assembly adopt just and constructive decisions in order to forestall any further breach of international peace and security. Jordan believed that even though an Assembly resolution was not mandatory, it could be as efficacious as mandatory sanctions if the international community had the will to make it so, the Council had entrusted the Assembly with ensuring that aggression not be allowed to prevail.

When taking a decision, Austria stated, the Assembly had to bear in mind that the significance of the unanimous Council resolution of December 1981 demanding that Israel rescind its decision should not be minimized by introducing legally or politically controversial issues which could further complicate the search for peace and security.

Finland held it imperative that the ultimate status of the occupied territories not be prejudiced before a comprehensive solution had been found. Thailand felt that unless a peaceful approach through negotiations had been totally rejected by all parties, no measures should be taken which would further diminish the prospects of such a peaceful settlement.

Yugoslavia held it imperative to prevent the annexation of the Golan Heights, as a test for the United Nations to prevent the legitimization of the practice of changing the map of the Middle East by force.

Iran felt that the struggle against the criminal Zionist acts was possible only through the unity of all Moslems and on the basis of rejection of all so-called political solutions proposed by the imperialist and Zionist circles; United Nations resolutions were not to be depended on and were to be considered at most as weak slogans.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. By a resolution of 11 February,(16) adopted, in connection with its consideration of human rights violations in the territories occupied by Israel, the Commission on Human Rights condemned and declared null and void Israel's decision annexing the Golan Heights through imposition of its laws, jurisdiction and administration, and called on Member States to apply the measures called for in the Assembly resolution of 5 February.

Communications (February-March). By letters of 18 February(12) and 2 March,(13) the Syrian Arab Republic charged that Israel had taken a series of repressive measures against Syrians in the Golan Heights, including the arrest and imprisonment of their leaders, demolition of houses and sealing of stores on the pretext that authorization for them had not been sought, confiscation of land for the establishment of Israeli settlements, travel restrictions. mass arrests. and the reduction of water supply to villagers as a means of forcing them to end their general strike in protest of the Israeli laws imposed on them. In addition, Israeli authorities were imposing new civil procedures in order to compel Syrians to accept Israeli citizenship, refusing birth and marriage certificates and automobile registrations to those who did not hold Israeli identity cards.

These charges were described by Israel as distortions in a letter of 19 March(7) which stated that no houses had been demolished or sealed, additional water supplies had been made available and agricultural production had increased since 1967, assistance to agriculture had been stepped up, certain restrictions on movement between villages had been lifted, more than 50 Golan Heights residents were studying at Syrian universities and teachers were carrying out their functions normally.

Report of the Secretary-General. By a report of 5 April 1982,(14) the Secretary-General informed the General Assembly and the Security Council that, in accordance with the Assembly's request to follow up the implementation of its 5 February resolution, he had transmitted the text on 19 February to Member States, specialized agencies and international institutions. In response, he had received replies from seven States and four agencies and institutions In three addenda between June and December, the Secretary-General included replies from eight more States and two agencies and institutions.

General Assembly action (December). Two further resolutions on the Golan Heights were adopted by the General Assembly in December.

On 10 December,(19) the Assembly strongly condemned Israel for refusing to heed the demands to rescind its decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the Golan Heights; for its persistence in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the area; and for its attempts and measures to impose Israeli citizenship and identity cards on Syrian nationals there. The Assembly determined that all Israeli measures purporting to alter the character and status of the Golan Heights were null and void and constituted a flagrant violation of international law and the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (see below, under OTHER ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES). Member States were called upon not to recognize any such measures.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 133 to 1, with 2 abstentions, following its approval by the Special Political Committee on 3 December by a recorded vote of 109 to 1, with 2 abstentions. Introducing it in the Committee on behalf of 10 nations, Bangladesh said its content had been the subject of past resolutions, which, however, had not produced substantive results.

Condemning Israel for its failure to comply with past demands to rescind its decision on the Golan Heights, the Assembly, by a resolution of 16 December,(20) again declared that the decision was an act of aggression and was null and void, and determined that all actions taken by Israel to give effect to it were illegal and invalid, and that Israel's occupation and annexation were a threat to international peace and security. As in its 5 February resolution, it strongly deplored the negative vote in the Security Council which had prevented the adoption of measures against Israel, determined that Israel was not a peace-loving State, deplored the support given it, and called for measures against Israel, including the suspension of military, economic and financial assistance and the severance of diplomatic and other relations. The Assembly declared that Israeli policies and practices aimed at annexation of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, violated international law, and reaffirmed the necessity of total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 87 to 22 with 31 abstentions. Introducing it on behalf of i5 nations, Cuba said it contained the basic principles for a Middle East solution.

Explaining its abstention in the vote on the 10 December resolution, the United States said it went further than the December 1981 Security Council resolution declaring the Israeli law to be null and void, and contained harsh, unbalanced language and references to resolutions which the United States had opposed.

Sweden voted in favour, being convinced that the Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians was fully applicable to all the territories held by Israel since 1967; however, its support did not alter its negative attitude to the February Assembly resolution recalled in the preamble.

With regard to the 16 December resolution, Israel stated that the attempts to vilify it as a non-peace-loving State were grotesque in the light of the well-known sacrifices it had made for peace. Instead of calling for negotiation and conciliation, the resolution called on States to refrain from supplying Israel, the victim of repeated Arab aggression, with the necessary means of defence, and sought to isolate it so that the Arab aggressors might be emboldened to continue their warfare across Israel's borders. The resolution not only ignored the adamant Syrian refusal to recognize and negotiate with Israel, but also ignored every hostile act committed by the Syrian Arab Republic to subvert any movement towards a peaceful settlement.

Among others voting negatively, Denmark, speaking on behalf of the EC members, stressed the need for a balanced approach towards a comprehensive settlement and said they could not accept formulations criticizing a permanent Council member for exercising its right. Portugal took a similar position; Portugal and Sweden particularly objected to the determination that Israel was not a peace-loving State and to the call for measures against Israel, Sweden adding that they could not be reconciled with the division of responsibilities between the Assembly and the Council.

Japan said it had been obliged to vote against because the text contained several paragraphs incompatible with some of Japan's fundamental beliefs: that the United Nations must be universal, that the isolation of a particular country did not necessarily contribute to a solution and that all conflicts must be resolved peacefully through negotiations. The United States said the resolution was full of reckless condemnations and demands, served only to polarize positions instead of resolving conflicts and further eroded the Assembly's credibility, its essential objective was to isolate a Member State and party to the conflict, and lay the groundwork for expelling it from the United Nations.

Abstaining, Peru did not believe that adoption of the measures proposed would be the best way to get a peace process under way; on the contrary, it would further reduce the effectiveness of the United Nations. In Argentina's view, the competence of the main bodies of the United Nations must be respected in compliance with the Charter. Chile and Spain expressed a similar opinion, adding that only the Security Council was competent to apply the sanctions recommended; in addition, Chile thought that the resolution contained excessive language and made an ineffective contribution to the search for peace, and that the call on United Nations Members to apply certain measures against Israel prejudged the destiny of assistance to one sovereign State by another. Ecuador felt similarly about the call for measures against Israel and also objected to the determination that Israel was not a peace-loving State; it said any action, however preliminary, to expel or suspend a Member State would create greater difficulties in any negotiation process.

Brazil abstained for reasons given when the Assembly adopted its February resolution on the subject (see above). Jamaica had difficulties with the paragraph deploring the negative vote by a permanent member of the Security Council as well as with the measures recommended against Israel.

Trinidad and Tobago felt that the resolution raised fundamental questions of interpretation. In Venezuela's understanding, any resolution that departed from moderation did not effectively contribute to efforts to ensure the achievement of Palestinian rights, including the right to create an independent State.

Though voting in favour, Mexico, Nepal, Suriname and Turkey reserved their position on the determination that Israel was not a peace-loving State. Mexico and Nepal also had reservations with regard to the application of measures against and isolation of Israel, while Greece and Suriname had reservations about the calls for suspension of economic, financial and technological assistance and of diplomatic, trade and cultural relations. Greece, Nepal, Togo and Turkey could not associate themselves with the paragraph deploring the United States veto in the Security Council; Nepal also disagreed with the provision deploring support to Israel. It was Nepal's view that initiation of the measures called for was the prerogative of the Council.

Malta stated that its affirmative vote did not necessarily imply full agreement with each and every provision, nor did it imply that the legal issues that might arise could be decided by the Assembly.

Iran said it had voted for the resolution in view of its friendly relations with the Syrian Arab Republic and in defence of Moslem land, however, it was not happy to see the call for Israeli withdrawal limited to the Arab territories occupied since 1967, as all Israeli acts of aggression and occupation, whether before or since 1967, remained illegal consequences of its illegal existence.

The imposition of Israeli laws, jurisdiction and administration, resulting in the effective annexation of the Golan Heights, was condemned by the Assembly also in two other resolutions, on 10 December on the territories occupied by Israel(18) and on 20 December on the Middle East situation.(21) In the latter resolution, the Assembly also condemned Israel's annexationist policies and practices, the establishment of settlements. confiscation of lands, diversion of water resources and imposition of Israeli citizenship. It declared all such measures null and void and said they violated international law relevant to belligerent occupation, in particular the 1949 Geneva Convention on protection of civilians in wartime (see below).

During the debates on the Middle East situation and on the Palestine question, several speakers, including Algeria, Bahrain, Denmark (for the EC members), Hungary, Japan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates, reiterated their opposition to Israel's decision. Malaysia said Israeli legislation had reduced the territory to an adjunct of Israel, with a view to obliterating its Arab identity. Poland saw the act as a prelude to the aggression against Lebanon, while Cyprus remarked that the illegal effort at annexation and the brutal repression of the local population did not contribute to peace.

Draft resolution not adopted. (1) Jordan, S/14832/Rev.1.

Letters and notes verbales (nv). (2) Benin: 7 Jan., S/14827. Cuba (3) 6 Jan., A/37/60-S/14829 & Corr.1; (4) 25 Jan., S/14849 (nv). (5) Cyprus: 15 Jan., S/14838 & Corr.1 (nv). Israel: (6) 28 Jan., A/ES-9/4 (S/14852) (A/37/217, annex I); (7) 19 Mar., A/37/151-S/14914. Jordan: (8) 5 Jan., S/14823, (9) 5 Jan. S/14824, (10) 8 Jan., S/14828. (11) Mongolia: 5 Jan., S/14825. Syrian Arab Republic: (12) 18 Feb., A/37/92- S/14876; (13) 2 Mar., A/37/106-S/14893.

Reports. (14) S-G, A/37/169-S/14953 & Add.1-3; (15) Committee on Israeli practices in occupied territories, transmitted by S-G note, A/37/485.

Resolutions (1982). (16) Commission on Human Rights (report E/1982/12): 1982/2, 11 Feb. GA; (17) ES-9/1, 5  Feb., text following; (18) 37/88 C, para. 7 (b), 10 Dec.; (19) 37/88 E, 10 Dec., text following; (20) 37/123 A, 16 Dec., text following; (21) 37/123 F, para. 8, 20 Dec.; (22) SC: 500 (1982), 28 Jan., text following.

Resolutions (prior). GA: (23) 3314 (XXIX), annex, 14 Dec. 1974 (YUN 1974, p. 847); (24) 36/226 B, 17 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 313).  SC: (25) 242 (1967), 22 Nov. 1967 (YUN 1967, p. 257); (26) 338 (1973), 22 0ct. 1973 (YUN 1973, p. 213); (27) 497 (1981), 17 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 312).

Yearbook references. (28) 1967, p. 183; (29) 1981, p. 309.

Meeting records. SC: S/PV.2322 & Corr.1, 2323-2330 (6-28 Jan.). GA: plenary, A/ES-9/PV.2-5, 6 & Corr.1, 7-12 (29 Jan.-5 Feb.), A/37/PV. 92-96, 100, 108 (6-16 Dec.), SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.35-41, 42, 44 (23 Nov.-3 Dec.).
Security Council resolution 500 (1982)
28 January 1982     Meeting 2330     13-0-2

Draft by Jordan (S/14848).

The Security Council,

Having considered the item on the agenda of its 2329th meeting as contained in document S/Agenda/2329/Rev.1,

Taking into account that the lack of unanimity of its permanent members at the 2329th meeting has prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Decides to call an emergency special session of the General Assembly to examine the question contained in document S/Agenda/2329/Rev.1.

Vote in Council as follows:

In favour: China, France, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Panama, Poland, Spain, Togo, Uganda, USSR, Zaire.

Against: None.

Abstaining: United Kingdom, United States.
General Assembly resolution ES-9/1
5 February 1982     Meeting 12    86-21-34 (roll-call vote)

56-nation draft (A/ES-9/L.1 and Add.1) agenda item 5.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Benin, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, United Arab Emirates Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.
The situation in the occupied Arab territories

The General Assembly,

Having considered the item entitled "The situation in the occupied Arab territories" at its ninth emergency special session, in accordance with Security Council resolution 500 (1982) of 28 January 1982,

Noting with regret and concern that the Security Council, at its 2329th meeting, on 20 January 1982, failed to take appropriate measures against Israel, as requested by the Council in resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981, as a result of the negative vote of a permanent member of the Council,

Recalling Security Council resolution 497 (1981),

Recalling its resolution 35/122 E of 11 December 1980,

Reaffirming its resolution 36/226 B of 17 December 1981,

Having considered the reports of the Secretary General of 21 December 1981 and 31 December 1981,

Recalling its resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, in which it defined an act of aggression as, inter alia, "the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof, and provided that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as justification for aggression,

Stressing once again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions,

Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Syrian territory,

Noting that Israel's record and actions establish conclusively that it is not a peace loving Member State and that it has not carried out its obligations under the Charter,

Noting further that Israel has refused, in violation of Article 25 of the Charter, to accept and carry out the numerous relevant decisions of the Security Council, the latest being resolution 437 (1981),

1. Strongly condemns Israel for its failure to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and General Assembly resolution 36/226 B;

2. Declares that Israel's decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights constitutes an act of aggression under the provisions of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX);

3. Declares once more that Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and has no legal validity and/or effect whatsoever;

4. Determines that all actions taken by Israel to give effect to its decision relating to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights are illegal and invalid and shall not be recognized;

5. Reaffirms its determination that all the provisions of the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon all parties thereto to respect and ensure respect of their obligations under these instruments in all circumstances;

6. Determines that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights since 1967 and its effective annexation by Israel on 14 December 1981, following Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on that territory, constitute a continuing threat to international peace and security;

7. Strongly deplores the negative vote by a permanent member of the Security Council which prevented the Council from adopting against Israel, under Chapter VII of the Charter, the "appropriate measures" referred to in resolution 497 (1981) unanimously adopted by the Council;

8. Further deplores any political, economic, military and technological support to Israel that encourages Israel to commit acts of aggression and to consolidate and perpetuate its occupation and annexation of occupied Arab territories;

9. Firmly emphasizes its demands that Israel, the occupying Power, rescind forthwith its decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Syrian Golan Heights, which has resulted in the effective annexation of that territory;

10. Reaffirms the overriding necessity of the total and unconditional withdrawal by Israel from all Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, which is a primary requirement for the establishment of a comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East;

11. Declares that Israel's record and actions confirm that it is not a peace-loving Member State and that it has carried out neither its obligations under the Charter nor its commitment under General Assembly resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949;

12. Calls upon all Member States to apply the following measures:

(a) To refrain from supplying Israel with any weapons and related equipment and to suspend any military assistance which Israel receives from them;

(b) To refrain from acquiring any weapons or military equipment from Israel;

(c) To suspend economic, financial and technological assistance to and co-operation with Israel;

(d) To sever diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with Israel;

13. Also calls upon all Member States to cease forthwith, individually and collectively, all dealings with Israel in order totally to isolate it in all fields;

14. Urges non-member States to act in accordance with the provisions of the present resolution;

15. Calls upon all specialized agencies of the United Nations system and international institutions to conform their relations with Israel to the terms of the present resolution;

16. Requests the Secretary General to follow up the implementation of the present resolution and to report thereon at intervals of two months to Member States as well as to the Security Council and to submit a comprehensive report to the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session under the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East".

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Gabon, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Malawi, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Singapore, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire.

General Assembly resolution 37/88 E
10 December 1982      Meeting 100     133-1-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/698) by recorded vote (109-1-2), 3 December (meeting 44); 10-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.32); agenda item 61.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar.

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned that the Arab territories occupied since 1967 have been under continued Israeli military occupation,

Recalling Security Council resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981 and General Assembly resolutions 36/226 B of 17 December 1981 and ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982,

Recalling its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 3414 (XXX) of 5 December 1975, 31/61 of 9 December 1976, 32/20 of 25 November 1977, 33/28 and 33/29 of 7 December 1978, 34/70 of 6 December 1979 and 35/122 E of 11 December 1980, in which it, inter alia, called upon Israel to put an end to its occupation of the Arab territories and to withdraw from all those territories,

Reaffirming once more the illegality of Israel's decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, which has resulted in the effective annexation of that territory,

Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and that all territories thus occupied by Israel must be returned,

Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

1. Strongly condemns Israel, the occupying Power, for its refusal to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, particularly Council resolution 497 (1981), in which the Council, inter alia, decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights was null and void and without international legal effect and that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;

2. Condemns the persistence of Israel in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Arab Golan Heights;

3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the Syrian Arab Golan Heights are null and void and constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect;

4. Strongly condemns Israel for its attempts and measures to impose forcibly Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Arab Golan Heights and calls upon it to desist from its repressive measures against the population of the Syrian Arab Golan Heights;

5. Calls upon Member States not to recognize any of the legislative or administrative measures and actions referred to above;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Malawi, United States.

General Assembly resolution 37/123 A
16 December 1982      Meeting 108     87-22-31 (recorded vote)

15-nation draft (A/37/L.49 and Add.1); agenda item 34.

Sponsors: Bangladesh, Cuba, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Vet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

The General Assembly,

Having discussed the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East,

Taking note of the reports of the Secretary-General,

Recalling Security Council resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981,

Reaffirming its resolutions 36/226 B of 17 December 1981 and ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982,

Recalling its resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, in which it defined an act of aggression, inter alia, as "the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof" and provided that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression,

Reaffirming the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem,

Noting that Israel's record and actions establish conclusively that it is not a peace-loving Member State and that it has not carried out its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations,

Noting further that Israel has refused, in violation of Article 25 of the Charter, to accept and carry out the numerous relevant decisions of the Security Council, the latest of which was resolution 497 (1981), thus failing to carry out its obligations under the Charter,

1. Strongly condemns Israel for its failure to comply with Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and General Assembly resolutions 36/226 B and ES-9/1;

2. Declares once more that Israel's decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights constitutes an act of aggression under the provisions of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX);

3. Declares once more that Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and has no legal validity and/or effect whatsoever;

4. Declares all Israeli policies and practices of, or aimed at, annexation of the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, to be in violation of international law and of the relevant United Nations resolutions;

5. Determines once more that all actions taken by Israel to give effect to its decision relating to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights are illegal and invalid and shall not be recognized;

6. Reaffirms its determination that all the provisions of the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect of their obligations under these instruments in all circumstances;

7. Determines once more that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights since 1967 and their effective annexation by Israel on 14 December 1981, following Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on that territory, constitute a continuing threat to international peace and security;

8. Strongly deplores the negative vote by a permanent member of the Security Council which prevented the Council from adopting, against Israel, under Chapter VII of the Charter, the "appropriate measures" referred to in resolution 497 (1981) unanimously adopted by the Council;

9. Further deplores any political, economic, financial, military and technological support to Israel that encourages Israel to commit acts of aggression and to consolidate and perpetuate its occupation and annexation of occupied Arab territories;

10. Firmly emphasizes once more its demands that Israel, the occupying Power, rescind forthwith its decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Syrian Golan Heights, which has resulted in the effective annexation of that territory;

11. Reaffirms once more the overriding necessity of the total and unconditional withdrawal by Israel from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, which is an essential prerequisite for the establishment of a comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East;

12. Determines once more that Israel's record and actions confirm that it is not a peace-loving Member State, that it has persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter and that it has carried out neither its obligations under the Charter nor its commitment under General Assembly resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949;

13. Calls once more upon all Member States to apply the following measures:

(a) To refrain from supplying Israel with any weapons and related equipment and to suspend any military assistance that Israel receives from them;

(b) To refrain from acquiring any weapons or military equipment from Israel;

(c) To suspend economic, financial and technological assistance to and co-operation with Israel;

(d) To sever diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with Israel;

14. Reiterates its call to all Member States to cease forthwith, individually and collectively, all dealings with Israel in order totally to isolate it in all fields;

15. Urges non-member States to act in accordance with the provisions of the present resolution;

16. Calls upon the specialized agencies and other international organizations to conform their relations with Israel to the terms of the present resolution.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Burma, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Malawi, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire.
Other aspects of the situation in the occupied territories

The situation in the territories occupied by Israel was considered again in 1982 by the Security Council, the General Assembly and its Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.

Because of the negative vote of a permanent member (United States), a draft resolution to have the Council denounce Israeli measures imposed on the Palestinians of the occupied territories was not adopted when the Council met in March and April in response to reports that Israel was using force to suppress popular protests there. However, the Assembly, on 28 April, condemned Israel for disbanding the elected municipal council of Al Bireh and dismissing the Mayors of Ramallah and Nablus, and for repressive measures including shooting at unarmed civilians.

The Council also met in April to consider the preservation of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and in November on the issue of Israeli settlements in the territories.

The occupied territories – those taken over by Israel in 1967 as a result of hostilities with neighbouring States – consisted of the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), the Golan Heights (see above) and the Gaza Strip. The remaining Egyptian territory under Israeli military occupation on the Sinai peninsula was restored to the Egyptian Government on 25 April 1982 in accordance with the 1979 Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel (see above, under MIDDLE EAST SITUATION).

Communications (January-March). The Acting Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, by a letter of 22 January 1982,(2) expressed concern at reported plans by Israel to clear all Palestinian Bedouins out of a great swath of the Negev Desert; about 15,000 had been resettled in two large tracts of land near Beersheba, another 6,000 were to be removed from an area where a new Israeli air base was planned, and an additional 19,000 were to be resettled. By a letter of 8 March,(3) the Committee Chairman said there had been further Israeli human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza, and asked that decisive steps be taken to protect the rights of the Palestinians there.

Israel, in a letter of 17 March,(10) stated that on 12 March the home of a village association member at Bitunia, in the Ramallah area, had been struck by a barrage of bullets in a continuing campaign of PLO harassment against Arabs in Judaea Samaria and the Gaza district (Israel's term for the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza) who had indicated their desire to live in peace with Israel.

On 19 March,(12) Jordan transmitted to the Secretary-General and the Security Council President a letter of 18 March from the PLO observer to the United Nations, protesting Israeli action on that date to dissolve the elected municipal council of Al Bireh, a West Bank town north of Jerusalem, and to evict the elected Mayor, Ibrahim Al-Taweel; the letter added that a general strike had been called to protest the action. The dissolution of the council was also protested in a letter of 23 March to the Council President from the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference transmitted by Jordan on 24 March.(17)

On 22 March,(13) Jordan transmitted two further PLO letters, dated 21 and 22 March, indicating that 13 West Bank inhabitants had been shot or otherwise injured by Israelis during a continuation of the general strike, which had been extended by another two days in protest against collective punishments. Additional Palestinian casualties, including one death, were reported by the PLO observer in a letter of 23 March, conveyed by Jordan on 24 March,(18) stating that there had been further clashes with Israelis, accompanied by curfews and efforts to intimidate shopkeepers participating in general strikes.

Jordan transmitted on 25 March(19) a further letter of the same date from the PLO observer, stating that the Mayor of Nablus, Basam Al-Shaka, and the Mayor of Ramallah, Karim Khalaf, had been removed from their elected offices on 25 March and replaced by Israeli civilian administrators, and that Palestinians continued to be shot and arrested in various localities.

