[Part I of three YB 1982 excerpts]
YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED NATIONS
1982
Department of Public Information
United Nations, New York
[part I of YB 1982 exerpts] …
Middle East situation
The situation in the Middle East was again considered in 1982 as an item on the agenda of the General Assembly's regular session. By a resolution of 20 December, the Assembly condemned Israeli aggression and declared that peace in the Middle East must be based on a solution under United Nations auspices that would enable the Palestinians to exercise their rights, it also called on States to end the flow to Israel of military, economic and financial aid and human resources aimed at encouraging it to pursue its aggressive policies.
Israel reported to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council a series of attacks against its citizens, as well as Jews and Jewish institutions outside Israel, allegedly carried out by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Three other communications dealt with the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai peninsula on 25 April in accordance with the 1978 Camp David agreements between Egypt and Israel (formally called A Framework for Peace in the Middle East, Agreed at Camp David [United States], and Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel).
In October, the Secretary-General reported on the situation in the region and on proposals for a peaceful settlement made in September by the USSR, the United States and the Arab States.
Also in October, the Assembly decided not to act on a proposal to reject the credentials of representatives of Israel to the Assembly.
Other items relating to the Middle East situation but dealt with separately by the Assembly during 1982 concerned the Palestine question, the June 1981 aerial attack by Israel against Iraqi nuclear installations, the financing of United Nations peace-keeping forces in Lebanon and on the Golan Heights between the forces of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, the situation in the territories occupied by Israel, the Mediterranean-Dead Sea canal project and Palestine refugees.
The Security Council also dealt during 1982 with several topics under its agenda item on "The situation in the Middle East": the situation between Israel and Lebanon, which the Assembly considered under its item on the Palestine