In a letter of 31 March,(11) Israel stated that on that date a member of a village association in the Hebron area had been seriously wounded in an explosion when his car was booby-trapped by PLO terrorists – an incident which the letter described as the latest in a series of assassinations and attempted assassinations carried out by PLO against Palestinian personalities.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission. On 11 February, the Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned, and demanded that Israel desist from, most of the policies and practices in the occupied territories condemned by the Assembly in December (see below), and also called on Israel to release all Arabs detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle for self-determination and liberation of their territories (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XVIII). As requested by the Commission the resolution was brought to the attention of the General Assembly and the Security Council by the Secretary-General in a note of 14 July.(27)

The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in a resolution of 8 September on various aspects of human rights violations involving Israel,(41) recommended that the Commission again call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Security Council consideration (March/April). At Jordan's urgent request of 22 March,(14) transmitted in its capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group, the Security Council held five meetings between 24 March and 2 April on the situation in the occupied territories. Jordan's letter spoke of a grave situation underscored by a general strike, curfews, indiscriminate use of fire-arms against peaceful demonstrations, and deliberate provocations and assaults by Israeli troops and settlers. It stated that the rising violence threatened the survival of the Palestinian people, foreclosing options for a peaceful Middle East solution and thereby posing a threat to peace and security.

At the conclusion of the debate, a draft resolution sponsored by Jordan was not adopted because of the negative vote of a permanent Council member. The vote, taken on 2 April, was 13 to 1 (United States), with 1 abstention (Zaire).

Under the draft,(1) the Council would have denounced Israeli measures imposed on the Palestinians of the occupied territories, such as the dismissal of elected mayors and the violation of liberties and rights of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza following Israel s December 1981 decision on the Golan Heights (see above). It would have called on Israel to rescind its decisions to disband the municipal council of Al Bireh and remove from their posts the Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah. It would have reaffirmed that the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War continued to apply in full to all of the occupied territories and would have called on Israel to cease all measures contravening the Convention (see below).

Explaining its opposition, the United States said the draft would not have achieved the Council s primary objectives – to urge restraint on the parties so as to avoid any new outbreak of violence and to take a step on the road to a secure and lasting peace; instead of the drafts strongly denunciatory language, the United States would have preferred a text expressing in a non-condemnatory way the Council's great concern about the recent tragic events, which had resulted in injury and loss of life on both sides.

Reaffirming its support for the Palestinian cause, Zaire said it abstained as the efforts undertaken with a view to obtaining a unanimous resolution, hinging on a unanimous and constructive approach, had been thwarted and defeated by rigidity of position which was apparently not based on the desire to find an appropriate solution.

Voting in favour, Poland said the steps taken by Israel stemmed from a programme of step-by-step destruction of the Arab character of the occupied territories; one of the methods applied was the constant broadening and intensification of colonization, leading to eventual annexation.

Spain found it difficult not to see in the recent Israeli measures in the West Bank and Gaza the continuation of a deliberate and planned policy designed ultimately to perpetuate the occupation of the territories acquired by force in contravention of international law; it was impossible to believe in the sincerity of the peace intentions of those who, declaring their support for negotiations, seemed to think that repression and intimidation was the best way to prepare for dialogue.

Japan deplored Israel's latest actions as violations of Security Council resolutions and the 1949 Geneva Convention, adding that they heightened tensions in the occupied territories and throughout the Middle East, had made a solution to the Palestine problem even less attainable and obstructed international efforts for a comprehensive peace.

France and the United Kingdom denounced the disbanding of the Al Bireh municipal council and the dismissal of the Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah, as well as the violence and repression in the West Bank and Gaza, and requested respect for democratic liberties. France considered Israel's policy of faits accomplis in the occupied territories to be unacceptable and contrary to international law. The United Kingdom expressed disappointment that there had been no agreement on a text which could have commanded consensus; only through consensus could the Council contribute effectively to the problems relating to the Arab-Israeli dispute.

Ireland said it had worked informally with other delegations on a text it had hoped would secure a consensus on the basis of the following points: a call for restraint, addressed particularly to Israel; a request to Israel to rescind its decisions; reaffirmation of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force; and reaffirmation of the continued and full applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention to all of the occupied territories. Support for Ireland's draft was expressed by Zaire, which said the Middle East and Palestine problems could not be solved by grabbing the occupied territories.

Israel said Jordan's draft resolution would place another obstacle in the path of peace; the text said nothing about instigation from abroad from some Arab countries which had supplied money and organized subversion, it avoided the ongoing peace process, and it did not support understanding and conciliation.

Commenting on the United States veto, Jordan said it hoped that one day the American voice would be in accord with the general will of international legality, morality and justice, and with the country's fundamental values. By vetoing the resolution, the Syrian Arab Republic said, the United States also had vetoed the obligation of States to respect universally acknowledged rights and Charter principles, particularly those relating to non-intervention and non- interference in domestic affairs, self-determination, territorial integrity and political independence, resistance to foreign occupation, and non-use or threat of use of force; the United States veto would encourage Israeli occupying authorities to escalate their inhuman practices and would contribute to a worsening of the situation in the occupied territories. In the opinion of PLO, the veto was a deliberate obstruction of the Council's constructive role and duty, an affirmation of hostile policy towards Palestinians and Arabs, an invitation to bloodshed and instability.

During its deliberations, the Council invited Algeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Viet Nam, Yemen and Yugoslavia, at their request, to participate without vote in the discussion. In addition, on the proposal of Jordan,(16) the Council extended an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure h/ to the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations.

h/ See footnote b.

On 24 March, at the request of Jordan,(15) the Council decided that an invitation should be accorded to a PLO representative to participate in the debate and that the invitation would confer on it the same rights of participation as those conferred on a Member State invited to participate under rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. i/ The Council took this decision by a vote, requested by the United States, of 11 to 1 (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Japan, United Kingdom).

i/ See footnote a.

Opening the debate, Jordan said the battle for the occupied territories had intensified and would not end until the yoke of one of the worst occupations in history was terminated. The turmoil, triggered by the ejection of the town mayors and councillors of Al Bireh and their replacement by an Israeli colonel, had entered its sixth day and had left scores of dead and wounded. Israel's objective in instituting a reign of terror was to subdue the will to resistance as a prelude to imposing its version of administrative self-rule and emptying the territories of their lawful inhabitants as a final step in its officially declared aim of annexing the rest of the territories. The Council's inaction and complacency had created an untenable situation which would soon pose a grave threat to peace and security and which rendered meaningless any talk about a peaceful solution.

The PLO observer appealed to the Council to take prompt action; a resolution, even if adopted unanimously, might not be accepted and carried out by Israel, but at least it would strengthen faith in the United Nations.

Expressing support for the draft submitted by Jordan, India and Senegal considered it to be time that the Council put into effect the 1976 recommendations of the Committee on Palestinian rights, which had been repeatedly endorsed by the Assembly;(45) since Israel had treated those recommendations with contempt, India added, the only option available to the Council was to take punitive action as provided for in the Charter.

In the opinion of the Syrian Arab Republic, the disbanding of the Al Bireh municipal council and its replacement by Israeli military rule was an indication that Israel had embarked on the annexation of the West Bank bit by bit, and was forcing skilled Palestinian and Arab labourers to emigrate, the Assembly having declared that Israel was not a peace-loving Member, the Council had the obligation to apply mandatory sanctions and to recommend that Israel be expelled from the United Nations.

Algeria, Bangladesh, the German Democratic Republic, Iraq, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Pakistan, Turkey, the USSR, Viet Nam, the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States and others perceived the recent Israeli measures and coercive methods against the Palestinian population as further manifestations of Israel's scheme to bring the occupied territories under its permanent annexation and control.

Egypt said that Israel's policies and practices, aimed at intimidating, eliminating and liquidating the indigenous Palestinians and at depopulating the occupied territories, were undermining sincere attempts to achieve a peaceful, just and comprehensive Middle East settlement; the general strike in the West Bank was a natural expression of resistance against those iron-fist policies. The view that resistance in the form of strikes and demonstrations had been provoked by repressive measures by Israeli occupying forces was also s voiced by others, among them Algeria, Bangladesh, India, Iraq and Viet Nam. Bangladesh added that Israel's recent actions demonstrated its reluctance to accept the very limited autonomy of the occupied territories.

In the opinion of the German Democratic Republic and Viet Nam, the renewed stepping up of Israel's annexation policy was directly related to the so-called strategic alliance between the United States and Israel. Cuba, Iraq, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and others said that, without United States support, Israel would not have dared to commit its aggressive and expansionist acts.

Super-Power rivalry, Yemen stated, had played a big role in delaying a solution and had almost completely prevented the Council from taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter; it was high time that the Council assumed its responsibility.

Bangladesh, Pakistan, Yugoslavia and others believed that the situation posed a grave threat to international peace and security or threatened a wider conflict. India said a wider conflict could be avoided only if the Council responded to the challenge promptly and effectively.

The German Democratic Republic said the situation in the occupied territories had further deteriorated as a result of new acts of Israeli State terrorism, which further impeded a Middle East solution.

The PLO observer stated that Israeli civilian administration in the occupied territories was based on the denial of political and other rights of the population; the only way to redress the situation was by ending the illegal occupation and by guaranteeing the freedom and independence of the people and territory.

Israel, on the other hand, stated that responsibility for the recent unrest lay with PLO and must to a large extent be shared by Jordan, both of which were conspiring to eliminate any emerging and promising alternative to PLO terror. The Prime Minister of Jordan had threatened the inhabitants of Judaea and Samaria with treason charges and death penalties if they favoured peace with Israel by participating in village associations. Israel had set up a civilian administration to replace the military one, seeking to create the framework for a Palestinian Arab autonomy which would eventually take over from the civilian administration. The Council could discharge its tasks and promote peace only by supporting the promise of reconciliation rather than condoning violence and fear, even by implication, it must call on those responsible for the instigation of terror and tension to desist from their provocations.

In a subsequent statement following the dismissal of the Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah, Israel said they had been dismissed in order to root out agitation at one of its sources. The United States remarked in this connection that the Geneva Convention gave the occupying Power the unrestricted right to dismiss public officials, whether appointed or elected.

Most speakers, including Bangladesh, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey and the USSR, called on Israel to rescind its decision and reinstitute the municipal council and the mayors, and to end its violence and restrictive measures against the population of the occupied territories. Morocco also called on the Council to declare the recent measures null and void and to condemn any Israeli action that would make it impossible to restore peace and justice founded on restoration of Palestinian rights and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The USSR added that the Council must condemn Israel for its continuing acts of terrorism and take measures against any further creeping annexation. Turkey hoped that a resolute stand by the Council would impel Israel to come to terms with the inevitable reality of the Palestinians and their inalienable rights.

Pakistan believed that recent events in the occupied territories had demonstrated that paralysis on the part of the Council, preventing it from acting expeditiously and firmly, would aggravate the situation. Yugoslavia considered it the Council's duty to compel Israel to respect and implement the principles of international law and international relations; the Council must take measures to end Israel's policy of violence, denationalization and national obliteration of the occupied territories and reprisals against their population, and then embark energetically on the creation of conditions favourable for a Middle East solution.

Cuba called on the Council to adopt the measures necessary to put an end to the cause of the conflict, it hoped Israeli occupation and annexation of the territories of others would cease, the Palestinians would be enabled unconditionally to exercise their inalienable rights, justice would be restored, and the way would be opened to a comprehensive and lasting Middle East solution.

Bangladesh stated that the permanent Council members had a particularly heavy responsibility to enable the Council to bring peace to the Middle East.

Algeria felt that restrained condemnations and appeals to goodwill were inadequate to block Israeli designs of domination and conquest; the Council must do everything in its power to stop the violations of the human rights of the Palestinians.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya called on the Council to condemn Israel and fully to apply Chapter VII of the Charter.

The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States said that, if Israel's annexationist policies remained uninterrupted by the United Nations, the havoc all were seeking to avoid would be conjured up and enforced.

Israel said the Council was being used as a forum to engender tensions and to echo the provocations inside the occupied territories; the Council must allow reason to assert itself. Israel, in any case, would not be deterred from striving for greater Israel-Arab understanding and co-operation within the framework of peaceful coexistence.

Pakistan believed that the continuing Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation highlighted the primary imperative of the Middle East conflict – that peace could not be attained without full restitution of Palestinian rights, including the right to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State in Palestine. In Egypt's view, as in that of many other States, the situation in the territories was a direct corollary of Israel's rejection of the recognition or acknowledgement of the existence of an independent Palestinian national entity.

Iran said the answer to the Palestinian problem could not be found in debates and resolutions; it lay only in vigorously convincing the usurping agent that it could no longer count on the inactivity of the majority of inhabitants of the occupied territories and that it could no longer impose tranquillity on the area by means of military power.

Communications (April). On 2 April, Morocco transmitted a telegram of 23 March from King Hassan II of Morocco, in his capacity as President of the Summit Conference of Arab States, condemning what he called repressive and inhuman acts by Israel against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories.(24)

Also on 2 April, Belgium transmitted a statement of the EC heads of State and Government, made at a meeting of the European Council in Brussels, Belgium, on 29 and 30 March, denouncing measures against the Palestinians such as the dismissal of elected mayors, as well as what they called the violation of liberties and rights of the inhabitants. (9)

On 20 April, Jordan forwarded to the Security Council President, at the request of the PLO observer, a letter of l9 April from the Mayor of Gaza, appealing to the President to intervene in order to alleviate what the Mayor said were brutal attacks of the Israeli army against the civilians of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including a curfew at Rafah which had been in effect for five days.(20)

General Assembly action (April). At its resumed seventh emergency special session on the Palestine question, the General Assembly adopted on 28 April a resolution(28) in which it demanded that Israel comply with the 1980 Security Council resolution demanding that Israel rescind measures to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and status of the occupied territories. (44) Under other provisions, the Assembly condemned Israel for its failure to fulfil its obligations under the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians (see below), for disbanding the elected municipal council of Al Bireh and dismissing the Mayors of Ramallah and Nablus, for repressive measures including shooting at unarmed civilians, and for attacks against and interference with the functions of civic, educational and religious institutions. It demanded that Israel permit the Committee on Israeli practices in the occupied territories to enter those territories to fulfil the mandate given it by the Assembly.

Introducing the resolution, Senegal said that, by recalling the recent events in the occupied territories, deplored and condemned by the international community, it was merely being consistent.

Democratic Yemen, Iraq, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Togo, Turkey and others stated that they voted for the resolution primarily in support of the victims of Israeli occupation, annexation and colonization and of the struggle of the Palestinians. The legitimate anger of a desperate people taken to the extremes, Turkey said, had been drowned in violence and blood. Greece declared it voted in favour in support of the principles of non-use of force and inadmissibility of the acquisition or control over a territory through military invasion and occupation and in support of the right to self-determination. Suriname expressed the view that the continuing aggravation and deterioration of the situation especially in the occupied territories called for international action to take appropriate measures and implement the relevant Security Council resolutions, Suriname felt that the provisions adequately addressed the tension caused by Israel's policies.

Jordan, however, felt that the resolution would not alleviate the plight of the Palestinians, nor change the irreversible course of Israel's aggression, bringing the just Palestinian cause and Palestinian rights to the point of no return; Israel had clearly demonstrated its determination to expel by force, intimidation and strangulation the remnants of the Palestinians from their homeland. The facts described in the paragraph condemning Israel's policies were there for all to see.

Israel, on the other hand, said the paragraph contained a series of blatant lies that had failed of adoption in the Security Council.

Though casting an affirmative vote, Nepal would have preferred a different formulation of certain subparagraphs of the provision condemning Israeli practices.

Israel's policies were denounced and rejected by the majority of speakers, among them Bahrain Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burundi, the Byelorussian SSR, China, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Hungary, India, Ireland, Jordan, Mongolia, Portugal, Romania, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yugoslavia. Concern over the repressive policy and escalating tension was expressed by Belgium (on behalf of the EC members), Canada, Sweden and others. Sierra Leone said Israel's recent policies had further threatened peace and stability and further aborted the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. Madagascar believed that Israel's policy seemed to consist in preventing any real progress towards establishing a just and lasting peace and in maintaining a constant state of tension, if not terror.

In Finland's view, Israel's policies in the occupied territories continued to breed frustration and violence and made the achievement of a comprehensive peace more difficult. Norway thought the recent disturbances in the West Bank were a sign of mounting frustration.

Support for the call for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and the recognition of Palestinian rights was expressed by Austria, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, Spain, Suriname, the United Republic of Cameroon and others.

The Middle East and Palestine problem would continue, Sierra Leone stated, until Israel terminated its annexation policies and repeated predatory and military attacks against Palestinians, and until it ceased the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.

Recent events, Zaire and others said, had proved the need for increased efforts and new initiatives to find a negotiated, comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the Middle East and Palestine problem.

The PLO observer appealed to the Security Council to take the necessary measures for the protection of the Palestinians and their land in the West Bank and Gaza and to ensure Israel's full withdrawal, and appealed to the United Nations to dispatch immediately an international committee to inquire into Israel's crimes.

Zambia said that, in its attempts to deprive the Palestinians of their homeland and their right to self-determination, Israel had increased its repression which, in Bulgaria's opinion, was aimed at crushing Palestinian resistance. Nigeria felt that Israel was not only destroying the Palestinian nation but also the way of life of the Palestinians. In Viet Nam's view, Israel's aggressive acts were part of its systematic policy to eliminate the Palestinians.

Thailand said the continued mistreatment of the Arab population underscored the urgent need for full restoration of Palestinian rights, particularly the right to self-determination free from outside interference or coercion; Israel, however, appeared more determined to hold onto the occupied territories.

India believed that Israel's actions were designed to consolidate its stranglehold over the occupied territories and to perpetuate their occupation, as well as to intimidate its Arab neighbours. Togo was convinced that a new flare-up of violence in the region could only give Israel reasons to continue its illegal occupation. A number of countries, among them Bahrain, the Byelorussian SSR, Hungary, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Poland, Uganda, the Ukrainian SSR, the United Republic of Cameroon and Yugoslavia, charged that Israel's policies were aimed at annexing the occupied territories. The Sudan stated that Israel wanted to build a State with no definite borders. In Morocco's view, the occupation of the Arab territories after the 1967 six-day war had been the point of departure for the implementation of the dream of Greater Israel. Jordan said Israel had already seized 40 per cent of the territories occupied in 1967 and more than 90 per cent of those occupied in 1948.

In Tunisia's opinion, Israel's aggression against the Palestinians and Arabs was designed to keep the Middle East in a permanent state of tension which served its hegemonism. Israel's practices were nothing but usurpation, Iran stated, and as long as the original mistake of the creation of an Israeli State was not rectified, any attempt at reformation or prevention of other crimes and aggression remained useless.

According to Morocco, there had been a catastrophic acceleration of Israel's colonization and expansion. Ghana considered the increase in the tempo of annexation, expropriation of Arab land and other Israeli acts in the territories a threat to international peace and security and international law.

Bangladesh, Cyprus, Djibouti, Iraq, Japan, the Philippines, Poland, Yemen, Yugoslavia and others believed that Israel's occupation policy had exacerbated the Middle East situation. Norway saw the disturbances as a sign of mounting frustration among the Palestinians. In Pakistan's view, the Palestinian protests and street demonstrations were the manifestation of the aggravation of an already explosive situation. Speaking for the EC members, Belgium said they were profoundly disturbed by the toll of killed and wounded; Israel's recent steps had only served to undermine the peace process. A similar position was held by Malaysia and the Sudan, which added that Israel's actions had the potential of drawing the region into armed confrontation.

The Ukrainian SSR said Israeli colonization of seized lands had assumed particularly large proportions since the Camp David plot, and the cruel repression of Palestinians was serving to force them to give up their rights and to agree with the so-called administrative autonomy provided for them by that anti-Arab plot. The Byelorussian SSR believed that Israel was determined to expedite the implementation of its plans for the creation of a Greater Israel by imposing on the Palestinians a Camp David-style autonomy which would deprive them of their right to self-determination and creation of their own national State. The so-called autonomy envisaged in the Camp David agreement, Democratic Yemen said, merely paved the way for total annexation. In Afghanistan's opinion, the Camp David process proved to be a process for creeping annexation and for mounting ruthless repression, and Qatar said Israel exploited the so-called autonomy talks to mask its usurpation of Arab and Palestinian territories.

Saudi Arabia said the annexation of the Golan Heights (see above) had followed the establishment of Israeli settlements in the area and Israel now followed the same course with regard to the West Bank. Also in the opinion of Hungary, Kuwait, Mongolia and Poland, Israel intended to annex the West Bank and Gaza, an intention already proved in the case of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Czechoslovakia regarded the new wave of repression against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Israel's unlawful measures in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, as a prelude to a new display of Israel's wilfulness. New Zealand felt that there had been a succession of acts in defiance of the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force, including the annexation of East Jerusalem, the Israeli decision on the Golan Heights, and the seizure and settlement of large amounts of land and property in the West Bank.

The Lao People's Democratic Republic feared that the occupied territories would fall one after the other under the stroke of Israeli legislation; the annexation of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem and Israel's attacks against Lebanon were proof of its efforts to legalize for all time its occupation of Arab territories. Once Israel had put into effect its decision to annex Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, Iraq stated, it began its preparations for forging another link in its chain of expansionism; it aimed at preparing the ground not only for the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, but also for military aggression against southern Lebanon.

Mongolia said the annexation was being carried out in stages: after repopulating the occupied territories on a broad scale, which violated the basic rights and freedoms of the indigenous population, and repressing the slightest opposition, legislation followed. Pakistan said Israel's repressive measures against the Palestinians were coupled with administrative and juridical steps aimed at changing the character, structure and status of the territories; Israel's objective was clearly to change facts on the ground and consolidate its control over the territories.

In the view of the USSR, it was Israel's expansionist policy aimed at perpetuating its occupation of Arab lands and at imposing alien domination on the Palestinians that stood in the way of a Middle East settlement and just and lasting peace. Burundi felt that Israel's practices and policies destroyed the climate needed for negotiations. Jordan held it indisputable that Israel's policies could not be allowed to continue unchecked and unchallenged.

Israel was urged by many countries to rescind its measures. Romania called on Israel to nullify immediately its unlawful actions and put an end to repression; Israel's security and independence could be ensured only if it respected the security and independence of other countries and the right of the Palestinians to live in their own independent State. By putting an end to its policies in the territories, Nepal believed, Israel would create confidence in its stated willingness to negotiate.

As a condition for a settlement, many speakers, including China and the United Republic of Cameroon, called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.

Israel said with regard to the Palestinian residents of Judaea, Samaria and Gaza, the Camp David framework saw the solution in terms of their full autonomy, for a transitional period of five years, before reaching an agreement on the final status of the area. The Camp David framework invited the Palestinians to play an active role in shaping their future and offered them greater opportunities than they had ever experienced.

In the opinion of the PLO observer, however, the Camp David plot was meant to torpedo United Nations efforts for a comprehensive peace; nowhere in the accords were the rights of the Palestinians mentioned, their rights to return, to self-determination and sovereignty. The USSR and a number of other, mainly Eastern European and Arab, States cited similar reasons for their opposition to the Camp David accords. Angola believed that a temporary or partial peace merely served to disguise the Palestine problem and sought to buy time for Israel to entrench all the more its illegal and racist policies in the occupied territories.

Finland held it imperative that the ultimate status of the territories not be prejudged before a comprehensive solution had been found.

Communications (May-July). By a letter of 24 May to the Secretary-General,(4) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights expressed grave concern over what he regarded as the dangerous deterioration in the West Bank and Gaza due to Israel's repressive policy; the letter cited press reports of the death of several Palestinians and the wounding of many others in protests against Israeli policies, including an attack by Israeli soldiers against a girls' school, causing the death of a Palestinian girl.

In a similar letter of 18 June,(5) the Chairman called attention to a press report that Israel had dissolved the elected city councils of two West Bank towns, Dura and Nablus. Reports that the Mayor of Djenin had been removed from office and that two young Palestinian demonstrators had been wounded were cited in a further letter by the Chairman dated 9 July.(6)

General Assembly action (August). In its resolution of 19 August concerned mainly with Israel and Lebanon,(29) the General Assembly again demanded that Israel carry out the provisions of previous Assembly resolutions on the occupied territories, as well as of the 1980 Security Council resolution on the subject.(44) It mentioned in particular the Council's determination that Israeli measures to change the character, demography, institutions or status of the territories had no legal validity, and that Israel's settlement policy (see below) violated the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians and obstructed a Middle East peace; and the Council's call on Israel to rescind those measures, dismantle settlements, and cease establishing and planning new ones.

Communications (September-December). Press reports that Israeli frontier police had shot two young Arabs in the West Bank were cited in a letter of 14 September to the Secretary-General from the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights.(7) By a letter of 29 October,(8) the Chairman expressed the belief that Israel had embarked on a new wave of repression in the wake of demonstrations protesting the shooting death on 27 October of a young Palestinian, reportedly killed by Israeli settlers.

On 25 October,(21) 29 October(22) and 21 December,(23) Jordan transmitted to the Security Council President letters from the PLO observer, alleging further repressive measures by Israel, including a curfew imposed on Hebron on 20 October following incidents between Israelis and Palestinians (PLO letter of 21 October); firing at and wounding of demonstrators protesting the killing of a Palestinian by Israeli settlers (two letters of 27 October); and the killing of two demonstrators and imposition of curfews (two letters of 20 December).

Activities of the Committee on Israeli practices in the occupied territories. In its annual report, approved on 27 August and transmitted to the General Assembly by the Secretary-General,(26) the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, established in 1968,(42) presented information on the situation of the civilian population, on Israeli civil administration in the territories, Israel's annexation and settlement policies, and treatment of detainees. The report, with an annexed map showing Israeli settlements established, planned or under construction, covered the situation since the adoption of the Committee's previous report in September 1981.(46) As in previous years, the Committee worked without the co-operation of Israel.

During 1982, the Committee held three series of meetings. At the first, from 18 to 22 January at Geneva, the Committee reviewed its mandate and decided on the organization of its work. At the second series of meetings, from 4 to 14 May, beginning at Geneva and moving to Amman, Jordan, and Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic, the Committee heard the testimony of persons living m the occupied territories, including the Mayors of Halhul and Hebron and the President of Bir Zeit University. It also consulted with Jordanian and Syrian officials, and visited a camp for approximately 61,000 persons operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and the King Hussein Bridge, the crossing point between Jordanian territory and the Israeli-occupied West Bank, to examine procedures and practices regarding civilians crossing to and from the occupied area. During a third series of meetings, held from 23 to 27 August at Geneva, the Committee examined communications and adopted its report.

In the conclusions of its report, the Committee stated that since September 1981, when the Israeli Minister of Defence had announced a "new policy" and the subsequent imposition of "civil administration", the situation in the occupied territories had taken a distinct turn for the worse. After declaring their opposition to the civil administration, lawfully elected municipal authorities in the West Bank and Gaza had been systematically dismissed The situation had become yet more explosive, leading to the death of several persons at the hands of Israeli forces or settlers in the course of demonstrations by the Arab population against the dismissal of the municipal authorities. No less than 21 persons were reported to have been shot dead within two months early in 1982.

The Committee further concluded that the prolonged Israeli occupation had led to complete subjugation of the economy of the occupied territories to the Israeli economy. Agriculture, the main economic sector, was largely conditioned by the vicissitudes of Israeli agriculture. The latter, benefiting from subsidies and centralized planning, had taken control of markets that would normally constitute the outlets for agriculture in the West Bank.

Parallel to these events, the Government, in its effort to eliminate the popular base of the municipalities, had undertaken the establishment of "village leagues", including persons with doubtful reputation and standing in the Palestinian community. Those institutions had been accorded power and influence over matters such as the issuance of certain building and travel permits, so to make them indispensable in daily life. In addition, Israeli settlement policy had been intensified and there was a greater tendency to consolidate the settlements already established, particularly in areas densely populated by Palestinians (see below).

The Committee stated that the civilian population did not benefit from any means of legal protection and had been completely deprived of any remedy. Recourse to the Israeli Supreme Court and the High Court of Justice had been shown to be without, any significant result. The number of detainees continued to increase and prison conditions were very unsatisfactory, due mainly to overcrowding.

The Committee concluded that the information it had received indicated that the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians continued to be contravened (see below). It also heard testimony on the resistance of the Golan Heights population to Israel's action extending its law to the Syrian territory (see above).

In accordance with a December 1981 General Assembly resolution,(43) the Secretary-General submitted to the Assembly in October 1982 a report on the measures taken by the Secretariat to provide the facilities required by the Committee and to ensure the widest dissemination of information on its work.(25) He stated that an additional staff member had been made available to the Committee.

General Assembly action (December). On 10 December, the General Assembly adopted seven resolutions on the report of the Committee on Israeli practices, one dealing with the general situation of the territories occupied by Israel and the rest concerning specific aspects.

By the general resolution,(33) the Assembly strongly condemned a number of Israeli policies and practices and demanded that Israel desist from them. They included annexation, imposition of Israeli laws and administration on the Golan Heights, establishment and expansion of settlements, evacuation and displacement of Arabs, confiscation of Arab property, excavation and transformation of cultural and religious sites, destruction of houses, collective punishment, torture of detainees, interference with religious freedoms, family customs, education, development and freedom of movement, and illegal exploitation of natural resources. The Assembly reaffirmed that occupation itself constituted a grave violation of human rights and reiterated its call for non- recognition of changes carried out by Israel in the territories. The Assembly requested the Committee to continue its work, deplored Israel's continued refusal to allow the Committee access to the occupied territories and demanded that it grant such access.

By the other resolutions, the Assembly: demanded that Israel comply with the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians in wartime;(31) deplored Israel's establishment of settlements in the occupied territories;(32) demanded that Israel rescind the expulsion and imprisonment of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and the expulsion of the Sharia (Islamic) Judge of Hebron;(34) condemned Israel's decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the Golan Heights,(35) demanded that Israel rescind all actions against Palestinian educational institutions,(36) and expressed deep concern that Israel had failed for two years to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators of assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh.(37)

The Assembly also dealt with the occupied territories in three other resolutions adopted in December. By its resolutions of 16 December on the Golan Heights(33) and 20 December on the Palestine question,(30) the Assembly declared all Israeli policies and practices of, or aimed at, annexation of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem to be in violation of international law and United Nations resolutions, and demanded that Israel withdraw completely and unconditionally therefrom. In the latter resolution, it urged the Security Council to facilitate Israel's withdrawal and recommended that the territories be placed under United Nations supervision for a short transitional period, during which the Palestinians would exercise their right to self-determination. Condemning the continued occupation of Arab and Palestinian territories, the Assembly demanded Israeli withdrawal in another resolution of 20 December on the Middle East situation.(40)

In addition, by a resolution of 16 December,(39) the Assembly deplored the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem.

The 10 December resolution condemning Israeli practices in the territories was adopted by a recorded vote of 112 to 2, with 21 abstentions, following its approval on 3 December by the Special Political Committee by a recorded vote of 85 to 2, with 22 abstentions. Paragraphs 6 and 16 were adopted in Committee by recorded votes of 72 to 18, with 14 abstentions, and 83 to 17, with 7 abstentions, respectively.

The United States, rejecting the text as severely biased and polemical, particularly opposed the costs envisaged for the Special Committee's activities – estimated by the Secretary-General at $323,900 over the previously budgeted expenses for 1983.

Abstaining in the vote, Sweden said that although it supported most of the resolution's contents, and specifically the condemnation of various Israeli policies and practices, the text was not always fully justified by proven facts, went beyond the Assembly's competence and contained sweeping generalizations which Sweden could not support.

Though voting in favour, Jamaica regarded the language of the paragraph condemning the ill-treatment and torture of detainees as excessive.

Introducing the draft in Committee on behalf of 11 nations, Bangladesh noted that its content had been the subject of many previous resolutions which had not produced substantive results.

During the Assembly debates on the Middle East situation and on the Palestine question, many speakers denounced or deplored Israeli practices and policies in the occupied territories. Concern was expressed by Denmark, on behalf of the EC members, which believed that those policies and practices had led to mounting tension and continued unrest. The denial of human rights in the territories was also of concern to others, among them Nigeria, which added that Israel's continued occupation of Arab lands was a threat to international peace and security.

The Congo, the United Arab Emirates and others held that Israel's measures in the territories were arbitrary, illegal and contrary to international law; Portugal believed that they violated in particular the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. Palestinians were killed because they dared to cast a stone against the occupying Power, said the United Arab Emirates; their homes were destroyed because they had a brother or son suspected of involvement in the resistance to the occupation, their elected representatives had been eliminated or attacked because they rejected occupation, and their books were confiscated and their schools and universities closed for months because they had shown opposition or expressed opinions.

A number of States felt that the situation in the occupied territories had worsened; at no past time, Indonesia remarked, had the Palestinians been subjected to such brutal oppression. The Lao People's Democratic Republic also saw a deterioration and observed that Israel was committing acts of terrorism and repression against the territories' civilians. Cyprus said Israel had been allowed to proceed with its policies almost with impunity, and Saudi Arabia charged that Israel made use of Western money to consolidate its aggression against the occupied territories with a view to settling and annexing them and terrorizing the Palestinians to induce them to emigrate so that they would completely lose their identity and any hope of living in freedom and dignity in their native land. Madagascar saw an unprecedented increase in violence and brutality, with Israeli authorities harassing civilians who opposed the introduction of a civil administration system and the setting up of village leagues as a prelude to annexation of the territories by Israel.

The PLO observer stated that under Israeli occupation the Palestinians lived in conditions that were a travesty of law; however, they were determined to achieve their rights. In spite of Israel's repression, which was becoming more ruthless, Morocco said, the Palestinians were succeeding in asserting their existence, identity and rights. In Sri Lanka's opinion, the most tenacious defenders of their rights had been the Palestinians themselves, who had resisted and survived despite the repression and banishment of their leadership. Responsibility for the liberation of the territories, the Syrian Arab Republic declared, rested with the Arab nation.

On the pretext of ensuring the existence of its people, Nicaragua said, Israel had never hesitated to practice the most cruel, inhuman and racist methods. A similar opinion was expressed by the USSR, which added that those methods had become a daily norm of Israeli occupation policy; for 15 years, the longest period of military occupation in the twentieth century, Israel had been drawing the noose ever tighter around the Arab and Palestinian lands it had seized. Democratic Yemen stated that Israel was exercising every form of violence and intimidation, and Iraq found it obvious that it was the Palestinians and not Israel's population that had to be liberated from continuous acts of terror and aggression. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said Israel's actions were designed to terrorize and intimidate the Palestinians so that Israel could impose its expansionist policy and consecrate its faits accomplis.

Algeria believed that Israel was attempting to modify fundamentally the legal status of the territories, an attempt which in Indonesia's opinion added a new, more ominous dimension to the Middle East problem. Nepal and others felt that Israel's continued actions to change the legal status and demographic character of the territories could not be condoned.

Besides attempting to change the demographic, historical and cultural features of the territories, Pakistan stated, Israel was annexing them outright. A similar opinion was expressed by Djibouti, Greece, Hungary, Qatar, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia. The Israelis, said Guyana, had manifested a ruthless determination to hold onto and even expand their territorial acquisitions. Sweden rejected Israeli claims to supremacy over the territories as without basis in international law and could not accept Israel's attempts to create facts with the intent of making Israeli control irreversible. Uganda said Israel's design to annex the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was betrayed by its replacement of its military authorities in the West Bank with a civilian administration and its construction of massive settlements.

Jordan charged Israel with carrying out a systematic programme of colonization and annexation, a position held by several others, including Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Ukrainian SSR and Yugoslavia. Kenya urged that Israel's supporters who had means of persuasion over it assist in reversing the annexation of Arab lands. Malta, the Rapporteur of the Committee on Palestinian rights, said Israel's policies represented a de facto annexation with old maps no longer recognizable. Tunisia said Israel believed that its policy of fait accompli would enable it to give the dream of Greater Israel a concrete form. Israel's intentions, the Gambia thought, had been eloquently illustrated in March by the transfer to a civilian administrator of territories administered by a military governor, a move rightly condemned by Palestinian leaders as creeping annexation. The USSR said the purpose of Israel's policy was to force the Palestinians to accept Israeli occupation and to impose on them a meagre Camp David-style administrative autonomy.

Israel's land policies in the occupied territories were criticized by several speakers. The Byelorussian SSR said that in implementing its annexation policy, Israel was using both open violence to drive people out and such juridical casuistry as requiring the registration of all landholdings and then making it impossible in practice for the Palestinians to register their lands. The Syrian Arab Republic said Israel had taken 54 per cent of the land on the West Bank. In the view of the United Arab Emirates, Israel's aim was to expel all the indigenous population from Palestine so that it could seize the remaining Palestinian lands.

On the basis of a racist theory designed to preserve Israel's racist existence, thus preventing a large number of Palestinians in the occupied territories from remaining as citizens, PLO stated, Israel offered a distorted autonomy plan for the West Bank and Gaza.

Malaysia believed that Israel's aggressive policy in the territories confirmed that Israel would accept peace only on its terms. In the view of Cyprus, the increasingly brutal repression of civilians and actions to deprive Arab and Palestinian inhabitants of their land and water could not possibly be considered peace gestures. Brazil said some Israeli actions had hardly contributed to a climate of moderation. Austria believed that Israel's actions were in clear violation of international law and remained a fundamental impediment to the initiation of an effective peace process.

Many countries, including Bulgaria, Democratic Yemen, Hungary, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia and Nigeria, saw Israel's unconditional withdrawal from the occupied territories as a pre-condition of any Middle East solution. The position of the EC members on this point, as stated by Denmark, was that an end must be put to the territorial occupation within the framework of a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement. In the framework of a solution, Iraq stated, first attention must be paid to the crux of the problem, namely, the fate of the inhabitants of territories. Pakistan said the United Nations had an immediate obligation to protect the human rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and in Lebanon and to exert pressure on Israel to prevent it from pursuing its repressive policies.

Dominating over approximately 60 per cent of the West Bank, having annexed Jerusalem and having imposed its law on the Golan Heights, Israel could not modify the historical facts and must realize that violence and terrorism could not resolve the Middle East conflict, Bahrain said. Japan urged Israel to make special efforts to protect human rights and promote the welfare of the Palestinians.

Draft resolution not adopted. (1) Jordan, S/14943.

Letters. Committee on Palestinian rights Acting Chairman (AC) and Chairman: (2) 22 Jan., A/37175-S/14844 (AC); (3) 8 Mar., A/37/109-S/14897; (4) 24 May, A/37/240-S/15120; (5) 18 June, A/37/301-S/15244; (6) 9 July, A/37/339-S/15290; (7) 14 Sep., A/37/449-S/15393, (8) 29 Oct., A/37/587-S/15476.  (9) Belgium: 2 Apr., A/37/170-S/14954.  Israel: (10) 17 Mar., A/37/118- S/14910 & Corr. 1; (11) 31 Mar., S/14938 (1 Apr., A/37/165).  Jordan: (12) 19 Mar., A/37/153 (S/14912); (13) 22 Mar., A/37/155 (S/14916); (14) 22 Mar., S/14917; (15) 23 Mar., S/14920; (16) 23 Mar., S/14921 (17) 24 Mar., S/14923; (18) 24 Mar, S/14924; (19) 25 Mar, S/14930; (20) 20 Apr., S/14991; (21) 25 Oct., S/15465; (22) 29 Oct., S/15470; (23) 21 Dec., S/15541. (24) Morocco: 2 Apr. A/37/168-S/14952.

Reports. (25) S-G, A/37/541; (26) Committee on Israeli practices in occupied territories, transmitted by S-G note, A/37/485.

Resolutions (1982). (27) Commission on Human Rights (report, E/1982/12): 1982/1 A, 11 Feb. (transmitted by S-G note A/37/322-S/15269). GA: (28) ES-7/4, 28 Apr.; (29) ES-7/6, 19 Aug., (30) 37/86 E, paras. 2-5, 20 Dec., (31) 37/88 A, (32) 37/88 B, 10 Dec.; (33) 37/88 C, 10 Dec., text following; (34) 37/88 D, (35) 37/88 E, (36) 37/88 F, (37) 37/88 G, 10 Dec.; (38) 37/123 A, paras. 4 & 11, 16 Dec., (39) 37/123 C, 16 Dec., (40) 37/123 F, para. 1, 20 Dec., (41) SCPDPM (report E/CN.4/1983/4): 1982/18, para. 1 (c) & 8 Sep.

Resolutions (prior). GA: (42) 2443 (XXIII), 19 Dec. 1968 (YUN 1968, p. 555); (43) 36/147 C, 16 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 305). (44) SC: 465 (1980), 1 Mar. 1980 (YUN 1980, p. 427).

Yearbook references. (45) 1976, p. 235 (text, 1980, p. 394); (46) 1981, p. 301.

Financial implications. 5th Committee report, A/37/725; S-G statements, A/SPC/37/L.38, A/C.5/37/87.

Meeting records. SC: S/PV.2334 & Corr.1, 2338, 2340, 2344, 2348 (24 Mar.-2 Apr.).  GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.35-41 42, 44 (23 Nov.-3 Dec.); 5th Committee, A/C.5/37/SR.61 (9 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.100 (10 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/88 C
10 December 1982    Meeting 100 112-2-21 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/698) by recorded vote (85-2-22), 3 December (meeting 44); 11-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.30); agenda item 61.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal.

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and by the principles and provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Bearing in mind the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, as well as of other relevant

Recalling all its resolutions on the subject, in particular resolutions 32/91 B and C of 13 December 1977, 33/113 C of 18 December 1978, 34/90 A of 12 December 1979, 35/122 C of 11 December 1980 and 36/147 C of 16 December 1981, and also those adopted by the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights and other United Nations organs concerned and by the specialized agencies,

Having considered the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, which contains, inter alia, public statements made by the leaders of the Government of Israel,

1. Commends the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories for its efforts in performing the tasks assigned to it by the General Assembly and for its thoroughness and impartiality;

2. Deplores the continued refusal by Israel to allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories;

3. Demands that Israel allow the Special Committee access to the occupied territories;

4. Reaffirms the fact that occupation itself constitutes a grave violation of the human rights of the civilian population of the occupied Arab territories;

5. Condemns the continued and persistent violation by Israel of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1943, and other applicable international instruments, and condemns in particular those violations which that Convention designates as "grave breaches" thereof;

6. Declares once more that Israel's grave breaches of that Convention are war crimes and an affront to humanity;

7. Strongly condemns the following Israeli policies and practices:

(a) Annexation of parts of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem;

(b) Imposition of Israeli laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Syrian Golan Heights, which has resulted in the effective annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights;

(c) Establishment of new Israeli settlements and expansion of the existing settlements on private and public Arab lands, and transfer of an alien population thereto;

(d) Evacuation, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories and denial of their right to return;

(e) Confiscation and expropriation of private and public Arab property in the occupied territories and all other transactions for the acquisition of land involving the Israeli authorities, institutions or nationals on the one hand and the inhabitants or institutions of the occupied territories on the other;

(f) Excavations and transformations of the landscape and the historical, cultural and religious sites, especially in Jerusalem;

(g) Destruction and demolition of Arab houses;

(h) Collective punishment, mass arrests, administrative detention and ill-treatment of the Arab population;

(i) Ill-treatment and torture of persons under detention;

(j) Pillaging of archaeological and cultural property;

(k) Interference with religious freedoms and practices as well as family rights and customs;

(l) Interference with the system of education and with the social and economic development of the population in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories;

(m) Interference with the freedom of movement of individuals within the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories;

(n) Illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories;

8. Reaffirms that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the occupied territories, or any part thereof, including Jerusalem, are null and void, and that Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories constitutes a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention and of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations;

9. Demands that Israel desist forthwith from the policies and practices referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 above;

10. Urges the international organizations and the specialized agencies, in particular the International Labour Organisation, to examine the conditions of Arab workers in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem;

11. Reiterates its call upon all States, in particular those States parties to the Geneva Convention, in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and upon international organizations and the specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid actions, including those in the held of aid, which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any of the other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

12. Requests the Special Committee, pending the early termination of Israeli occupation, to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, to consult, as appropriate, with the International Committee of the Red Cross in order to ensure the safeguarding of the welfare and human rights of the population of the occupied territories and to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arises thereafter;

13. Requests the Special Committee to continue to investigate the treatment of civilians in detention in the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

14. Condemns Israel's refusal to permit persons from the occupied territories to appear as witnesses before the Special Committee;

15. Requests the Secretary General:

(a) To provide all necessary facilities to the Special Committee, including those required for its visits to the occupied territories, with a view to investigating the Israeli policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

(b) To continue to make available additional staff as may be necessary to assist the Special Committee in the performance of its tasks;

(c) To ensure the widest circulation of the reports of the Special Committee, and of information regarding its activities and findings, by all means available through the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat and, where necessary, to reprint those reports of the Special Committee which are no longer available;

(d) To report to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session on the tasks entrusted to him in the present paragraph;

16. Requests the Security Council to ensure Israel's respect for and compliance with all the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to initiate measures to halt Israeli policies and practices in those territories;

17. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty eighth session the item entitled "Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories".

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan Luxembourg, Netherlands New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Observance of the 1949 Convention on protection of civilians

Respect for and compliance, particularly by Israel, with the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (fourth Geneva Convention), was called for on several occasions in 1982 – by the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and by the General Assembly.

In addition, the Security Council referred to the humanitarian principles of the Convention in the preambles of three resolutions adopted after the Israeli military move into Lebanon in June: a resolution of 19 June on protection of civilians in the conflict and on humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese and Palestinians,(9) a resolution of 4 July calling for respect for the rights of civilians in Lebanon(10) and a resolution of 29 July demanding that Israel lift the blockade of Beirut.(11)

Action by the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission. On 11 February, after examining alleged human rights violations in the territories occupied by Israel, the Commission on Human Rights condemned Israel's failure to acknowledge the applicability of the Convention to the occupied territories, called on Israel to respect its obligations under the Convention and urged all parties to the Convention to exert all efforts to ensure Israel's compliance.(2) Also on that date, the Commission declared that Israel s grave breaches of the Convention (a term defined in the Convention to include certain specified violations) were war crimes and an affront to humanity.(1) A similar provision was included in a resolution adopted on 8 September by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.(12)

General Assembly action. Condemning Israel for its failure to fulfil its obligations under the Convention, the General Assembly, in a resolution on the Palestine question adopted on 28 April at its resumed seventh emergency special session,(3) reaffirmed that all the provisions of that Convention and of the Hague Conventions of 1907 on the law of war applied to all occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and called on all parties to those instruments to respect and ensure respect of their obligations in all circumstances. The Assembly called again on Israel to apply the Convention s provisions and the principles of international law in the occupied territories.

During the April debate, Belgium, speaking for the EC members, emphasized that the Geneva Convention as well as the Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 were applicable to all occupied territories. A similar view was expressed by several other countries, among them Austria. Norway regretted that Israel had violated the Geneva Convention on different occasions, particularly through its settlement policy and its decision to apply its civilian law to the Golan Heights. In Mali's opinion, the situation in the territories showed that Israel could not assure the security of the Palestinian population and could not carry out its obligations under the Convention.

Israel's settlement and occupation policy was regarded as a violation of the Convention also by others, such as the Philippines. Japan strongly appealed to Israel to make special efforts to protect the human rights and promote the welfare of the Palestinians, in accordance with the Convention.

In a resolution adopted on 19 August,(4) also at the seventh emergency special session, the Assembly requested the Secretary- General and United Nations organizations, in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and other non- governmental organizations, to investigate the application by Israel of the provisions of the Convention and other instruments in the case of detainees.

During the August debate, Denmark, on behalf of the EC members, expressed concern at the future of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. Voicing serious concern about the human consequences both for the prisoners of war and the civilian population, Austria urgently asked all to abide by the Convention. The PLO observer charged that Israel refused to treat the Palestinians detained in Lebanon as prisoners of war, denying them the rights provided for by the Convention and preventing ICRC from visiting them.

By a resolution of 10 December,(5) the General Assembly reaffirmed that the Convention was applicable to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and condemned Israel's failure to acknowledge its applicability. The Assembly strongly demanded that Israel acknowledge and comply with the Convention, and urgently called on the States parties to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in the occupied territories.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 134 to 1, with 1 abstention, following its approval by the Special Political Committee on 3 December by a recorded vote, requested by the United States of 103 to 1, with 1 abstention. Paragraph I was adopted in Committee by a recorded vote, also requested by the United States, of 99 to 1. The draft was introduced by Pakistan on behalf of 10 nations.

Abstaining in the vote on the resolution as a whole, the United States said it was just one more ritualistic, unproductive condemnation of Israel; however, the United States voted for paragraph 1, saying that it attached importance to the Convention's application in the occupied territories. Sweden said it had voted in favour of the resolution in the firm conviction that the Convention was fully applicable to all Israeli-occupied territories.

Three other resolutions adopted on 10 December, also concerned with the occupied territories, contained calls for compliance with the Convention.

By the first of these, having particular reference to Israel's settlement policies,(6) the Assembly demanded that Israel comply strictly with its obligations in accordance with international law and the Convention, determined that all Israeli measures designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the occupied territories were in violation of the Convention; and called on States parties to the Convention to exert efforts to ensure compliance with its provisions in the territories.

By its general resolution on the situation in the occupied territories,(7) the Assembly condemned Israel's continued and persistent violation of the Convention and declared the violations designated in the Convention as "grave breaches" to be war crimes and an affront to humanity. It reaffirmed that Israel's settlement policy constituted a flagrant violation of the Convention, and requested the Security Council to ensure Israel's compliance with all of the Convention's provisions. Paragraphs 6 (declaring Israel's grave breaches of the Convention as war crimes) and 16 (requesting the Council to ensure Israel's compliance) were adopted in Committee by recorded votes of 72 to 18, with 14 abstentions, and 83 to 17, with 7 abstentions, respectively.

Again reaffirming the applicability of the Convention to the occupied territories, the Assembly, in a resolution on educational institutions there,(8) condemned what it called Israel's systematic campaign of repression against Palestinian universities as in clear contravention of the Convention, and demanded that Israel comply with the Convention and rescind all measures against those institutions.

During the Assembly's debates on the Palestine question and the Middle East situation, the Byelorussian SSR said that, in implementing its annexation policy, Israel was using both open violence and juridical casuistry, in contradiction of the Convention. Denmark, on behalf of the EC members, reaffirmed their view that the Convention applied to all the occupied territories. Kenya said Israel had acted contrary to its obligations under the Convention, which prohibited the annexation of occupied territory and the forcible transfer or deportation of occupants regardless of motive. Saudi Arabia charged that Israel's actions contravened the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations resolutions.

By promulgating more than a thousand decrees since 1967, PLO stated, Israel had changed the laws in the occupied territories in violation of the Convention.

Resolutions (1982). Commission on Human Rights (report, E/1982/12), 11 Feb.: (1) 1982/1 A, para. 3; (2) 1982/1 B.  GA: (3) ES-7/4, 28 Apr., (4) ES-7/6, para. 10, 19 Aug., (5) 37/88 A, 10 Dec., text following; (6) 37/88 B, (7) 37/88 C, (8) 37/88 F, 10 Dec.  SC: (9) 512 (1982), 19 June; (10) 513 (1982), 4 July; (11) 515 (1982), 29 July.  (12) SCPDPM (report, E/CN.4/1983/4): 1982/18, para. 1 (c), 8 Sep.

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.35-41, 42, 44 (23 Nov.-3 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.100 (10 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/88 A
10 December 1982     Meeting 100    134-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/698) by recorded vote (103-1-1), 3 December (meeting 44); 10-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.28); agenda item 61.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar.

The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolutions 3092 A (XVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3240 B (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, 3525 B (XXX) of 15 December 1975, 31/l06 B of 16 December 1976, 32/91 A of 13 December 1977, 33/113 A of 18 December 1978, 34/90 B of 12 December 1979, 35/122 A of 11 December 1980 and 36/147 A of 16 December 1981,

Recalling also Security Council resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 in which, inter alia, the Council affirmed that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Considering that the promotion of respect for the obligations arising from the Charter of the United Nations and other instruments and rules of international law is among the basic purposes and principles of the United Nations,

Bearing in mind the provisions of the Geneva Convention,

Noting that Israel and those Arab States whose territories have been occupied by Israel since June 1967 are parties to that Convention,

Taking into account that States parties to that Convention undertake, in accordance with article 1 thereof, not only to respect but also to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances,

1. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Condemns once again the failure of Israel as the occupying Power to acknowledge the applicability of that Convention to the territories it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. Strongly demands that Israel acknowledge and comply with the provisions of that Convention in Palestinian and other Arab territories it has occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

4. Urgently calls upon all States parties to that Convention to exert all efforts in order to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follow:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania , Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.
Al-Aqsa Mosque

A shooting incident on 11 April at Al-Haram Al-Sharif – the principal Moslem Holy Place of Jerusalem, centred on Al-Aqsa Mosque and the adjacent mosque known as the Dome of the Rock – was taken up in 1982 by the Security Council and the General Assembly. As described in a message from the King of Morocco to the Council members, an Israeli soldier in uniform had opened fire with an automatic rifle in front of the Mosque, killing two men, and had then entered the Dome of the Rock, where he had wounded 22 people.

The Council met between 13 and 20 April but, because of the negative vote of a permanent member (United States), did not adopt a draft resolution deploring the destruction or profanation of the Holy Places as tending to disturb world peace. The Assembly, on 28 April, condemned Israel for the shooting.

Other incidents before and after the one of 11 April were also the subject of communications to the United Nations.

Communication. By a letter of 25 March to the Secretary-General,(3)Jordan complained of what it called a new wave of desecration of Moslem shrines by Israeli settlers and charged that on 2 March a group of 15 Jews armed with machine-guns and bayonets had stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque, wounding one of its guards.

Security Council consideration. By a letter of 12 April,(8) Morocco conveyed a request of King Hassan II, Chairman of the Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Committee of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, for an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider events in the occupied territories, particularly the latest attack against the Islamic Holy Places in Jerusalem. A meeting was also requested by Iraq, current Chairman of that organization, in a letter of 13 April on behalf of 37 of its member States.(2)

On 15 April, Jordan transmitted a 12 April statement of the Islamic Higher Council in Jerusalem, charging that the attack within and against Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock had been a planned and co-ordinated operation involving Israeli army elements, and not, as alleged by the occupation authorities, the work of a lone, deranged soldier.(6)

The Council held six meetings between 13 and 20 April to consider the situation On 20 April, the Council acted on a draft resolution by Iraq, Jordan, Morocco and Uganda,(1) which received 14 votes to 1 and was not adopted due to the negative vote of a permanent member (United States).

By this text, the Council would have condemned in the strongest terms the appalling acts of sacrilege at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and deplored any act or encouragement of destruction or profanation of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in Jerusalem as tending to disturb world peace. It would have called on Israel to apply the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians and the principles of international law governing military occupation, and to refrain from hindering the Islamic Higher Council in Jerusalem from discharging its functions.

Israel told the Council just before the vote that the person responsible for the sacrilege at the Dome of the Rock had been arraigned and would be tried by an Israeli court.

Though strongly condemning the act of violence, the United States, in voting against the draft, said it would further embitter the peoples of the region and deepen the divisions that could lead to conflict; the text implied that responsibility for the incident lay with the Israeli authorities and that Israel had hindered the efforts of the Islamic Higher Council to administer the Holy Places, whereas evidence showed that Israel had in the main carefully respected the Council's role.

France called for severe punishment of those responsible and said the Israeli authorities must take all necessary measures to prevent a repetition of such tragic events. The United Kingdom said it had voted in favour to associate itself with the condemnation of the act of sacrilege but on the understanding that the draft resolution could not prejudge the facts of the incident under investigation; though condemning Israel's practices in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories, it recognized that the Israeli authorities had in general fulfilled their obligations on access to the Holy Places.

The sense of the United States veto, the USSR stated, was that the United States did not recognize that East Jerusalem was occupied by Israel and did not intend to limit Israel in any way; having thrown overboard in the past few months its policy of apparent even-handedness between Israel and the Arabs, the United States was covering up and thereby encouraging Israel's annexationist policy. Kuwait said it was time that the United States, which provided Israel through its veto with a protective shield, reassess its position and live up to its commitment as a guardian of world peace.

In Guyana's view, the Israeli authorities could not escape blame for the violence and sacrilege committed on 11 April; Israel's deliberate policies of State-sponsored violence against Arabs in the occupied territories, of colonization and annexation, of expulsion and repression of the Palestinians had provided encouragement for the criminal act.

Acknowledging that Israel had condemned the act Ireland stressed that it must observe and apply fully throughout the occupied territories the 1949 Geneva Convention; in the current atmosphere of tension, grievance and alienation, any spark could strike a flame that could easily lead to a wider conflagration in the region.

Japan feared that, following the incidents, the situation in the occupied territories might deteriorate further, it hoped that Israel would fulfil its responsibilities by protecting and safeguarding the sanctity of the Holy Places and by preventing any future acts of destruction or profanation.

In Morocco's view, the results of the vote could not change the unanimous condemnation of Israel nor attenuate the seriousness of the crime committed by at least one armed Israeli soldier in uniform; Israel's responsibility was beyond doubt, as it had been constantly and openly encouraging potential or actual criminals of that kind. The Syrian Arab Republic said the United States had indicated through its veto that Jerusalem must be left apart because of some secret or overt agreements reached at Camp David; the attack had not been an isolated act but a continuation of the zionization of Palestine started in 1948.

Uganda said it did not accept Israel's explanation that the attack had been the act of a lone and mentally deranged individual; it had followed a series of legislative and administrative measures aimed at altering the status and character of Jerusalem. Zaire stated that it supported the draft resolution without necessarily linking the act of sacrilege to the Israeli Government.

Submitting the draft, Jordan said it fell far short of what would be commensurate with the crime, which was part of a continuing pattern. A mild text was being presented in order to obtain the maximum number of votes.

Prior to the vote, the Council invited Bangladesh, Djibouti, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Morocco, the Niger, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, at their request, to participate without vote in the debate.

By a vote of 11 to 1 (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Japan, United Kingdom), the Council also decided, at Jordan's request of 13 April,(4) that an invitation should be accorded to a PLO representative to participate in the debate with the same rights of participation as those conferred on a Member State invited under rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.j/ Also at the request of Jordan,(5) the Council extended an invitation under rule 39 k/ to the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations.

j/ See footnote a.

k/ See footnote b.

Opening the debate, Morocco read a message from King Hassan II, as Chairman of the Al-Quds : Committee, stating that Israel bore responsibility for the attack in view of what the international press had reported as its extreme passivity in regard to various Zionist terrorist movements. Jordan charged that the premeditated and well-planned assault, preceded by written threats to blow up the Moslem Holy Places, was part of Zionist efforts to incarcerate, strangulate and expel the Palestinians, and to destroy every vestige of Islamic legacy in the Holy Land; Jordan put the casualties at 100, with 12 dead, and said Israeli troops had then fired at the crowd and the mosques and had whisked the perpetrator away to safety.

Israel, on the other hand, stated that the Council had been summoned by those who sought cynically to exploit the misdeeds of one possibly deranged individual, acting on his own, who had committed a crime that had been denounced by the Israeli Government, its Chief Rabbis and the Mayor of Jerusalem; Israel's considerable efforts to protect the Holy Places were unfortunately no guarantee against such isolated acts, which, however, did not change Israel's policy of striving for tolerance, reconciliation and coexistence in Jerusalem.

Condemning the incident, the United States, in a Department of State statement of 11 April that was read to the Council, called on Middle East Governments and peoples to refrain from further violence.

Iraq interpreted the attack as a manifestation of Israel's racism and colonialism, encouraged and protected by the United States. The Syrian Arab Republic expressed a similar opinion, adding that the tragic event had only strengthened the Arabs' determination to regain their usurped rights. In the view of Saudi Arabia, the perpetrator was an integral part of a deranged society. The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States saw a connection between the attack on the Mosque and what he described as Israel's institutionalized racism.

Israel and its policies were held responsible by others as well, among them Bangladesh, China, Djibouti, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, the Niger, Senegal, Somalia, the Sudan, Turkey, the USSR and the United Arab Emirates.

Malaysia said the ease with which the soldier who committed the attack had passed through the Israeli security checkpoints gave strong grounds to believe that the incident was not an isolated one but part of a bigger conspiracy to terrorize and demoralize the Arab population.

In Somalia's view, the attack had been encouraged and abetted by Israel's contempt for human rights and international law.

Iran said the occupying forces had demonstrated not only that they were incapable of safeguarding the Islamic sanctuaries but that they were determined gradually to destroy them. In the opinion of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the act was a violation of Islamic sanctity and a challenge to the sentiments of Moslems all over the world. A number of speakers reported that their predominantly Moslem populations had observed on 14 April a day of solidarity with the Palestinians, involving the closure of government offices and private businesses in a protest against the shootings in Jerusalem.

China believed that the incident had further revealed Israel's designs deliberately to alter the legal status, physical features and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, in disregard of international law and the 1949 Geneva Convention. In Senegal's opinion, the incident resulted from the 1980 Israeli decision to annex Jerusalem by declaring it Israel's capital.

Spain said the repetition of sacrilegious acts occurred in the context of a series of legislative and administrative measures adopted by Israel to alter the status and character of Jerusalem.

By creating an atmosphere of harassment and provocations, the Niger stated, Israeli fanatics were hoping to justify and maintain a state of repeated crises in order to vindicate a policy of repression, aggression, war and domination.

In Turkey's view, the issue was not whether the soldier involved was insane and had acted alone; Israel could not be absolved of its obligations towards the Holy Places.

India said the recent events could not be divorced from the general atmosphere of hatred and anti-Arab fanaticism, which was being deliberately encouraged.

In the opinion of the USSR and the United Arab Emirates, Israel's overseas protectors – notably the United States – shared equal responsibility, since their assistance and support had permitted Israel to keep the territories under occupation.

The PLO observer accused Israel of shooting at unarmed civilians, injuring over 100, in response to the protests following the incident, which he described as the logical outcome of a system that propagated the inferiority of the Christians and Moslems in Palestine and the superiority of Jews.

The incident, or the issues it raised with regard to preservation of the Holy Places, was seen as a threat to international peace and security by a number of countries, among them Bangladesh Djibouti, Guinea and Pakistan.

China, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the USSR and others called on the Council to approve a strong condemnation of Israel's actions in Jerusalem. Bangladesh felt that the Council should condemn the sacrilege and deplore Israel's failure to protect the Holy Places. China said the Council should take effective measures to ensure the implementation of its resolutions on the occupied territories. Malaysia urged the Council to demand that Israel take adequate measures to protect the Mosque, while Poland and others believed that it should reaffirm the applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention. Turkey also called for a condemnation of the sacrilege and said Israel should be reminded of its responsibilities and obligations as the occupying Power; anything less might invite more violence and greater tension.

Indonesia urged the Council to take steps to force Israel to cease the judaization of Jerusalem, to compel it to revoke the law purporting to make Jerusalem its capital, to discontinue archaeological diggings and other acts of desecration of the Holy Places, and to stop the terror campaign against the Arab population.

Iraq believed that condemnation and censure were no longer enough and that mandatory sanctions had to be imposed, including interruption of economic and military relations with Israel. Sanctions were favoured also by others, including the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic; the latter also favoured Israel's expulsion from the United Nations.

The Sudan said the Council must use its mandate under the United Nations Charter to bring about Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories – a point made by a number of speakers. Somalia believed that the Council should insist on restoring to Jerusalem its international status as a corpus separatum. The United Arab Emirates wanted the Council to put a final end to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine and to enable the Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination. A similar position was voiced by Poland.

Pakistan urged the Council to demand that Israel end its repression of the Arabs and Palestinians in the occupied territories; deplore its failure to protect the sanctity of Al-Aqsa; emphasize that any act of destruction or profanation of the Holy Places, or any encouragement or connivance at such acts, seriously endangered international peace and security; and reactivate the Commission established by the Council in 1979(10) and ask it to investigate the situation in the occupied territories and especially the safety and sanctity of the Holy Places.

Iran said that, rather than wasting efforts on trying to extract resolutions condemning Israel for Israel for its policies, the potentialities of all Moslem nations should be mobilized to establish Islamic control over the Islamic shrines and sanctuaries.

France, on the other hand, believed that or through dialogue and by working towards an agreement among the parties would it be possible to preserve the unique and universal character Jerusalem.

General Assembly action. In a resolution adopted on 28 April 1982 at its resumed seventh emergency special session on the Palestine question,(9) the General Assembly condemned Israel for violating the sanctity of the Holy Places, particularly of Al-Haram Al-Sharif, in Jerusalem, and for the shooting, killing and wounding of worshipper by members of the Israeli army on 11 April.

The attack was denounced or condemned by many speakers during the special session as well as during the regular session in December, among them Djibouti, the Gambia, Ghana, Iran, Japan Kuwait, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar and the United Republic of Cameroon. Norway expressed regret at the incident, and Venezuela expressed deepest rejection and sorrow.

The act was considered a sacrilege by several countries, including the Gambia, Iran, Japan and Venezuela.

Ghana said the cold-blooded assassinations were a violation of all written and unwritten laws, and a provocation of Arabs and Palestinians.

Pakistan said there was deep fear that the Islamic holy shrines were being destroyed by fanatics in their design to judaize the Holy City. In the opinion of Bahrain, the attack had clear implications concerning Israel's schemes aimed at removing all the Islamic Holy Places from Jerusalem. Through its excavation activity at Al-Haram Al-Sharif, Israel was striving to obtain any relics which had any relation with Jewish history in order to use them as a historic pretext further to damage and despoil the Holy Places; it used history as an ideological weapon to justify its occupation, to legitimize an illegal action and distort historical facts. The Gambia thought that official indulgence of vigilante groups and not mental aberration must have encouraged the perpetrator. Similarly, Morocco said the attack was neither an isolated act nor a chance occurrence; since the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem and other territories, an insistent campaign had been maintained aimed at eliminating the Arab-Islamic features of Jerusalem and bringing about the departure of the Arabs deeply rooted there and in the country for more than a millennium.

In Sri Lanka's view, the firing on worshippers at the Mosque was yet another episode in Israel's attempts to prepare the annexation of the West Bank. Viet Nam said the premeditated attack was just one more manifestation of a long process of destruction of the Arabs of the occupied territories, and Iraq believed that the attack worsened the already critical situation both inside and outside occupied Palestine. Djibouti felt that Israel's atrocities in the occupied territories had been high-lighted by the shooting of worshippers and attacks against the Mosque. Nigeria saw the attack as a symptom of Israel's aggressive and expansionist policy; Iran held a similar position.

Speaking for the EC members, Belgium said the pressing need to get out of the circle of violence in the occupied territories and to find a just solution to the Palestinian problem was very clearly brought out by the intensification of the climate of confrontation resulting from the gun battle of 11 April.

PLO regarded the aggression against the Mosque as the height of Israeli crimes aimed at terrorizing the Palestinians and forcing them out of their homeland in preparation for the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, the annexation of the Golan Heights end Jerusalem having been completed.

Pakistan, Zambia and others regretted that the Security Council had been unable to take action as a result of the United States veto; in Djibouti's opinion, the Council's failure to adopt a resolution condemning the act fell into line with Israel's intention.

Togo said the Council owed it to itself to condemn the sacrilege and to reaffirm the applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians. Norway urged Israel to do everything in its power to ensure that such acts did not recur.

Further communication. On 28 July,(7) Jordan transmitted to the Security Council President a letter of the same date from the PLO observer, stating that on that day 150 Israelis had attempted to climb into Al-Haram Al-Sharif from two adjacent houses which they had entered by force.

Draft resolution not adopted. (I) Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Uganda, S/14985.

Letters. (2) Iraq: 13 Apr., S/14969.  Jordan: (3) 25 Mar., A/37/159-S/14928; (4) 13 Apr., S/14970; (5) l3 Apr., S/14971; (6) 15 Apr., S/14982; (7) 28 July, S/15318; (8) Morocco: 12 Apr., S/14967.

Resolution (1982). (9) GA: ES-7/4, para. 7 (d) & (e), 28 Apr.

Resolution (prior). (10) SC: 446 (1979), 22 Mar. 1979 (YUN 1979, p. 400).

Meeting records. SC: S/PV.2352-2357 (13-20 Apr.).
Israeli settlements

Communications. By letters of 2 February,(3) 3 March,(4) 14 April(5) and 29 April 1982,(6) Jordan gave details of what it reported as a series of land confiscations by Israeli authorities in the occupied territories along with the establishment of new settlements, which it described as a prelude to annexation of the territories. By a letter of 4 May,(7) Jordan asked that the Security Council address itself to the 1980 report(19) of the Commission, established by the Council in 1979 to examine the situation relating to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories;(17) Jordan also suggested that the Council reconstitute the Commission's membership.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, by a letter of 14 September to the Secretary-General,(1) emphasized the Committee's concern at reports that the Israeli Government had allocated $18.5 million to construct three new settlements on the West Bank and had announced that it would authorize seven others, raising to 109 the total number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, in violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. By a letter of 8 November,(2) the Chairman drew attention to press reports indicating Israel's plans to establish additional settlements on the West Bank, including an official announcement on 5 November that five more were to be built.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. In a resolution of 11 February(13) on human rights violations in the occupied territories, the Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned Israeli policies and practices, administrative and legislative measures to promote and expand the establishment of settler colonies on private and public Arab lands, the transfer of an alien population thereto, and the arming of settlers to commit acts of violence against Arab civilians, causing injury and death and wide-scale damage to Arab property.

General Assembly action (August). In a resolution adopted on 19 August during the resumed seventh emergency special session on the Palestine question,(14) the General Assembly demanded that Israel carry out the provisions of a 1980 resolution in which the Security Council determined that Israel's settlement policy constituted a serious obstruction to a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East peace and called on Israel to dismantle the existing settlements and to cease the establishment, construction and planning of new ones.(18)

Report of the Committee on Israeli practices in the occupied territories. In its 1982 report to the General Assembly, adopted in August,(12) the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories stated that Israel's settlement policy had been distinctly intensified. According to a map annexed to the report, over 130 settlements had been established by July. The Committee reported a greater tendency to consolidate the settlements already established, particularly in areas densely populated by Palestinians, such as the environs of Hebron, Nablus and Ramallah. It concluded that there was no justification for the argument of security invoked in support of the annexation and settlement policy.

Security Council consideration. The Security Council met on 12 November at the request of Morocco, as Chairman of the Arab Group, and the Niger, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to consider what Morocco called, in a letter of 5 November,(10) Israel's perseverance in establishing settlements in the occupied territories. In its letter of 9 November,(11) the Niger stated that Israel's announcement of new settlements marked a continued policy of defiance, colonization and domination despite international disapproval and Council resolutions.

On 12 November, Jordan transmitted for distribution to Council members a map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, identified as having been prepared and printed in July by the Settlement Department of the Jewish Agency and the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization, and showing the location of 118 of the 139 settlements which Jordan said existed in the occupied territories as of September.(8)

The Council held a single meeting on this subject, at which it took no substantive action. It invited Morocco, the Niger and Senegal, at their request, to participate without vote in the discussion. Under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure,l/ the Council also invited the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, at his request.

l/ See footnote b.

At Jordan's request,(9) the Council decided, by a vote of 12 to 1 (United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom), to invite a PLO representative to participate in the debate and that the invitation would confer on PLO the same rights of participation as those conferred on a Member State when invited under rule 37.m/

m/ See footnote a.

Opening the debate, Morocco stated that the forcible transfer of Arab lands to public and private Israeli institutions had reached emergency level; the Council must condemn Israel's violations of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international decisions guaranteeing the rights of individuals and peoples in the Middle East. The Niger requested the Council to express strong and unanimous disapproval of Israel's settlement policy and to consider specific measures of deterrence against that country. Jordan charged that the Israeli occupation authorities had embarked on large-scale annexation of the territories, allocating huge financial and human resources, in a frantic race against time, to foreclose any possibility of achieving a just and lasting peace.

Senegal, speaking as Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, observed that the nature of settlements was changing from small agricultural co-operatives to urban centres situated near the Israeli frontier, which would make it difficult for a future Government to restore the illegally acquired territories to the Arabs; the establishment and strengthening of settlements, in defiance of international public opinion and international law affected not only Palestinians' rights but also international peace and security.

PLO said the Council must take effective meas ures to end the prolonged Israeli occupation which was responsible for exacerbating the situation in the occupied territories.

General Assembly action (December). By a resolution of 10 December,(15) the General Assembly strongly deplored Israel's persistence in the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. It determined that all Israeli actions designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the territories were a serious obstruction to peace efforts and had no legal validity, and demanded that Israel desist from taking such actions. The Assembly demanded that Israel comply strictly with its international obligations in accordance with international law and the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians.

By another resolution of the same date,(16) the Assembly strongly condemned, among other Israeli policies and practices, the establishment of new and the expansion of existing settlements, and the transfer of an alien population thereto. It reaffirmed that all Israeli measures to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the occupied territories were null and void, and that Israel's settlement policy was a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention and United Nations resolutions.

The first of these resolutions, sponsored by 10 nations and introduced by Pakistan, was adopted by a recorded vote of 134 to 1, with 1 abstention, following its approval by the Special Political Committee on 3 December by a recorded vote of 104 to 1, with 1 abstention.

Abstaining, the United States declared its opposition to the further creation and expansion of Jewish settlements in the territories, adding that they undermined the confidence necessary for the current peace process to succeed, however, it considered it sterile to focus on whether the settlement policy was legal or illegal.

Voting in favour, Sweden said one of the most constructive steps Israel could take to improve peace prospects would be to dismantle the settlements.

A number of speakers during the November/December Assembly debates on the Middle East situation and the Palestine question, as well as during the emergency special session in April, denounced or condemned Israel's settlement policy as illegal. Among them were Algeria, Bahrain, the Byelorussian SSR, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Greece, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Nepal, Portugal, Romania, the Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey. New Zealand did not recognize the validity of that policy Belgium and Denmark, both on behalf of the EC members, considered Israel's settlement policy contrary in particular to the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force; they called on Israel to end the policy, which they viewed as a grave obstacle to peace, and in particular to rescind its recent decision to expand the programme. Kenya said the creation of settlements was specifically prohibited by international law and by the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians, a view shared by the Philippines and others.

Bahrain said the military nature of Israeli settlements was reflected in the fact that the settlers were constantly armed, often attacking and killing inhabitants of the occupied territories. China said the stepping up of the establishment of settlements served to alter the physical character, demographic composition and legal status of the territories in order to perpetuate their occupation. In establishing new settlements, India stated, Israel had trampled on the rights of the local population, destroyed dissent by the use of brutal force and systematically depleted the resources of the Arab-inhabited areas. Sri Lanka said the policies which had led to the placement of 130 settlements in the West Bank and Gaza had been accurately described as colonization, with the difference that the Israeli colonizer had been more ruthless than his classical counterpart. The USSR said that, according to a recent announcement at Tel Aviv, there were plans for an abrupt increase in the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza: from 25,000 to 100,000 by 1986 and to 1.5 million by the year 2000.

Viet Nam charged that Israel continued to establish new settlements in order to prepare the annexation of the occupied territories, a position also held by Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti and others. Bulgaria charged Israel with having launched by force a programme of territorial expansion, with new settlements being established at an increased rate and existing ones being strengthened and expanded. The Gambia stated that the systematic expropriation of Arab lands to make them available for Israeli settlements provided civilian cover for Israel's expansionist intentions. Malaysia regarded the establishment of new settlements as a manifestation of Israel's expansionist policy. Malta felt that the new Jewish settlers represented a broadening constituency which regarded the area as an integral part of Israel; the point of no return, where political and physical considerations would make withdrawal elusive, might have already been reached.

Morocco stated that Israel's armed colonies in the occupied territories constituted hotbeds of future disturbances, whose consequences would become clear when the occupier had to restore the territory to its legitimate owners. In Tunisia's opinion, the stepping up of the establishment of settlements revealed Israel's true objective: to dispossess the Arabs and facilitate the annexation of the occupied territories. The Syrian Arab Republic said the Camp David plot had helped Israel intensify its settlement policy, giving it a pretext for not withdrawing from the occupied territories; Israel had repeatedly stated that negotiations with its Arab neighbours would not lead to the dismantling of its settlements.

The Philippines attributed the recent disturbances in the West Bank to a considerable extent to Israel's occupation and settlement policy. That policy, Bangladesh felt, could hardly be seen as a step towards peace. Similarly, Thailand believed that the establishment of settlements undermined prospects for a Middle East peace.

Denmark conveyed a statement of 20 September by the EC Foreign Ministers considering Israel's decision to establish eight new settlements to be illegal under international law and a serious obstacle to peace efforts. Norway urged Israel to reconsider its plans for further settlements, which it said could have negative consequences for the general political climate.

Letters. Committee on Palestinian rights Chairman: (1) 14 Sep., A/37/449-S/15393; (2) 8 Nov., A/37/604-S/15482. Jordan: (3) 2 Feb., A/37/81-S/14859; (4) 3 Mar., A/37/108-S/14895, (5) 14 Apr. A/37/189-S/14983, (6) 29 Apr. A/37/215-S/15029, (7) 4 May, S/15038, (8) 12 Nov., S/15488, (9) 12 Nov., S/15490. (10) Morocco: 5 Nov., S/15481. (11) Niger: 9 Nov., S/15483.

Report. (12) Committee on Israeli practices in occupied territories, transmitted by S-G note, A/37/485.

Resolutions (1982). (13) Commission on Human Rights (report E/1982/12): 1982/1 A, para. 5 (b) & (c), 11 Feb. GA; (14) ES-7/6, para. 4, 19 Aug.; (15) 37/88 B, 10 Dec., text following; (16) 37/88 C, paras. 7 (c) & 8, 10 Dec.

Resolutions (prior). SC: (17) 446 (1979), 22 Mar. 1979 (YUN 1979, p. 400); (18) 465 (1980), 1 Mar. 1980 (YUN 1980, p. 427).

Yearbook reference. (19) 1980, p. 416.

Meeting records. SC: S/PV.2401 (12 Nov.). GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.35-41, 42, 41 (23 Nov.-3 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.100 (10 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/88 B
10 December 1982     Meeting 100    134-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/698) by recorded vote (104-1-1), 3 December (meeting 44); 10-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.29); agenda item 61.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Cuba, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 3215 of 28 October 1977, 33/113 B of 18 December 1978, 34/90 C of 12 December 1979, 35/122 B of 11 December 1980 and 36/147 B of 16 December 1981,

Recalling also Security Council resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,

Expressing grave anxiety and concern at the present serious situation in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, as a result of the continued Israeli occupation and the measures and actions taken by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of those territories,

Considering that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1948, is applicable to all Arab territories occupied since 5 June 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that all such measures and actions taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, are in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and constitute a serious obstruction of efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and therefore have no legal validity;

2. Strongly deplores the persistence of Israel in carrying out such measures, in particular the establishment of settlements in the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem;

3. Demands that Israel comply strictly with its international obligations in accordance with the principles of international law and the provisions of the Geneva Convention;

4. Demands once more that the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, desist forthwith from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status, geographical nature or demographic composition of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

5. Urgently calls upon all States parties to the Geneva Convention to respect and to exert all efforts in order to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.
Expulsion of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and the Islamic Judge of Hebron

In December 1982, the General Assembly called on Israel to allow the return of three West Bank officials – Fahd Kawasmeh, Mayor of Hebron Mohamed Milhem, Mayor of Halhul; and Rajab Tamimi, Kadi of Hebron – so that they could resume the functions for which they had been elected and appointed. Israel had deported the three Palestinian officials in May 1980, on the ground that they had systematically engaged in inciting the local Arab population to acts of violence and subversion, abusing their public offices.(9)

The Commission on Human Rights, on 11 February,(4) also called for the immediate return of the expelled Mayors.

Report of the Secretary-General. On 1 April 1982,(3) the Secretary-General reported to the Assembly that he had requested Israel on 18 February to inform him of any action with regard to the implementation of the December 1981 resolution(6) demanding that Israel rescind the expulsion and imprisonment of the Mayors, as well as the expulsion of the Sharia (Islamic) Judge of Hebron. On 19 March, Israel had replied that the Palestinian officials had abused their public and official positions in order to incite the Arab population to violence and subversion, and their expulsion had contributed to a general improvement in the maintenance of public order in Hebron and Halhul. The Secretary-General added that he would continue his efforts to secure the implementation of the relevant United Nations decisions.

General Assembly action. By a resolution of 10 December 1982,(5) the General Assembly, recalling the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War which prohibited forcible transfers or deportations, demanded once more that Israel rescind the expulsion and imprisonment of the Mayors and the expulsion of the Sharia Judge, and that it facilitate their immediate return so that they could resume their functions.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 133 to 1, with 1 abstention, following its approval by the Special Political Committee on 3 December by a recorded vote of 109 to 1, with 1 abstention.

Explaining its abstention, the United States said the expulsion of the Palestinian officials had been unwise and impolitic, but not illegal as the resolution maintained, what was required was to affirm the need for them to return to their homes.

Sweden stated that its affirmative vote was based on its conviction that the Geneva Convention was fully applicable to all the occupied territories and that Israeli measures to change the status of the territories were illegal and incompatible with the 1967(7) and 1973(8) Security Council resolutions on principles for a Middle East peace, which Israel claimed to support.

Introducing the draft on behalf of 10 nations, Bangladesh noted that its content had been the subject of previous resolutions which, however, had not produced substantive results.

On 30 November, the Committee granted without objection requests made on 29 November for hearings: one by Morocco,(2) as Chairman of the Arab Group of States at the United Nations, for authorization for the two Mayors to speak, and another by Jordan,(1) for a hearing for Mr. Milhem, Mayor of Halhul.

Israel objected strongly to the granting of hearings, saying it was a transparent attempt to introduce tension into the Committee's work and to misrepresent the situation in the West Bank and Gaza.

Speaking before the Committee, Mr. Milhem stated that, in violation of Jordanian law and the 1949 Geneva Convention, the municipal elections that should have been held in the West Bank in April 1980 still had not taken place, that it was Israel's policy not to allow elections until all the mayors and municipal councils elected in 1976 had been removed from office, and that armed "village leagues" had been created in order to put further pressure on them to resign.

At the resumed seventh emergency special session in April, Democratic Yemen said the designation of a so-called civil administration in the West Bank and Gaza was a step towards annexation, an opinion shared by Sri Lanka which added that neither arrests, detentions, curfews nor wanton killings of unarmed protectors had enabled Israel to restore a semblance of order. In Morocco's view, the dissolution of the municipal councils and the dismissal of the Mayors and their replacement by Israeli civilian and military officials were a stage in restoring the occupied territories to Israeli sovereignty.

Saudi Arabia said the Geneva Convention stipulated that the occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in occupied territories, or apply sanctions or take any measures of coercion against them; the Convention allowed for the removal of public of ficials only if it was not intended to coerce or discriminate against of ficials who abstained from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience. In accusing the elected Mayors of complicity with PLO, Saudi Arabia said, Israel applied a peculiar logic for, until recently, Israel had alleged that PLO had no base in the occupied territories and imposed its will on the Palestinian inhabitants through terrorism.

The dismissal of the Mayors was also deplored by others, among them Sweden.

Letters. (1) Jordan, 29 Nov., A/SPC/37/L.27; (2) Morocco, 29 Nov., A/SPC/37/L.26.

Report. (3) S-G, A/37/162.

Resolutions (1982). (4) Commission on Human Rights (report E/1982/12): 1982/1 A, para. 7, 11 Feb.; (5) CA: 37/88 D, 10 Dec., text following.

Resolutions (prior). (6) GA: 36/147 D, 16 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 314). SC: (7) 242 (1967), 22 Nov. 1967 (YUN 1967, p. 257); (8) 338 (1973), 22 Oct. 1973 (YUN 1973, p. 213).

Yearbook reference. (9) 1980, p. 411.

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.35-38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 (23 Nov.-3 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.100 (10 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/88 D
10 December 1982     Meeting 100   133-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/698) by recorded vote (109-1-1), 3 December (meeting 44); 10-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.31 and Corr.1); agenda item 61.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolutions 468 (1980) of 8 May 1980, 469 (1980) of 20 May 1980 and 484 (1980) of 19 December 1980 and General Assembly resolution 36/147 D of 16 December 1981,

Deeply concerned at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron,

Recalling the Geneva convention relative to the Protection of civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, in particular article 1 and the first paragraph of article 49, which read as follows:

"Article 1

The High contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

"Article 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not are prohibited, regardless of their motive…;

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1.  Demands once more that the Government of Israel the occupying Power rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling and imprisoning the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and in expelling the Sharia Judge of Hebron and that it facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders so that they can resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly as soon as possible on the implementation of the present resolution.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.
Attempted assassinations of
the Mayor of Nablus and others

In 1982, the General Assembly again considered the assassination attempt of 2 June 1980 against Basam Al-Shaka, Mayor of Nablus, Karim Khalaf, Mayor of Ramallah; and Ibrahim Al-Taweel, Mayor of Al Bireh.(3)

Communication. On 25 March, Jordan transmitted a letter of the same date from PLO protesting further acts of brutality against the Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah, who had been arrested and removed from their legally elected offices and replaced by civilian administrators.(1)

General Assembly action. By a resolution of 10 December,(2) the Assembly expressed concern that Israel had failed for two years to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators of the assassination attempts against the Mayors, and demanded that Israel inform the Secretary-General of the results of the investigations.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 134 to 1, with 1 abstention, following its approval by the Special Political Committee on 3 December by a recorded vote of 112 to 1, with 1 abstention.

Casting a negative vote, Israel stated that the resolution was motivated purely by the desire to vilify Israel; there were far more opportunities for justice under Israeli administration than under the 1949 Geneva Convention, and every effort was being made to arrest the culprits.

The United States abstained, saying the language was too narrow and implied without justification that Israel was not making any attempt to arrest and prosecute the culprits.

Sweden cast an affirmative vote based on its conviction that the Geneva Convention was fully applicable to the occupied territories.

Introducing the draft on behalf of 10 nations, Afghanistan said the use of violence against the population of the occupied territories was widespread and took a variety of forms; apart from the open resort to violence by the Israeli authorities, prominent Palestinians were easy targets for assassination and harassment. Israel, as the occupying Power, was responsible for prosecuting the perpetrators of such crimes.

Letter. (1) Jordan, 25 Mar., S/14930.

Resolution (1982). (2) GA: 37/88 G, 10 Dec., text following.

Yearbook reference. (3) 1980, p. 413.

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.35-42, 13, 11 (23 Nov.-3 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.100 (10 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/88 G
10 December 1982     Meeting 100   134-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/698) by recorded vote (112-1-1), 3 December (meeting 44); 10-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L34); agenda item 61.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 471 (1980) of 5 June 1980, in which the Council condemned the assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh and called for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of those crimes,

Recalling also General Assembly resolution 36/147 G of 16 December 1981,

Recalling once again the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in particular article 27, which states, inter alia:

"Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances to respect for their persons… They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof…",

Reaffirming the applicability of that Convention to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Expresses deep concern that Israel, the occupying Power, has failed for two years to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators of the assassination attempts;

2. Demands once more that Israel, the occupying Power, inform the Secretary-General of the results of the investigations relevant to the assassination attempts;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.
Economic and social conditions

Mediterranean-Dead Sea canal project

In 1982, Israel's plan of March 1981(5) to construct a 67-mile hydraulic structure to channel water from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea for electric power generation was the subject of a resolution of the General Assembly and of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The effects of the project, under which part of the conduit would pass through the Gaza Strip, occupied by Israel since 1967, were studied by the Secretary-General.

UNEP Council action. By a resolution of 18 May 1982,(3) the UNEP Governing Council requested the Executive Director to prepare a study on any adverse environmental implications resulting from Israel's decision to build a canal linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea.

Israel called for a vote on the resolution and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, supported by Saudi Arabia, requested that it be taken by roll-call. The resolution was adopted by a roll-call vote of 60 to 2 (Israel, United States), with 26 abstentions. Before the vote, Israel challenged the Council's competence to adopt the resolution, saying that the issue had already been discussed in the General Assembly and Israel had transmitted to the Secretary-General a report on the environmental effects of the project. By 54 votes to 2, with 28 abstentions, the Council decided that it was competent to act on the text.

Israel pointed out that no final decision had been taken to proceed with the project, which was still in the feasibility study and research stage; all its environmental implications would be studied. The project's effects on the chemical composition of the Dead Sea's waters would be negligible, if not non-existent.

Report of the Secretary-General. On 30 June 1982,(1) the Secretary-General transmitted in accordance with a December 1981 General Assembly resolution(4) an expert study on the canal and its effects on Jordan and the occupied territories. The study was prepared by three United Nations experts on the basis of their visits to Jordan (24-29 May) and Israel (30 May-1 June), which included discussions with government officials and others involved, and inspection of sites along the Dead Sea and in the Gaza Strip.

The experts reported that, as envisaged by Israel, the project consisted of a hydroelectric scheme diverting water from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea, in order to produce peak energy; Israeli authorities had told the experts that the official decision to proceed with the project would be taken when the feasibility study under way was concluded. The completion of the project was envisaged around 1990.

The experts concluded that the rise in the Dead Sea level would be the most obvious effect of the project, which could flood or affect some surrounding infrastructure, lands earmarked for agricultural development, archaeological sites and some mining projects; the project would also affect the quality of the Dead Sea water. In the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the effects of leakage from the conveyance of sea water were under study.

General Assembly action. By a resolution of 16 December,(2) the General Assembly emphasized that the canal, if constructed, violated the rules and principles of international law. It demanded that Israel not construct the canal and cease all actions or plans towards implementation of the project. The Assembly called on States, specialized agencies, governmental and non-governmental organizations not to assist in the project preparations and execution, and strongly urged corporations to do likewise. The Secretary-General was requested to monitor and assess on a continuing basis and through experts all aspects of the adverse effects of the project on Jordan and the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and to report regularly to the Assembly.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 139 to 2, with 1 abstention, following its approval by the Special Political Committee on 9 December by a recorded vote, requested by Israel, of 101 to 2, with 2 abstentions. The draft was introduced by Jordan also on behalf of India, Iraq, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

The United States said it could not support the resolution because it censured a State for a decision not yet taken; the concerns expressed in the text were premature and not conducive to a peaceful settlement of the differences between Jordan and Israel.

Voting in favour, Jamaica said the Secretary-General's report clearly showed that the project would have serious economic implications and could have adverse effects on Jordan's potash production; it also would involve the construction of permanent installations in the Gaza Strip, in violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

Jordan said the illegitimate project sought to ensure Israeli acquisition and control of the area's waterways and water resources, which was fundamental to its programme to colonize the occupied territories and support its hegemonic policy. To settle Jewish immigrants in the new cities to be built along the canal, more Arab land would have to be expropriated, with further displacement of Arabs. Jordanian potash production, which accounted for 15 per cent of the country's yearly gross national product, would be seriously affected. In addition, four major nuclear plants were to be established on the canal, and more damage would result from the dumping of nuclear wastes.

Israel protested as unacceptable the Committee decision to circulate a technical study which Israel had transmitted to the Secretary-General as an act of courtesy; it would agree to the publication of an updated version of that paper, provided that the related document transmitted to the Secretariat by Jordan was treated similarly.

During the Assembly debate on the Middle East situation, Tunisia said the project would have harmful economic and social consequences in addition to violating international law. By changing the course of the Jordan River and trying to appropriate the territorial waters of Lebanon, Bahrain stated, Israel's canal would serve its expansionist colonization plans.

At the resumed seventh emergency special session in April, Burundi said the annexation of Arab lands as well as the canal project were only part of Israel's expansionist policy and showed that Israel had no intention of returning to its own borders.

Report. (1) S-G, A/37/328-S/15277 & Corr.1.

Resolutions (1982). (2) GA: 37/122, 16 Dec., text following. (3) UNEP Council (report A/37/25): IV 18 May.

Resolution (prior). (4) GA: 36/150, 16 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 320).

Yearbook reference. (5) 1981, p. 318.

Financial implications. 5th Committee report, A/37/763; S-G statements, A/SPC/37/L.42, A/C.5/37/95.

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.46-49 (7-9 Dec.), 5th Committee, A/C.5/37/SR.71 (15 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.108 (16 Dec.).

General Assembly), resolution 37/122
16 December 1982     Meeting 108 139-2-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/724) by recorded vote (101-2-2), 9 December (meeting 49); 7-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.41/Rev.1); agenda item 68.

Sponsors: India, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Romania, Yemen.

Israel's decision to build a canal linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 36/150 of 16 December 1981,

Recalling the rules and principles of international law relative to the fundamental rights and duties of States,

Bearing in mind the principles of international law relative to belligerent occupation of land, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and reaffirming their applicability to all Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General,

Recognizing that the proposed canal, to be constructed partly through the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, would violate the principles of international law and affect the interests of the Palestinian people,

Confident that the canal linking the Mediterranean Sea with the Dead Sea, if constructed by Israel, will cause direct, serious and irreparable damage to Jordan's rights and legitimate vital interests in the economic, agricultural, demographic and ecological fields,

Noting with regret the non-compliance by Israel with General Assembly resolution 36/150,

1. Deplores Israel's non-compliance with General Assembly resolution 36/150;

2. Emphasizes that the canal linking the Mediterranean Sea with the Dead Sea, if constructed, is a violation of the rules and principles of international law, especially those relating to the fundamental rights and duties of States and to belligerent occupation of land;

3. Demands that Israel not construct this canal and cease forthwith all actions and/or plans taken towards the implementation of this project;

4. Calls upon all States, specialized agencies, governmental and non-governmental organizations not to assist, directly or indirectly, in preparations for and execution of this project and strongly urges national, international and multinational corporations to do likewise:

5. Requests the Secretary-General to monitor and assess, on a continuing basis and through a competent expert organ, all aspects – juridical, political, economic, ecological and demographic – of the adverse effects on Jordan and on the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, arising from the implementation of the Israeli decision to construct this canal and to forward the findings of that organ on a regular basis to the General Assembly;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session on the implementation of the present resolution;

7. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty eighth session the item entitled "Israel's decision to build a canal linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea".

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay Peru, Philippines Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Malawi.
Educational institutions

In 1982, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights condemned Israel's repression against and closing of Palestinian universities. Protest against Israeli measures with regard to the Palestinian educational institutions and their faculty was voiced in several letters to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council. The Secretary-General reported to the Assembly that, while progress had been achieved in terms of student enrolment and the number of schools, classes and teachers, the frequent closure of educational institutions, harassment and the restrictions on academic freedom had hindered teaching and learning Israel, on the other hand, stated that it refrained from interfering with study programmes and curricula and that the entire educational network operated in line with standards and structures that had existed before the occupation.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. In a resolution of 11 February,(8) the Commission on Human Rights condemned, among other Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, the systematic repression against Palestinian universities, restricting and impeding academic activities by subjecting selections of courses, textbooks and educational programmes, admission of students and appointment of faculty members to the control and supervision of the military occupation authorities.

Communications and report. By a letter of 18 February,(1) the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People expressed profound concern over Israel's decision to close Bir Zeit University for the second time in four months.

The two-month closure of the University on 16 February and the arrest of several students and faculty members – only two weeks after it was reopened following a similar closure – was opposed also by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in a letter of 18 February, transmitted on 23 February by Jordan.(4)

By a letter of 9 July,(2) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights reiterated that body's concern over Israel's continuing repressive policy, including the reported Israeli order to again close the University for three months due to students' protests against that country's invasion of Lebanon.

Complaints about Israeli attempts to stifle university education in the West Bank by imposing conditions for the renewal of work permits for foreign faculty members were voiced in a letter of 13 September from PLO, transmitted on 15 September by Jordan (5)

Protests against the treatment and expulsion of faculty members at the Al-Najah and Bethlehem Universities were voiced by PLO in a letter of 22 October, transmitted by Jordan on 26 October.(6)

In a government report on living conditions in Judaea-Samaria and the Gaza district (see below), transmitted on 16 July,(3) Israel stated that it refrained from interfering with study programmes and curricula. During the years of Israeli occupation since 1967, the total number of classrooms had grown by 72 per cent – from 6,148 in 1967/68 to 10,599 in 1980/81 – and the total student population at institutions of higher education had reached 6,218, while before 1967 no such institutions had existed in Judaea-Samaria.

Report of the Secretary-General. In his report of 15 June 1982 on the living conditions of the Palestinians in the occupied territories,(7) the Secretary-General informed the General Assembly that, with regard to education, the number of classes, teachers and students in the territories had increased since 1968; however, the enrolment ratios of the West Bank lagged behind those of the Gaza Strip and neighbouring Arab countries. The frequent closing of schools and harassment of students had created an atmosphere of anxiety and apprehension, and the placing of all educational institutions under the absolute control of the military authorities by a Military Order of 8 July 1980, had deprived those institutions of academic freedom.

The Secretary-General reported that the education system was basically the same in all the occupied territories. The educational institutions were managed by the Government, private bodies or the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. As far as practicable, the schools followed the Jordanian curriculum in the West Bank and the Egyptian curriculum in the Gaza Strip; books used, however, were subject to Israeli censorship. There had been a considerable increase in the number of educational institutions since 1967 (from 1,091 to 1,366 in 1979/80, with an 80 per cent increase in the number of classrooms from 6,187 in 1967/68 to 11,187 in 1979/80); in addition, the 18 vocational training centres on the West Bank and the eight centres in Gaza had provided training for over 40,000 people, mainly for semi-skilled jobs in industry and construction and, according to information from Arab sources, were geared towards meeting the needs of the Israeli economy.

The three universities in the West Bank and an Institute of Islamic Religious Studies in Gaza, the report went on, were supported by private sources and catered for Arab students from both the occupied territories and Israel. The universities, especially Bir Zeit, appeared to have had more intensified problems with the administering authorities in the past few years, but the harassment of students extended to secondary schools as well. In 1980/81, 12 schools were shut down by the military authorities for various periods, three of them permanently.

General Assembly action. By a resolution of 10 December 1982,(9) the General Assembly condemned Israeli policies and practices against Palestinian students and faculties, especially the opening of fire on students, and its systematic campaign of repression against and closing of Palestinian universities, restricting and impeding academic activities, in contravention of the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians. It demanded that Israel rescind all actions and measures against all educational institutions, ensure their freedom and refrain from hindering their effective operation.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 110 to 2, with 24 abstentions, following its approval by the Special Political Committee on 3 December by a recorded vote of 88 to 2, with 22 abstentions.

Israel rejected the resolution as yet another example of distortions of facts and wild accusations.

The United States voted against the resolution saying it contained harsh, unbalanced language and a wholly unacceptable attack on Israel, none the less, it agreed that recent aspects of Israeli policy towards academic institutions in the occupied territories were open to reasonable criticism.

Sharing that concern, Ireland said its abstention was largely determined by the inclusion of certain language in the paragraph condemning Israel's campaign of repression and closing of universities, which it did not feel to be entirely warranted. Though voting in favour, Jamaica also voiced reservations on the paragraph's language. Abstaining, Sweden said the text contained sweeping generalizations.

India, also on behalf of the other nine sponsors, said it had once again become necessary to introduce such a resolution because of the unabated strangulation of educational institutions in the occupied territories; infringement of the freedom of education was a heinous crime against humanity.

In a resolution of 16 December on grants and scholarships for Palestine refugees,(11) the Assembly appealed to States, specialized agencies and the United Nations University to contribute generously to the Palestinian universities in the occupied territories.

By another resolution of the same date,(10) the Assembly emphasized the need to establish the University of Jerusalem for Palestine refugees, requested the Secretary-General to continue taking measures towards that end, and called on Israel to remove the hindrances it had put in its way.

Letters.  Committee   on   Palestinian   rights   Chairman: (1) 18 Feb., A/37194-S/14879; (2) 9 July, A/37/339-S/15290. (3) Israel: 16 July, A/37/347 & Corr.1. Jordan; (4) 23 Feb., A/37/101 (S/14884); (5) 15 Sep., A/37/448-S/15391; (6) 26 Oct., S/15467.

Report. (7) S-G, A/37/238.

Resolutions (1982). (8) Commission on Human Rights (report, E/1982/12): 1982/1 A, para. 5 (j), 11 Feb.  GA: (9) 37/88 F, 10 Dec., text following; (10) 37/120 C, 16 Dec.; (11) 37/120 D, para. 5, 16 Dec.

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.35-42, 43, 44 (23 Nov.-3 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.100 (10 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/88 F
10 December 1982     Meeting 100    110-2-24 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/698) by recorded vote (88-2-22), 3 December (meeting 44); 10-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.33); agenda item 61.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar.

The General Assembly,

Bearing in mind the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

Deeply shocked by the most recent atrocities committed by Israel, the occupying Power, against educational institutions in the occupied Palestinian territories,

1. Reaffirms the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Condemns Israeli policies and practices against Palestinian students and faculties in schools, universities and other educational institutions in the occupied Palestinian territories, especially the policy of opening fire on defenceless students, causing many casualties;

3. Condemns the systematic Israeli campaign of repression against and closing of universities in the occupied Palestinian territories, restricting and impeding academic activities of Palestinian universities by subjecting the selection of courses, textbooks and educational programmes, the admission of students and the appointment of faculty members to the control and supervision of the military occupation authorities, in clear contravention of the Geneva Convention;

4. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with the provisions of that Convention, rescind all actions and measures against all educational institutions, ensure the freedom of these institutions and refrain forthwith from hindering the effective operation of the universities and other educational institutions;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of the present resolution before the end of 1983.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Burma, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Now Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zaire.
Living conditions of Palestinians

Reports. In accordance with a December 1981 General Assembly resolution,(7) the Secretary-General submitted on 15 June 1982 a report on the living conditions of the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories. (5) Of the two experts engaged to prepare the report, one remained at United Nations Headquarters to research the written material, while another went on an information-gathering mission in February and March and visited Egypt, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic and the PLO offices at Beirut and Damascus as well as relevant United Nations agencies in Europe and the Middle East; information had also been collected from academic and research institutions in the neighbouring Arab countries. Since Israel had not granted permission to visit the occupied territories, the experts relied on secondary sources of information, including reports of 1981 missions to the territories by the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organization.

The experts reported that Israeli policies with regard to land and water usage (see below) were adversely affecting the living conditions and agricultural activities of the Palestinians, creating among them a sense of insecurity and frustration The increase in housing stock since the occupation had not kept pace with the rate of dilapidation, and overcrowding remained severe. Despite certain improvements, health care had not kept pace with the population increase and the need for specialized hospital care. Education suffered from harassment of students and faculty and restrictions on academic freedom (see above). Due to declining employment opportunities, many Palestinians had been forced to migrate to Israel or the Gulf States, and their social and cultural life had been affected by the various constraints and restrictions intensified in recent years.

In a government report transmitted to the Assembly by a letter of 16 July,(3) Israel, on the other hand, stated that since 1967 economic life in Judaea-Samaria and the Gaza district had been characterized by rapid growth and a substantial rise in living standards, made possible by interaction with the Israeli economy. There had been marked improvements in housing, water supply and consumption, agricultural productivity and income, public health, civil liberties, public order and security.

Economic and Social Council action. Taking note of the Secretary-General's report, the Economic and Social Council decided on 27 July to transmit it to the General Assembly.(1)

The decision, adopted without vote following its approval by the First (Economic) Committee on 21 July in like manner, was orally proposed by the Committee Chairman.

General Assembly action. By a resolution of 20 December,(6) the General Assembly took note of the report and expressed alarm at the deterioration in the living conditions of the Palestinians It affirmed that the exercise by the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination was a prerequisite for their social and economic development in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and that the Israeli occupation was contradictory to the basic requirements for such development. The Assembly called on the Israeli authorities to give United Nations bodies and experts access to the occupied territories, and requested the Secretary-General to submit to it in 1983 a comprehensive report.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded votes of 145 to 2, with 3 abstentions, following its approval on 19 November by the Second (Economic and Financial) Committee by a recorded vote, requested by the United Arab Emirates, of 128 to 2, with 4 abstentions.

Introducing the 17-nation draft, Saudi Arabia said the Palestinians were waging a struggle for their very survival, while the Israeli occupation authorities resorted to inhuman measures.

Israel rejected the text as having been motivated solely by political aims and as seeking to redress through rhetoric what had been ignored in practice, it demonstrated once again the disregard for the real problem that had long characterized the policy of the Arab States which, while professing deep concern for the Palestinians and despite the vast resources at their disposal, had done nothing for more than 30 years to alleviate the situation.

The United States opposed the resolution on the grounds that it did nothing to address the economic needs of the Palestinians but simply raised political questions which could be resolved only through negotiations.

Abstaining, Australia expressed deep concern about the deterioration of the living conditions of the Palestinians, but felt that paragraph 5 would prejudge the outcome of negotiations.

Though voting in favour, Chile reserved its position on the third preambular paragraph, saying it had not participated in the vote on the 1981 Assembly resolution on the same subject.(7) Sweden
reserved its position on references in the preamble to the recommendations of the 1976 United Nations Conference on Human Settlements.(8)

Jordan declared its willingness to co-operate with the Secretary-General in the implementation of the resolution; however, that attitude should not be construed as any change in its position on the question of the occupied territories, and nothing in the resolution should be taken as impairing its obligations and responsibilities towards the occupied territories.

Support of the resolution was expressed by a number of speakers, among them China, Fiji and the USSR. In the opinion of the USSR, the report confirmed once again that the inhabitants of the occupied territories continued to be unable to exercise their rights. Morocco (on behalf of the Group of Arab States) said the least the United Nations could do was to remain concerned with the living conditions of the Palestinians until they achieved their legitimate rights.

PLO said the Secretary-General's report, while not complete in all aspects, indicated a pattern of continued deterioration. Most of the statistics given by Israel were manipulated and disputable.

During the Committee debate on 2 November, the Syrian Arab Republic made a personal reference to the representative of Israel. By a 3 November letter to the Committee Chairman, the United States voiced objection to that reference, stating that everything must be done to prevent such practices and to admonish those who engaged in them.(4) The Chairman responded by a letter of 5 November,(2) asserting that the rules of procedure, including those relating to his functions and responsibilities, had been strictly observed.

Decision (1982). (1) ESC: 1982/153, 27 July, text following.

Letters. (2) 2nd Committee Chairman, 5 Nov., A/C.213717; (3) Israel, 16 July, A/37/347 & Corr.1, (4) United States, 3 Nov., A/C.2/37/6.

Report. (5) S-G, A/37/238.

Resolution (1982). (6) GA: 37/222, 20 Dec., text following.

Resolution (prior). (7) GA: 36/73, 4 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 322).

Yearbook reference. (8) 1976, p. 443.

Financial implications. 5th Committee report, A/37/683; S-G statements, A/C.2/37/L.62, A/C.5137155.

Meeting records. ESC: E/1982/SR.48 (27 July). GA: 2nd Committee, A/C.2/37/SR.3, 5-8, 20-24, 25, 26, 27 36, 41, 42 (28 Sep.-19 Nov.); 5th Committee, A/C.5/37/SR.49 (30 Nov.); plenary, A/37/PV.113 (20 Dec.).

Economic and Social Council decision 1982/153
Adopted without vote

Approved by First Committee (E/1982/101) without vote, 21 July (meeting 12); oral proposal by Chairman; agenda item 13.

Report of the Secretary-General on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories

At its 48th plenary meeting, on 27 July 1982, the Council took note of the report of the Secretary-General on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories, and decided to transmit it to the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session for consideration.

General Assembly resolution 37/222
20 December 1982     Meeting 113   145-2-3 (recorded vote)

Approved by Second Committee (A/37/680/Add.9) by recorded vote (128-24), 19 November (meeting 41); 17-nation draft (A/C.2/37/L.29); agenda item 71 (j).

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, India, Malaysia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories

The General Assembly,

Recalling the Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements, 1976, and the relevant recommendations for national action adopted by Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements,

Recalling also resolution 3, entitled "Living conditions of the Palestinians in occupied territories, contained in the recommendations for international co-operation adopted by Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements,

Recalling further its resolution 36/73 of 4 December 1981,

1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories;

2. Takes note of the statement made by the observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization;

3. Expresses its alarm at the deterioration in the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 as a result of the Israeli occupation;

4. Affirms that the Israeli occupation is contradictory to the basic requirements for the social and economic development of the Palestinian people in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip;

5. Affirms also that the exercise by the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination is a prerequisite for their social and economic development in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967;

6. Calls upon the Israeli occupation authorities to give United Nations bodies and experts access to the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967;

7. Recognizes the need for a comprehensive report on the social and economic conditions of the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to prepare and submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session, through the Economic and Social Council, a comprehensive report on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar., Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland. Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Romania, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Burma, Canada.
Census of the Palestinian population

By a resolution of 11 May 1982(1) the Economic Commission for Western Asia, recalling its 1976 decision on a census of the Palestinians,(2) urged States hosting Palestinians to allow PLO to make arrangements and take the measures necessary to carry out the census in a manner compatible with the regulations and laws in the States concerned. The Commission requested the United Nations Fund for Population Activities to continue financing the project.

Resolution (1982). (1) ECWA (report, E/1982/22): 109 (IX), 11 May.

Yearbook reference. (2) 1976, p. 504.
Permanent sovereignty over resources

Report of the Secretary-General. In accordance with a December 1981, General Assembly resolution,(6) the Secretary-General submitted in November 1982 a report on permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied territories.(1) He informed that in a note verbale he had asked Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, PLO and United Nations agencies and organs for information. He had received replies from Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as from several agencies. In addition, publicly available data had been collected.

The Secretary-General was not in a position to complete the requested comprehensive report in 1982, due to insufficient information available; in particular, lack of access to the territories had prevented the collection of information on the effects of developments in the preceding 12 months, such as the extension of Israeli law to the Golan Heights and certain administrative measures taken in the West Bank and Gaza (see above). The Secretary-General stated that efforts would be made to prepare such a report for 1983.

Action by the Commission on Human Rights In a resolution of 11 February 1982,(2) the Commission on Human Rights condemned, among other Israeli policies and practices, the illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories.

General Assembly action. Expressing regret that the Secretary-General's comprehensive report was not submitted, the Assembly, by a resolution of 17 December 1982,(4) requested its submission in 1983. The Assembly condemned Israel for its exploitation of the national resources of the occupied territories and emphasized the right of the people living there to full and effective permanent sovereignty and control over all resources. It reaffirmed that all Israeli measures to exploit those resources were illegal, and called on Israel to desist immediately from such measures and to meet the just claims for restitution of and full compensation for the damage to and loss of resources. The Assembly called on States to support the Palestinian and other Arab peoples in the exercise of their rights to sovereignty over their resources and not to recognize any Israeli measures exploiting those resources.

In a resolution of 10 December,(3) the Assembly condemned – among other Israeli policies and practices – the illegal exploitation of the natural wealth, resources and population of the occupied territories, and demanded that Israel desist from it.

The 17 December resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 124 to 2, with 20 abstentions, following its approval by the Second (Economic and Financial) Committee on 19 November by a recorded vote, requested by the United Arab Emirates, of 113 to 2, with 19 abstentions.

Casting a negative vote, Israel said the actual situation did not correspond to what was described in the resolution; the resources of the occupied territories had been developed, not "exploited". Israel rejected particularly the accusation of "racial domination" in the preamble, saying that such vile and slanderous phrases recalled dark events in other places and at other times.

In the opinion of the United States, the resolution did nothing to address the economic needs of the Palestinians, but simply raised political questions and made veiled calls for sanctions.

Though voting in favour, Chile did not support paragraph 1, and Portugal had reservations on paragraph 4.

Support for the resolution was expressed by a number of other speakers, among them China, Cyprus, Greece, Japan, Turkey and the USSR.

The USSR explained it voted in favour in accordance with its desire that a just solution be found to the Middle East problems and that the Palestinians be enabled to exercise their rights. Israel's goal, Morocco stated, was not to achieve peace but to annex the Arab territories and expel the population in order to exercise illegitimate sovereignty over Palestinian and Arab resources. Japan said it sympathized with the Arab peoples regarding the problem of national resources and hoped the problem would be solved by the parties in an expeditious and peaceful manner in accordance with international law; its position on permanent sovereignty over national resources in general, however, remained unchanged.

Introducing the 15-nation draft, Senegal stated that in previous years similar resolutions had been adopted in order to support the efforts of peoples under racist or foreign domination to regain control of their resources, in keeping with the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.(5)

During the Assembly debate on the Palestine question, the Syrian Arab Republic stated that Israel had monopolized 94 per cent of all income from Arab property in Palestine, while the true owners were living in camps; the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was aimed at claiming its waters and its riches. Jordan said the deprivation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories of their houses, liberty, water and land violated human rights and international law, particularly the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians.

Report. (1) S-G, A/37/600.

Resolution (1982). (2) Commission on Human Rights (report, E/1982/12): 1982/1 A, para. 5 (k), 11 Feb.  GA: (3) 37/88 C, paras. 7 (n) & 9, 10 Dec.; (4) 37/135, 17 Dec., text following.

Resolutions (prior). GA: (5) 3281 (XXIX) 12 Dec. 1974 (YUN 1974, p. 403); (6) 36/173,17 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 324).

Meeting records. GA: 2nd Committee, A/C.2/37/SR.3-12, 32, 36, 40-42 (28 Sep.-19 Nov.); plenary, A/37/PV.109 (17 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/135
17 December 1982     Meeting 109    124-2-20 (recorded vote)

Approved by Second Committee (A/37/679) by recorded vote (113-2-19), 19 November (meeting 41); 15-nation draft (A/C.2/37/L.44); agenda item 12.

Sponsors: Congo, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, India, Malaysia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Senegal, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 3175 (XXVIII) of 17 December 1973, 3336 (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3516 (XXX) of 15 December 1975, 31/186 of 21 December 1976, 32/161 of 19 December 1977, 34/136 of 14 December 1979, 35/110 of 5 December 1980 and 36/173 of 17 December 1981 on permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories,

Recalling also its previous resolutions on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, particularly their provisions supporting resolutely the efforts of the developing countries and the peoples of territories under colonial and racial domination and foreign occupation in their struggle to regain effective control over their natural and all other resource, wealth and economic activities,

Bearing in mind the relevant principles of international law and the provisions of the international conventions and regulations in particular Convention IV of the Hague of 1907, and the fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, concerning the obligations and responsibilities of the occupying Power,

Bearing in mind also the pertinent provisions of its resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI) of 1 May 1974, containing the Declaration and the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, and 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974, containing the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States,

Regretting that the report of the Secretary-General on permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, requested in General Assembly resolution 36/173, was not submitted,

1. Condemns Israel for its exploitation of the national resources of the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories;

2. Emphasizes the right of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples whose territories are under Israeli occupation to full and effective permanent sovereignty and control over their natural and ail other resources wealth and economic activities;

3. Reaffirms that all measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the human, natural and all other resources, wealth and economic activities in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories are illegal and calls upon Israel to desist immediately from such measures;

4. Further reaffirms the right of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples subjected to Israeli aggression and occupation to the restitution of and full compensation for the exploitation, depletion and loss of and damages to their natural, human and all other resource, wealth and economic activities, and calls upon Israel to meet their just claims;

5. Call upon all States to support the Palestinian and other Arab peoples in the exercise of their above-mentioned rights;

6. Calls upon all States, international organization, specialized agencies, business corporations and all other institutions not to recognize, or co-operate with or assist in any manner in, any measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the national resources of the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories or to effect any changes in the demographic composition, the character and form of use of their natural resources or the institutional structure of those territories;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to prepare and submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session, through the Economic and Social Council, the two reports requested in Assembly resolution 36/173.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Burma, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Palestinian women

Expressing deep concern over the conditions of the Palestinians, particularly women and children, the Economic and Social Council, by a resolution of 4 May 1982,(1) appealed to all women of the world to proclaim their solidarity with Palestinian women and people in their drive to put an end to Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories, and to act in order to secure the release of thousands of persons, including women and children, held arbitrarily in the prisons of the occupying forces. The Council appealed to States and international organizations to extend moral and material assistance to Palestinian and Arab women and people in their struggle for the restoration of their right to return to their homes and property. United Nations organs and agencies, as well as national, regional and international women's organizations, were requested to extend such assistance to Palestinian women and their organizations and institutes.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote, requested by Jordan, of 28 to 9, with 15 abstentions, following its approval on 26 April by the Council's Second (Social) Committee by a recorded vote of 25 to 9, with 10 abstentions. The draft originated in the Commission on the Status of Women which adopted it on 4 March by a roll-call vote of 14 to 8, with 4 abstentions. The text was introduced in the Commission by Iraq, also on behalf of Cuba and Tunisia.

Casting a negative vote, the United States considered the resolution obnoxious and detrimental to the cause of peace, and found unacceptable the equation of zionism with fascism, as well as the assertion that thousands of persons, including women and children, were held arbitrarily in Israeli prisons.

The linking of fascism, racial discrimination and zionism in the preamble was also unacceptable to the States members of the European Community, as stated by Belgium.

Austria, Chile, Greece, Liberia, Mexico and Portugal abstained, and Canada voted against, on the same grounds.

Reservations on that provision were also voiced by Argentina and Zaire which voted in favour. Brazil and Romania also had reservations on the wording of parts of the preamble, and Colombia could not support part of the text.

Israel said Arab countries, most of which did not grant women equal rights or status under the law, had used the resolution as an instrument to combat Israel rather than discrimination against women; the text made no mention of the fact that tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs had been allowed to return to join their families while hundreds of thousands of Jewish women had been forced to flee Arab lands which they had inhabited for many centuries.

Resolution (1982). (1) ESC: 1982/18, 4 May, text following.

 Meeting record. ESC: E/1982/SR.22 (4 May).

Economic and Social Council resolution 1982/18
4 May 1982     Meeting 22  28-9-15 (recorded vote)

Approved by Second Committee (E/1982/57) by recorded vote (25-9-10), 26 April (meeting 8); draft by Commission on women (E/1982/14); agenda item 10.

Situation of women and children in the occupied Arab territories

The Economic and Social Council,

Deeply concerned about the prevailing conditions of the Palestinian people, particularly the women and children,

Noting the great sacrifices of the Palestinian women and children in pursuit of their inalienable right to have their own homeland,

Considering that international co-operation and peace are threatened by colonialism, neo-colonialism, fascism, zionism, apartheid and foreign occupation, alien domination and racial discrimination in all its forms,

Affirming its full solidarity with the Palestinian women in their struggle for independence under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian women and people continue to be denied their inalienable rights, in particular their right to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, the right to self-determination and the right to national independence and sovereignty,

Recognizing that the mass uprooting from their homeland obstructs the participation and integration of women in efforts to achieve progress,

1. Appeals to all women of the world to proclaim their solidarity with and support for the Palestinian women and people in their drive to put an end to the flagrant violation by Israel of fundamental human rights in the occupied territories;

2. Also appeals to all States and international organizations to extend all moral and material assistance to the Palestinian and Arab women and people in their struggle for the restoration of their inalienable right to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted;

3. Further appeals to all women of the world to take the necessary measures to secure the release of thousands of persons, including women and children, fighters for the cause of self-determination, liberation and independence, held arbitrarily in the prisons of the occupying forces;

4. Requests the United Nations and its organs and specialized agencies, as well as all national, regional and international women's organizations, to extend their help, both moral and material, to the Palestinian women and their organizations and institutes.

Recorded vote in Council as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, China, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Sudan, Tunisia, USSR, United Republic of Cameroon, Yugoslavia, Zaire.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Federal Republic of, Italy, Norway, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Austria, Bahamas, Chile, Colombia, Fiji, France, Greece, Japan, Liberia, Malawi, Mexico, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Thailand, Venezuela.

Palestine refugees

UN Agency for Palestine refugees

In 1982, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continued to provide education, health and relief services for 1.9 million Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It responded to the emergency situation in Lebanon arising from the Israeli military incursion in June, with a programme worth some $52 million, of which $41 million were contributions made or pledged in response to special appeals.

Total expenditure for assistance provided by UNRWA since 1950 had reached $2.2 billion by the end of 1982, excluding Lebanon emergency relief programmes but including the 1982 expenditure of $182.9 million.
UNRWA activities

The number of refugees registered with UNRWA rose by 38,948 during 1982, to 1,941,791 at 31 December. Of these, about 830,000 were eligible for food rations (until the programme's suspension in September) (see below), and approximately 1.5 million were eligible for health and education services.

About 35 per cent (some 680,000 persons) of the registered population lived in 61 camps.

The Agency, in co-operation with the World Health Organization, continued provision of health education and integrated family health care, with emphasis on preventive medicine, including supplementary feeding for nutritionally vulnerable groups. Despite financial constraints, specialized medicine programmes and laboratory facilities were improved. Agency health care facilities included 98 general health units, 26 laboratories 26 dental clinics and nine maternity centres. Expenditure on health services in 1982 totalled $33.9 million.

Expenditure on relief services in 1982 was $31.3 million, mainly for hardship cases such as widows, orphans and the aged. A report on UNRWA assistance to the aged was presented to the World Assembly on Aging in July/August (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter XX) by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who observed that Palestine refugees aged 60 years or older constituted 7.9 per cent (or 150,000) of the persons registered with UNRWA, and that 90 per cent of them were eligible for health services.(1) More than 7,000 persons over 60 years of age benefited from special hardship assistance, and some 225 aged refugees received institutional care.

After 32 years, the distribution of foodstuffs to eligible refugees was suspended in September, except for those affected by the emergency situation in Lebanon (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter III) and some 80,000 refugees identified as hardship cases. With the cessation of the ration programme, the Agency decided to replace family registration cards with individual cards to identify refugees eligible for UNRWA services The Agency also distributed rations to about 230,000 displaced persons and refugee children in Jordan, at the expense of the Jordanian Government.

Spending on education increased by 6 per cent over 1981, from $104.5 million to $110.5 million. Under the programme, operated with the technical assistance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) over 336,000 pupils were enrolled, as at October 1982, in the 651 Agency elementary and preparatory schools. There were also more than 92,000 refugee pupils enrolled in local government and private schools. Of the 17,000 UNRWA employees almost all Palestine refugees themselves, nearly 12,000 were working in the education field, most of them (9,816) as teachers.

Capacity at the eight UNRWA/UNESCO technical and teacher training centres increased by 202 places to a total of 5,188, which was still far from satisfying demand since four out of five applicants had to be turned away for lack of facilities. By the end of 1982, more than 35,000 trainees had graduated from these centres. The UNRWA/UNESCO Institute for Education continued to emphasize refresher courses for qualified teachers and courses in educational techniques to meet special needs and new curriculum requirements (see below). Recipients of university scholarships numbered 351 for the 1981/82 academic year.

Lebanon emergency. Immediately after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, UNRWA organized an emergency assistance programme for an estimated 175,000 Palestinian refugees, regardless of whether or not they were registered with the Agency, who had been affected by the hostilities; the emergency provision of water, medical supplies and sanitation services helped prevent any serious epidemic or other major health problem. In a special report of 28 September,(3) the Commissioner-General outlined UNRWA relief operations and forecast a continuing emergency relief and reconstruction programme until June 1983.

By the end of 1982, the Agency's regular programmes in Lebanon had recovered from the state of paralysis following the invasion and during subsequent fighting. Many of the estimated 73,000 refugees made homeless by the fighting were given cash contributions and/or building materials to help rebuild or repair their dwellings. Out of the 85 UNRWA schools in Lebanon, 82 were reopened before year's end to provide education to over 31,000 students, only 4,000 less than the enrolment in the previous school year.

Report of the Commissioner-General. In a report covering UNRWA activities for the period from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982,(2) the Commissioner-General termed the year under review as a very difficult one, with serious disruption to its services by the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June, political tensions and unrest in the West Bank and Gaza, and fighting in the Syrian Arab Republic. The situation in Jordan, however, had remained relatively calm. The Agency's financial difficulties had been exacerbated by the cost of the emergency operations in Lebanon.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNRWA FOR LEBANON EMERGENCY RELIEF
(As at 31 December 1982; in US dollar equivalent)

Country

Payment in kind

Payments in cash

Total

Australia

575,445

575,445

Austria

28,818

28,818

Canada

758,120

758,120

China

20,000

20,000

Denmark

684,658

648,658

European Economic Community

685,804

685,804

Finland

531,124

351,124

Germany, Federal Republic of

392,157

392,157

India

19,980

19,980

Italy

1,403,179

1,403,179

Netherlands

650,523

650,523

New Zealand

17,984

17,984

Norway

584,163

584,163

Saudi Arabia

2,915,452

2,915,452

Sweden

294,610

1,353,357

1,647,967

Switzerland

227,273

211,966

439,239

Thailand

1,000

1,000

United Kingdom

1,850,274

1,850,274

United States

2,000,000

2,000,000

   Subtotal

4,461,140

10,744,657

15,205,797

United Nations Agencies:

WHO

6,800

UNDRO

216,148

   Subtotal

222,948

Non-governmental sources

1,817,949

   Total

17,246,694

*At donor's valuation.
NOTE: Contributions include only amounts for 1982 paid as at 31 December.
SOURCE: A/38/5/Add.3.

The Commissioner-General told the Special Political Committee (SPC) in November that much of the work done by UNRWA in the course of three decades had been undone in the three months following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and that the Agency's future was unclear.

General Assembly action. On 16 December,(4) the General Assembly thanked the UNRWA Commissioner-General and staff as well as the specialized agencies and private organizations for their assistance to refugees, and reiterated its request that the Agency headquarters should be relocated as soon as practicable to its former site at Beirut Lebanon, from where it had been moved in 1978.(6)

The Commissioner-General told SPC on 18 November 1982 that a major factor that would affect the timing of moving the headquarters from its present location at Vienna, Austria, was the prospect of its being able efficiently to co-ordinate and supervise UNRWA operations.

In a 21 December resolution on questions relating to the programme budget for 1982-1983,(5) the Assembly approved the reclassification, from 1 January 1983, of the UNRWA Commissioner- General to the level of Under-Secretary-General.

Speaking during the Assembly's resumed seventh emergency special session on the Palestine question in April, Bangladesh called the Palestinian refugee problem political in origin, which no humanitarian measures could eliminate without a just and lasting solution to the Palestine question; the Palestinians must be returned to their own homeland, and the United Nations and its specialized agencies, in the mean time, should provide the economic and technical assistance for the consolidation of the Palestinian entity.

In September, also at the special session, Sweden said UNRWA should receive financial support from all and vigorous political backing from those Governments best placed to exert influence so that it could provide assistance in the most effective way.

Reports. (1) UNHCR, A/CONF.113/21/Add.1, UNRWA Commissioner- General, (2) A/37/13, (3) A/37/479.

Resolutions (1982). GA: (4) 37/120 K, paras. 2 & 3, 16 Dec.; (5) 37/237, sect. XII, para. (a) (ii), 21 Dec.

Yearbook reference. (6) 1978, p. 358.

UNRWA finances

In 1982, the Agency's income fell $65.4 million short of the budget of $248.3 million. Actual expenditure was $182.9 million, while income was $181.9 million, resulting in an excess of expenditure over income of $1 million.

Acting on the recommendations of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, which held eight meetings between 20 January and 10 March,(3) the General Assembly, by a decision of 16 March,(1) called on Governments to contribute in cash or permit UNRWA to sell their contributions for cash. The Assembly also requested the Joint Inspection Unit to review comprehensively the Agency's organization, budget and operations with a view to assisting the Commissioner- General to make the most effective and economical use of the limited funds available to UNRWA. The Assembly acted without vote, on an oral proposal by the President.

The Commissioner-General, in his report covering Agency activities for the year ended 30 June 1982,(2) reported that of the income of $191.5 million expected as at that date, only $121 million was freely disposable cash, and that the Agency's financial difficulties had been exacerbated by the cost of the emergency operations in Lebanon.

In a November report to the Assembly,(4) the Working Group reiterated the recommendations it had made earlier in the year and concluded that the continuing shortfall in income emphasized the urgent need for more stable financing and for broadening the participation in the financing of UNRWA. Despite the fact that various efforts by the Commissioner-General as well as additional cash contributions had made it possible during the year to reduce the estimated deficit for 1982 to $43.5 million, further drastic cuts in programme and management expenditure needed to be made. The Working Group viewed with concern the estimated deficit of 560.5 million for 1983.

On 16 December 1982,(5) the Assembly commended the Working Group for its efforts to assist in ensuring the Agency's financial security and requested it to continue its work for another year.

The text was adopted without vote, following its similar approval by SPC on 3 December. Introducing the 18-nation draft, the Netherlands noted the comment by the Working Group that the humanitarian services of UNRWA remained indispensable and worthy of unreserved support.

By another resolution of the same date, on assistance to Palestine refugees,(6) the Assembly directed attention to the seriousness of the Agency's financial position and noted with concern that the increased level of income was still insufficient to cover budget requirements. The Assembly called on Governments as a matter of urgency to make generous efforts to meet the Agency's anticipated needs, to contribute regularly and to consider increasing contributions. Other provisions dealt with repatriation or compensation of the refugees (see below) and relocation of UNRWA headquarters (see above).

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 144 to none, with 1 abstention, following its approval by SPC on 3 December by a recorded vote of 111 to none, with 1 abstention.

Introducing the text, the United States reaffirmed the need to assist Palestine refugees and reiterated its support for the voluntary principle of funding UNRWA. Canada said it particularly supported the call on Governments to meet the Agency's anticipated financial needs.

On 22 November, the Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly for the Announcement of Voluntary Contributions to UNRWA met at United Nations Headquarters.

The contributions for 1982 pledged by Governments amounted to about $202.9 million, the Lebanon Emergency Fund included. As at 31 December 1982, $58.9 million remained unpaid. In addition, the unpaid balance of prior years stood at $6.5 million. Government contributions in 1982 totalled $128.7 million for the UNRWA General Fund (see table below) and $15.2 million for the Lebanon Emergency Fund (see above).
CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNRWA GENERAL FUND,
FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1982
(in US dollar equivalent)

Country

Payment in kind

Payment in cash

Total

Argentina

6,700

6,700

Australia

902,045

902,045

Austria

190,250

190,250

Bahamas

500

500

Bahrain

15,000

15,000

Barbados

1,000

1,000

Belgium

391,304

391,304

Benin

854

854

Brazil

10,000

10,000

Canada

2,858,277

2,858,277

Chile

4,000

4,000

China

50,000

50,000

Cyprus

2,260

2,260

Denmark

2,526,244

2,526,244

Egypt

7,299

7,299

European Economic Community

1,991,327*

1,991,327

Finland

297,291

297,291

France

362,001

832,588

1,194,589

Gaza authorities

100,148

100,148

Germany, Federal Republic of

1,689,244**

3,946,405

5,635,649

Greece

40,000

40,000

Holy See

2,500

2,500

Iceland

17,500

17,500

Indonesia

8,000

8,000

Iraq

500,000

500,000

Ireland

165,120

165,120

Israel

336,706

336,706

Italy

1,402,069

1,402,069

Japan

7,000,000

7,000,000

Jordan

754,326

754,326

Kuwait

2,100,000

2,100,000

Lebanon

44,665

14,940

59,605

Luxembourg

7,557

7,557

Madagascar

2,650

2,650

Malaysia

5,000

5,000

Maldives

2,000

2,000

Malta

988

988

Mexico

5,035

5,035

Monaco

822

822

Netherlands

2,297,077

2,297,077

New Zealand

88,195

88,195

Norway

5,710,463

5,710,463

Oman

25,000

25,000

Pakistan

17,086

17,086

Panama

1,000

1,000

Philippines

6,000

6,000

Portugal

10,000

10,000

Qatar

600,000

600,000

Republic of Korea

5,000

5,000

San Marino

2,002

2,002

Saudi Arabia

6,200,000

6,200,000

Senegal

1,868

1,868

Seychelles

1,500

1,500

Singapore

3,000

3,000

Spain

1,000,000

1,000,000

Sri Lanka

1,000

1,000

Sweden

10,413,870

10,413,870

Switzerland

3,496,675*

807,370

4,304,045

Syrian Arab Republic

174,420

174,420

Thailand

15,640

15,640

Tunisia

11,223

11,223

Turkey

20,000

20,000

United Kingdom

7,211,000

7,211,000

United Republic of Cameroon

1,410

1,410

United States

62,000,000

62,000,000

Venezuela

10,000

10,000

   Subtotal           8,950,512

119,774,902

128,725,414

United Nations and specialized agencies:

United Nations

5,664,204

UNESCO

815,279

WHO

398,150

   Subtotal

6,877,633

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

51,453

Non-governmental sources

3,040,931***

Miscellaneous income and exchange adjustments

3,287,096

   Total

141,982,527

   *At donors valuation.
  **At Agency's 1982 standard price.
 ***Includes $199,812 for 1982, paid in 1983.
 NOTE: Contributions include only amounts for 1982 paid as at                31 December.
 SOURCE: A/38/5/Add.3 and Corr.1.

Decision (1982). (1) GA: 36/462, 16 Mar., text following.

Reports. (2) UNRWA Commissioner-General, A/37/13, Working Group on UNRWA financing, (3) A/36/866 & Corr.1, (4) A/37/591.

Resolutions (1982). GA, 16 Dec.: (5) 37/120 A, text following; (6) 37/120 K, text following.

Financial implications. S-G statement, A/SPC/37/L.12.

Meeting records. GA: plenary, A/36/PV.106, 110 (16 Mar., 28 Apr.), A/37/PV.108 (16 Dec.); SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.24, 26-31, 32, 42, 14, 45 (9 Nov.-6 Dec.). Committee on contributions to UNRWA: A/AC.216/SR.1 (22 Nov.).
General Assembly decision 36/462
Adopted without vote

Oral proposal by Assembly President on recommendation of Working Group on UNRWA financing (A/36/866); agenda item 60.

Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency
for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

At its 106th plenary meeting, on 16 March 1982, the General Assembly, having considered the recommendations of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East:

(a) Took note of the report of the Working Group;

(b) Urged the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to continue his efforts to make the most efficient use of the resources of the Agency and requested the Joint Inspection Unit to carry out a comprehensive review of the Agency's organization, budget and operations with a view to assisting the Commissioner-General to make the most effective and economical use of the limited funds available to the Agency;

(c) Called upon:

(i) Governments that had not yet contributed to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to start contributing;

(ii) Governments that had hitherto only made relatively small contributions to contribute more generously;

(iii) Governments in a special position to do so to increase their contributions;

(iv) Governments that in the past had made generous contributions to continue to make generous contributions and strive whenever possible to increase their contributions;

(d) Called upon Governments and organizations making contributions in kind either to give cash instead or to allow the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to sell their contributions for cash;

(e) Decided to suspend temporarily the consideration of agenda item 60 (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East).

General Assembly resolution 37/120 A
16 December 1982     Meeting 108   Adopted without vote

Approved by SPC (A/37/723) without vote, 3 December (meeting 44); 18-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.10): agenda item 65.

Sponsors: Austria, Bangladesh Canada, Denmark, Germany, Federal Republic of, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Mali, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Yugoslavia.

Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2656 (XXV) of 7 December 1970, 2728 (XXV) of 15 December 1970, 2791 (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2964 (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3090 (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3330 (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 D (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 C of 23 November 1976, 32/90 D of 13 December 1977, 33/112 D of 18 December 1978, 34/52 D of 23 November 1979, 35/13 D of 3 November 1980 and 36/146 E of 16 December 1981,

Recalling also its decision 36/462 of 16 March 1982, whereby the General Assembly took note of the special report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and adopted the recommendations contained therein,

Having considered the report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

Taking into account the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982, and his special report issued on 28 September 1982,

Gravely concerned at the critical financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which has already reduced the essential minimum services being provided to the Palestine refugees and which threatens even greater reductions in the future,

Emphasizing the urgent need for extraordinary efforts in order to maintain, at least at their present minimum level, the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

1. Commends the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for its efforts to assist in ensuring the Agency's financial security;

2. Takes note with approval of the report of the Working Group;

3. Requests the Working Group to continue its efforts, in co-operation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, for the financing of the Agency for a funkier period of one year;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary services and assistance to the Working Group for the conduct of its work.

General Assembly resolution 37/120 K
16 December 1982      Meeting 108 144-0-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/723) by recorded vote (111-0-1), 3 December (meeting 44); draft by United States (A/SPC/37/L.25); agenda item 65.

Assistance to Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 36/146 F of 16 December 1981 and all previous resolutions on the question, including resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982,

1. Notes with regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) has not been effected, that no substantial progress has been made in the programme endorsed by the Assembly in paragraph 2 of its resolution 513 (VI) of 26 January 1952 for the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continues to be a matter of serious concern;

2. Expresses its thanks to the Commissioner-General and to all the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, recognizing that the Agency is doing all it can within the limits of available resources, and also expresses its thanks to the specialized agencies and private organizations for their valuable work in assisting the refugees;

3. Reiterates its request that the headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East should be relocated to its former site within its area of operations as soon as practicable;

4. Notes with regret that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine has been unable to find a means of achieving progress in the implementation of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) and requests the Commission to exert continued efforts towards the implementation of that paragraph and to report to the Assembly as appropriate, but not later than 1 October 1983;

5. Directs attention to the continuing seriousness of the financial position of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as outlined in the report of the Commissioner-General;

6. Notes with concern that, despite the commendable and successful efforts of the Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions, this increased level of income to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East is still insufficient to cover essential budget requirements in the present year and that, at currently foreseen levels of giving, deficits will recur each year;

7. Calls upon all Governments as a matter of urgency to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, particularly in the light of the budgetary deficit projected in the report of the Commissioner- General, and therefore urges non-contributing Governments to contribute regularly and contributing Governments to consider increasing their regular contributions.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Israel.
Accounts for 1981

For the year ended 31 December 1981, expenditure and commitments of UNRWA amounted to $l80,728,868 under its General Fund in addition to an expenditure of $170,424 under the Bayssarieh Camp Fund.(1)

The Board of Auditors noted that, while UNRWA had made significant improvement in the investment of its funds, it had not developed detailed guidelines prescribing procedures and policies relating to financial management and control over investments of temporary cash balances. It also noted that approximately $27.5 million of $171.5 million pledged by Governments for 1981 remained unpaid as at 31 December 1981. In view of the financial difficulties, the Board again recommended that UNRWA intensify its efforts to collect outstanding pledges on time.

By a resolution of 16 November 1982,(2) the General Assembly accepted the UNRWA financial report and accounts, endorsed the audit opinion of the Board and requested remedial action as required by the Board's comments and observations.

Report. (1) Board of Auditors and financial statements, A/37/5/Add.3.

Resolution (1982). (2) GA: 37/12, 16 Nov.
Arrest of UNRWA staff

Report of the Secretary-General. In November 1982, the Secretary-General informed the General Assembly that between 1 July 1981 and 30 June 1982, UNRWA had reported 28 cases of arrest and detention of its staff: 18 in the West Bank, five in the Gaza Strip four in the Syrian Arab Republic and one in Jordan.(1) Of those, one in the Syrian Arab Republic was still in detention at the end of June, while two in the West Bank and one in Jordan had been tried and convicted; the remaining 24 had been released without charge or trial after varying periods of detention, the longest having been one year in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Since June 1982, UNRWA had received reports of 166 cases of arrest of its staff in Lebanon by the Israeli armed forces. Of these, 37 had been released by the end of September. UNRWA had no further information on two staff members in the Syrian Arab Republic – one detained since September 1980 and the other missing since April 1980.

Report of the Commissioner-General. In his report for the year ended 30 June 1982,(2) the UNRWA Commissioner-General observed that the difficulties in obtaining adequate and timely information from the authorities concerned on the reasons for the arrest and detention prevented UNRWA from ascertaining whether the staff member's official functions were involved, and consequently hampered its giving effect to the rights and duties of the staff member and the Agency itself under the Charter of the United Nations and the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.(4)

The Commissioner-General told SPC on 9 November that some of the 2,373 locally-recruited UNRWA staff in Lebanon, most of whom were Palestinian refugees themselves, had disappeared or been arrested, and 125 of them were still in detention.

General Assembly action. Drawing attention to the unprecedented character of the mass arrest of UNRWA officials by Israeli authorities in Lebanon, the General Assembly, by a resolution of 21 December,(3) called on the Secretary-General to take measures without delay to establish the whereabouts of, to find out the charges against and to arrange a meeting with the incarcerated, in order to obtain their earliest release.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 141 to 1, with 1 abstention, following its approval by the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee on 14 December by a vote, requested by Israel, of 94 to 1, with 2 abstentions.

Introducing the draft also on behalf of Cuba Yemen said the arrest and detention of international civil servants by Israeli authorities violated international law and the privileges and immunities of United Nations staff (see ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUDGETARY QUESTIONS, Chapter III), and set an extremely dangerous precedent.

Israel, on the other hand, stated that the only civilians detained in southern Lebanon had been those suspected of having engaged in or been connected with terrorist activities against Israel; all those not guilty of any wrongdoing had been released. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross had visited the detainees and Israel was in contact with UNRWA.

In the opinion of the USSR, the resolution raised a number of important issues and was a test case for the United Nations; the information available to the Secretary-General was unsatisfactory and the Committee had yet to receive a clear reply with regard to the possibility of arranging for access to the detained UNRWA staff.

Morocco charged that Israel did not intend to observe the principles related to privileges and immunities of United Nations of ficials, the detainees in question were not terrorists and had been imprisoned as a result of their attempt to ensure that international principles were observed.

Voting in favour, Canada and Honduras said it was worth remembering that the staff referred to in the resolution were not the only ones still imprisoned. Sweden, joined by the Netherlands, said the particular case of UNRWA staff need not have been singled out in a separate resolution, the wording of which they had reservations about.

Reports. (1) S-G, A/C.5/37/34; (2) UNRWA Commissioner-General, A/37/13.

Resolution (1982). (3) GA: 37/236 B, 21 Dec., text following.

Resolution (prior). (4) GA: 22 A (I), annex, 13 Feb. 1946 (YUN 1946-47, p. 100).

Meeting records: GA: 5th Committee, A/C.5/37/SR.23, 25-34, 36-38, 40, 41, 43, 47, 65, 70 (1 Nov.-14 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.114 (21 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/236 B
21 December 1982     Meeting 114    141-1-1 (recorded vote)

Approved by Fifth Committee (A/37/764) by vote (94-1-2), 14 December (meeting 70): 2-nation draft (A/C.5/37/L.42); agenda item 111 (b).

Sponsors: Cuba, Yemen.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on respect to the privileges and immunities of officials of the United Nations and the specialized agencies and related organizations,

Drawing attention to the unprecedented character of the mass arrest by the Israeli authorities in the territory of Lebanon of a great number of the officials of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Secretary-General's report,

1. Calls upon the Secretary-General to take measures without delay to establish the whereabouts of, to find out the charges made against and to arrange a meeting with the of ficials of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East incarcerated by the Israeli authorities in Lebanon, in order to obtain their earliest release;

2. Requests the Secretary General to inform Member States promptly about measures taken under paragraph 1 above and about their results.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal,. Netherlands. New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: United States.
Special aspects

Assistance to displaced persons

Expressing concern about the continued human suffering resulting from the hostilities in the Middle East, the General Assembly, by a resolution of 16 December 1982,(1) endorsed the efforts of the UNRWA Commissioner-General to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities and in need of continued assistance. Governments, organizations and individuals were asked to contribute for that purpose to UNRWA and other organizations concerned.

The resolution was adopted without vote, following its approval in like manner by SPC on 3 December.

Introducing the 19-nation text, Sweden said it was similar to previous resolutions on the question, except that a reference to hostilities subsequent to those of 1967 had been added in order to take account of the new situation confronting UNRWA.

Resolution (1982). (1) GA: 37/120 B, 16 Dec., text following.

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.24, 26-31, 32, 33, 44, 45 (9 Nov.-6 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.108 (16 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/120 B
16 December 1982     Meeting 108    Adopted without vote

Approved by SPC (A/37/723) without vote, 3 December (meeting 44); 19-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.11); agenda item 65.

Sponsors: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sweden.

Assistance to persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 36/146 D of 16 December 1981 and all previous resolutions on the question,

Taking note of the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982, and his special report covering the period from 6 June to 31 August 1982,

Concerned about the continued human suffering resulting from the hostilities in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 36146 D and all previous resolutions on the question;

2. Endorses, bearing in mind the objectives of those resolutions, the efforts of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to continue to provide humanitarian assistance as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who are at present displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities;

3. Strongly appeals to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously for the above purposes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and to the other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.
Repatriation

Action by the Commission on Human Rights. In a resolution of 11 February 1982,(3) the Commission on Human Rights called on Israel to take immediate steps for the return of the displaced Arab inhabitants to their homes and property in Palestine and the other occupied territories.

Report of the Secretary-General. By a report of 20 September 1982,(2) the Secretary-General informed the General Assembly that, in accordance with a December 1981 Assembly resolution,(7) he had requested from Israel information on steps taken for the return of all displaced inhabitants. By a note verbale of 27 August 1982, Israel had reaffirmed its position as set out in previous years, i.e., that the primary objective of the resolution on repatriation was to obstruct the ongoing peace process and to serve the aims of those Arab States with hostile and destructive intentions towards Israel. Notwithstanding the security risks involved, which inevitably resulted in some constraints on the return of displaced persons, Israel remained committed to its humanitarian approach of family reunification.

Report of the Conciliation Commission. By a report transmitted to the Assembly on 29 September,(1) the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine reiterated its previous conclusion that all the ways envisaged for advancing towards repatriation and resettlement of displaced persons presupposed substantial changes in the situation. Recent events had further complicated an already very complex situation and the Commission's possibilities of action remained limited. However, the Commission expressed the hope that the situation would improve towards the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East peace, thus enabling it to carry out its mandate.

General Assembly action. Reaffirming the right of all displaced inhabitants to return to their homes or former places of residence in the occupied territories, the General Assembly, by a resolution of 16 December,(5) considered all agreements restricting or attaching conditions for their return as null and void It deplored Israel's continued refusal to take steps for the return of displaced inhabitants, and called on it to take such steps and to desist from all measures obstructing the return, including those affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories.

In a resolution on assistance to Palestine refugees, adopted on the same date,(6) the Assembly noted with regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees had not been effected and that no substantial progress had been made in the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement. The Assembly requested the Conciliation Commission to exert continued efforts towards that goal and to report to it not later than 1 October 1983.

The repatriation concept was also included in the Assembly's resolution of 24 September on the Palestine question and the Israel-Lebanon situation,(4) adopted shortly after the massacre in the Beirut area. The Assembly resolved that, in conformity with past resolutions, Palestine refugees should be enabled to return to their homes and property from which they had been uprooted and displaced, and demanded unconditional and immediate Israeli compliance.

The resolution on displaced inhabitants of the occupied territories was adopted by a recorded vote of 126 to 2, with 19 abstentions, following its approval by SPC on 3 December by a recorded vote of 97 to 2, with 19 abstentions.

Bangladesh introduced the draft, also on behalf of Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Yugoslavia, saying it was of a humanitarian nature.

Israel explained that it voted against the resolution in view of its obviously destructive intent; the text was out of touch with the facts, as over 60,000 displaced persons had been permitted to return to their homes since 1967.

The United States opposed it on the grounds that it purported to prejudge the issues of repatriation and compensation, which could only be settled through negotiations between the parties. New Zealand and Sweden abstained for similar reasons.

Canada abstained saying that paragraph 2 was an implicit criticism of the Camp David accords, which Canada supported as providing a possible basis for a negotiated settlement of the Palestinian problem.

Explaining their votes for the September resolution, Canada, Denmark (also speaking for Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), Haiti, New Zealand and Norway reserved their positions on the provision concerning the right of the Palestinians to return home. Canada felt that the nature of a settlement of the refugee problem should not be prejudged but determined in negotiations; Denmark, Ireland and New Zealand believed that the rights of the Palestine refugees should be addressed in the context of a comprehensive peace settlement, and Haiti said refuge must be found for the Palestinians on the basis of the 1967 Security Council resolution on principles for a Middle East peace.(8)

Reports. (1) Conciliation Commission for Palestine, transmitted by S-G note, A/37/497; (2) S-G, A/37/426.

Resolutions (1982). (3) Commission on Human Rights (report E/1982/12): 1982/1 A, para. 6, 11 Feb.  GA: (4) ES-7/9, para. 6, 24 Sep.; (5) 37/120 G, 16 Dec., text following, (6) 37/120 K, paras. 1 & 4, 16 Dec.

Resolutions (prior). (7) GA: 36/146 B, 16 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 334); (8) SC: 242 (1967), 22 Nov. 1967 (YUN 1967, p. 257).

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.24, 26-33, 42, 44, 45 (9 Nov.-6 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.108 (16 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/120 G
16 December 1982       Meeting 108 126-2-19 {recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/723) by recorded vote (97-2-19), 3 December (meeting 44); 6-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.21); agenda item 65.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Population and refugees displaced since 1967

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also General Assembly resolutions 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2452 A (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, 2672 D (XXV) of 8 December 1970, 2792 E (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 C and D (XVI)) of 13 December 1972, 3089 C (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3331 D (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 C (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 D of 23 November 1976, 32/90 E of 13 December 1977, 33/112 F of 18 December 1978, 34/52 E of 23 November 1979, ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 35/13 E of 3 November 1980 and 36/146 B of 16 December 1981,

Having considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982, and the report of the Secretary-General of 20 September 1982,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of all displaced inhabitants to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and declares once more that any attempt to restrict, or to attach conditions to, the free exercise of the right of return by any displaced person is inconsistent with that inalienable right and inadmissible;

2. Considers any and all agreements embodying any restriction on or condition for the return of the displaced inhabitants as null and void;

3. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of the Israeli authorities to take steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants;

4. Calls once more upon Israel:

(a) To take immediate steps for the return of all displaced inhabitants;

(b) To desist from all measures that obstruct the return of the displaced inhabitants, including measures affecting the physical and demographic structure of the occupied territories;

5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report to the General Assembly before the opening of its thirty-eighth session on Israel's compliance with paragraph 4 above.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Omen, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Resettlement of refugees in the Gaza Strip

Report of the Secretary-General. In a report of 17 September 1982,(1) submitted in accordance with a December 1981 General Assembly resolution calling on Israel to desist from removing and resettling Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip and from destroying their shelters,(3) the Secretary-General stated that, by a note verbale of 1 March 1982, he had requested Israel to inform him of the implementation of that resolution. Replying on 27 August, Israel reiterated its previous position (stating that refugee families were being assisted in obtaining better housing outside the squalid and cramped conditions in the camps).

The report also provided information from the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which indicated that UNRWA had constructed replacement shelters for the refugee families whose shelters had been demolished by Israel on punitive grounds in 1981. While the Israeli Minister of Defence subsequently informed UNRWA of the plans on humanitarian grounds to resettle those families in a housing project in Gaza, the families whose shelters had been demolished in 1979 and 1980 had not been rehoused, nor had UNRWA been compensated for the demolition of the shelters.

UNRWA further reported that, in the year under review, 358 refugee families from the camps and 35 families from outside the camps had moved into homes built on land they had purchased in one or another Israeli housing project; 314 shelter rooms in the camps were demolished in compliance with the Israeli pre-condition for the acquisition of new housing. The Israeli authorities had to date allocated 2,866 plots of land in the Gaza Strip for housing projects for refugees; on 919 of these, houses had been built and were occupied by 1,143 families (6,936 persons) – including 1,077 refugee families (6,545 persons) – while houses were under construction on 736 plots. Three new housing projects in Beit, Lahia and Nazleh were under development.

With the re-establishment of the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip following the return of the Sinai to Egypt in April 1982, 515 shelter rooms housing 173 families (1,060 persons) had been demolished in order to make way for a security zone and a border fence. The occupying authori-ties had paid compensation to all the families concerned, and they took advantage of the Israeli offer of plots of land in a housing project.

General Assembly action. By a resolution of 16 December 1982,(2) the General Assembly reiterated its demand that Israel desist from removing and resettling Palestine refugees in Gaza and from destroying their shelters, and requested the Secretary-General to report before its 1983 regular session on Israel's compliance.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 143 to 2, following its approval by SPC on 3 December by a recorded vote of 114 to 2. It was introduced by Pakistan, also on behalf of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Yugoslavia.

Israel rejected the resolution, saying that it disregarded the true needs of the refugees and that demanding Israel to cease rehousing them in better accommodation was cynical.

The United States said it opposed the text because of its biased nature, singling out for censure Israel's destruction of certain refugee shelters, while ignoring the fact that Israel had made available new and superior housing to many refugees.

While supporting the text, Denmark, speaking for the 10 States members of the European Community (EC), noted that, according to the Commissioner-General's reports, no demolition of refugees shelters on punitive grounds had occurred during the period under review; also, the resolution should not be held to interfere with the refugees' freedom to choose where they wished to live.

Report. (1) S-G, A/37/425 & Corr.1.

Resolution (1982). (2) GA: 37/120 E, 16 Dec., text following.

Resolution (prior). (3) GA: 36/146 A, 16 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, P. 335).

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.24, 26-33, 42, 44, 45 (9 Nov.-6 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.108 (16 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/120 E
16 December 1982      Meeting 108    143-2 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/723) by recorded vote (114-2), 3 December (meeting 44); 7-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.19); agenda item 65.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 2792 C (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2963 C (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, 3089 C (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3331 D (XXIX) of 17 December 1974, 3419 C (XXX) of 8 December 1975, 31/15 E of 23 November 1976, 32/90 C of 13 December 1977, 33/112 E of 18 December 1978, 34/52 F of 23 November 1979, 35/13 F of 3 November 1980 and 36/146 A of 16 December 1981,

Having considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982, and the report of the Secretary-General of 17 September 1982,

Recalling the provisions of paragraph 11 of its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and considering that measures to resettle Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip away from the homes and property from which they were displaced constitute a violation of their inalienable right of return,

Alarmed by the reports received from the Commissioner-General that the Israeli occupying authorities persist in their policy of demolishing, on punitive grounds, shelters occupied by refugee families,

1. Reiterates its demand that Israel desist from the removal and resettlement of Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip and from the destruction of their shelters;

2. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report to the General Assembly, before the opening of its thirty-eighth session, on Israel's compliance with paragraph 1 above.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus; Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland. Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Toga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.
Protection

By a resolution of 16 December 1982,(1) the General Assembly urged the Secretary-General, in consultation with UNRWA, to undertake effective measures to guarantee the safety and security and the legal and human rights of the Palestine refugees in the occupied territories. It called on Israel to release all detained Palestine refugees, including UNRWA employees (see above), and requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the UNRWA Commissioner-General, to report to it before its 1983 regular session. Under other provisions, the Assembly dealt mainly with protection of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon following the Israeli invasion in June.

Commenting on the text, the United Nations Legal Counsel told SPC on 3 December that the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which the Assembly held applicable to the situation in the territories occupied by Israel, reiterated the general principle of international law that the occupying Power was responsible for ensuring human and other rights within such territories, and that any external attempts to assume part of that responsibility would obscure that duty of the occupying Power. Further, it was difficult to see how the Secretary-General could guarantee the safety and rights of the Palestinian refugees without exercising certain sovereign powers, including police powers, in the occupied territories or exerting authority and control over the occupying Power itself. When international organizations carried out any activity within a given territory, they must do so with the consent and co-operation of the authorities; if such conditions were not met, the Secretary-General would be unable to undertake the measures required to fulfil the objectives of the resolution.

The United Arab Emirates asserted that the Geneva Convention also provided for the possibility of entrusting an organization with the duties incumbent on the protecting Power, which was supposed to see to it that the Convention provisions were observed, especially when the occupying Power was delinquent in applying them. Israel having violated almost every provision of the Convention, the United Nations or any of its organs could act as protecting Power; it was not asking the Secretary-General to assume police powers.

Speaking for the EC members which abstained, Denmark questioned the appropriateness of calling on the Secretary-General to guarantee the safety and security as well as the legal and human rights of the Palestinian refugees; it also considered it important not to detract from the responsibility of the occupying Power to protect the civilian population. A similar opinion was expressed by Canada and Ireland.

Although voting in favour, Sweden did not believe it proper to place that responsibility on the Secretary-General, while Venezuela said the clause should be implemented with the full consent of the authorities of the country concerned and without undermining sovereign rights. Austria, Finland, Jamaica, New Zealand, Peru, the Philippines and Uruguay also voiced reservations on that provision.

Lebanon said the withdrawal of non-Lebanese forces from the country would enable it to provide the necessary protection for all those residing in its territory.

Resolution (1982). (1) GA: 37/120 J, 16 Dec.
Identification cards

By a resolution of 16 December 1982,(1) the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General, in co-operation with the UNRWA Commissioner-General, to issue identification cards to all Palestine refugees and their descendants, as well as to all displaced persons and those prevented from returning to their homes as a result of the 1967 hostilities. The Secretary-General was requested to report to the Assembly in 1983.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 106 to 16, with 20 abstentions, following its approval by SPC on 3 December by a recorded vote of 83 to 16, with 16 abstentions.

Pakistan, introducing the text also on behalf of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Indonesia and Yugoslavia, said it was designed to facilitate the work of UNRWA; the provision of identification cards might help not to have the Palestinian refugees regarded as terrorists and disturbers of peace.

Lebanon cast a negative vote saying the proposal, whose objectives it did not understand, required additional study and possible consultations at the level of the League of Arab States, any action which might involve a census-taking of any group in Lebanon should have Lebanon's prior approval.

The United States said the resolution had been drawn up with too little thought given to its legal and practical effects and the enormous costs of no less than $10 million for its implementation. Australia cited similar reasons for its negative vote.

In Canada's view, it was not clear under what authority the Secretary-General, in co-operation with the UNRWA Commissioner- General, would he able to issue identification cards to all Palestine refugees and their descendants, irrespective of their location.

Though being sympathetic to the issuing of identification cards, the United Kingdom believed that the resolution did not give proper consideration to the far-reaching legal, administrative and financial implications. In the view of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands, those implications required more detailed consideration. Abstaining, Ireland held a similar position.

Austria, which also abstained, doubted whether UNRWA could implement the resolution due to financial or political and legal impediments. The Philippines said it did not have a clear idea of the practical benefits or possible legal implications of special identification cards. Uruguay said the text ignored a fundamental principle of international law by failing to mention due respect for the rights and sovereignty of the States in the area. In Sweden's opinion, the resolution would place on the Secretary-General new tasks which would be extremely difficult to carry out in the current circumstances.

Poland, while voting in favour, voiced concern at what it called the unwarranted cost involved in implementing the resolution. Also voting for the resolution, Venezuela said it understood that the issuance of identification cards would be carried out with the full consent of the authorities of the country concerned and without undermining its sovereign rights.

Resolution (1982). (1) GA: 37/120 I, 16 Dec., text following.

Financial implications. 5th Committee report, A/37/747; S-G statements, A/SPC/37/L.40, A/C.5/37/88.

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.24, 26-33, 42, 44, 45 (9 Nov.-6 Dec.); 5th Committee, A/C.5/37/SR.66 (13 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.108 (16 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/120 I
16 December 1982       Meeting 108      106-16-20 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/723) by recorded vote (83-16-16), 3 December (meeting 44): 6-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.23); agenda item 65.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.
Special identification cards to all Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 36/146 F of 16 December 1981 and all previous resolutions on the question,

Recalling, in particular, its resolutions 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949,

Recognizing the concern of the United Nations with the problem of the Palestine refugees,

1. Reiterates its regret that paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) has not thus far been implemented;

2. Requests the Secretary-General, in co-operation with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to issue identification cards to all Palestine refugees and their descendants, irrespective of whether they are recipients or not of rations and services from the Agency, as well as to all displaced persons and to those who have been prevented from returning to their homes as a result of the 1967 hostilities, and their descendants;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Chile, Costa Rica, Fiji, Finland, Guatemala, Ireland, Jamaica, Malawi, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay, Zaire.
Property rights

Report of the Secretary-General. On 28 September 1982,(1) the Secretary-General reported to the General Assembly on the implementation of a December 1981 resolution on revenues derived from Palestine refugee properties.(3) He stated that he had brought that resolution to the attention of the Chairman of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine and to Israel, as well as to all other States, and had requested information on its implementation. In the absence of replies he had again requested them for information on 12 July. Israel responded on 27 August that its position remained the same as in 1981.(4)

General Assembly action. By a resolution of 16 December 1982,(2) the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to take all steps, in consultation with the Conciliation Commission for the protection and administration of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel, and to establish a fund for the receipt of income derived therefrom. The Assembly called again on the Governments concerned, especially Israel, to assist the Secretary- General in that task, and requested him to report in 1983 on the implementation of the resolution.

The text was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 to 2, with 24 abstentions, following its approval by SPC on 3 December by a recorded vote of 95 to 2, with 21 abstentions. It was introduced by Bangladesh, also on behalf of Afghanistan, India Indonesia, Pakistan and Yugoslavia, as humanitarian in nature.

Israel rejected the resolution as yet another example of the Arab countries' misuse of the Assembly in pursuit of an anti-Israeli campaign, the subject fell entirely within Israel's sovereign jurisdiction over its internal affairs and the United Nations had no competence in the matter.

Abstaining, Austria voiced serious doubts whether the resolution could be implemented because of political and legal impediments. Speaking for the European Community members, Denmark said a solution to the problem of Palestinian property rights and return of the refugees must be sought in the framework of a just, lasting and comprehensive Middle East settlement. Canada shared that view. Though agreeing in principle that the Palestinian refugees were entitled to their property or to compensation, Sweden believed it unrealistic in the existing circumstances to expect the Secretary-General to accomplish the task.

During the Assembly debate on the Palestine question, the Byelorussian SSR said that, in order to deprive the Palestinians of their lands, Israel resorted to a law dating from the time of the Ottoman Empire requiring the registration of all landholdings, which the occupation authorities made impossible in practice by passing a legislation.

Report. (1) S-G, A/37/488 & Corr.1.

Resolution (1982). (2) GA: 37/120 H, 16 Dec., text following.

Resolution (prior). (3) GA: 36/146 C, 16 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 336).

Yearbook reference. (4) 1981, p. 336.

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.24, 26-33, 42, 44, 45 (9 Nov.-6 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.108 (16 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/120 H
16 December 1982       Meeting 108     121-2-24 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/723) by recorded vote (95-2-21), 3 December (meeting 44); 6-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.22 and Corr.1); agenda item 65.

Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Revenues derived from Palestine refugee properties

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 35/13 A to F of 3 November 1980, 36/146 C of 16 December 1981 and all its previous resolutions on the question including resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 28 September 1982,

Taking note also of the report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, covering the period from 1 October 1981 to 30 September 1982,

Recalling that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of international law uphold the principle that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of one's private property,

Considering that the Palestinian Arab refugees are entitled to their property and to the income derived from their property, in conformity with the principles of justice and equity,

Recalling, in particular, its resolution 394 (V) of 14 December 1950, in which it directed the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, in consultation with the parties concerned, to prescribe measures for the protection of the rights, property and interests of the Palestinian Arab refugees,

Taking note of the completion of the programme of identification and evaluation of Arab property, as announced by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine in its twenty-second progress report, of 11 May 1964, and of the fact that the Land Office had a schedule of Arab owners and file of documents defining the location, area and other particulars of Arab property,

1. Requests the Secretary-General to take all appropriate steps, in consultation with the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Pales tine, for the protection and administration of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel, and to establish a fund for the receipt of income derived therefrom, on behalf of their rightful owners;

2. Calls once again upon the Governments concerned, especially Israel, to render all facilities and assistance to the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados,  Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Repub lic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bahamas Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Samoa,a/ Sweden, United Kingdom, Zaire.

a/ Later advised the Secretariat it had intended to vote in favour.
Food aid

In his annual report covering the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982,(1) the Commissioner- General stated that approximately 827,000 persons, or less than half the number of refugees registered with the Agency, were receiving rations in 1981. The number of refugees classified as special hardship cases (including widows, orphans, the aged, the handicapped and the chronically sick), entitled to larger rations, totalled some 42,700 by the end of June 1982.

Owing to the Agency's financial difficulties and the need to divert available resources to the highest priority programmes, the general distribution of foodstuffs to eligible refugees was suspended in September, with the exception of Lebanon where, because of the emergency situation, distribution was increased in terms of the number of recipients and the quantities of foodstuffs distributed. Destitute families, however, continued to receive foodstuffs and other forms of support.

General Assembly action. By a resolution of 16 December 1982,(2) the General Assembly requested the Commissioner-General to resume on a continuing basis and as soon as possible the general ration distribution to Palestine refugees and called for regular and increased contributions to UNRWA.

The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 to 13, with 10 abstentions, following its approval by SPC on 3 December by a recorded vote of 94 to 13, with 9 abstentions.

The United States said it considered the request as an unwise intrusion into the administrative discretion of UNRWA management, which had reached a commendable decision on the matter for sound fiscal and programme reasons; if the Agency was compelled to resume the full general ration distribution, its projected deficit could reach as high as $90 million to $110 million. Also casting a negative vote, Ireland said the request ran counter to the Commissioner-General's decision to phase out the programme in order to concentrate the Agency's limited resources on the education programme. Canada abstained for similar reasons.

Among those Abstaining in the vote, Sweden believed that, without sufficient financial resources, a resumption of the general ration distribution would endanger the Agency's educational, health care and relief activities. In Norway's understanding, the request was to be implemented only when UNRWA had secured the necessary resources to resume that distribution, without prejudice to the educational programmes. Endorsing the Commissioner-General's priorities, Australia believed that contributions to UNRWA must be made in cash and not in kind.

The Philippines voted in favour on the understanding that the increase in contributions would actually take place, and Turkey supported the resumption of the general ration distribution in that context.

Introducing the resolution also on behalf of Bangladesh and Yugoslavia, Pakistan emphasized that it was not a criticism of the work of UNRWA which had had to set priorities because of its financial difficulties; however, it was important to resume the ration distribution with the co-operation of the entire international community.

Report. (1) UNRWA Commissioner-General, A/37/13.

Resolution (1982). (2) GA: 37/120 F, 16 Dec., text following.

Meeting records. GA: SPC, A/SPC/37/SR.24, 26-33, 42, 44, 45 (9 Nov.-6 Dec.); plenary, A/37/PV.108 (16 Dec.).

General Assembly resolution 37/120 F
16 December 1982      Meeting 108     121-13-10 (recorded vote)

Approved by SPC (A/37/723) by recorded vote 94-13-91, 3 December (meeting 44); 3-nation draft (A/SPC/37/L.20); agenda item 65.

Sponsors: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Yugoslavia.

Resumption of the ration distribution to Palestine refugees

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 36/146 F of 16 December 1981 and all previous resolutions on the question, including resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949,

Having considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982, and his special report covering the period from 6 June to 31 August 1982,

Deeply concerned at the interruption by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, owing to financial difficulties, of the general ration distribution to Palestine refugees in all fields in the occupied Palestinian territories, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic,

1. Calls upon all Governments, as a matter of urgency, to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the interrupted needs of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, particularly in the light of the interruption by the Agency of the general ration distribution to Palestine refugees in all fields, and therefore urges non-contributing Governments to contribute regularly and contributing Governments to consider increasing their regular contributions;

2. Requests the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to resume on a continuing basis and as soon as possible the interrupted general ration distribution to the Palestine refugees in all fields.

Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechos lovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Repub lic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Guatemala, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden.
Education

Report of the Secretary-General. On 20 September 1982,(1) the Secretary-General reported on the responses to the General Assembly's December 1981 appeal for special allocations, scholarships and grants for higher education for Palestine refugees.(3)

Among the respondents, Kuwait mentioned its scholarship offers made directly to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and to the Jordanian Government, and financial assistance paid through the Islamic Committee to Palestinians studying abroad. In the Federal Republic of Germany, nine Palestinians were training to be vocational education instructors. France had offered two scholarships in 1982 for UNRWA refugee teachers of French in Lebanon. Candidates were tested for five awards remaining of the six offered by Australia for tertiary studies.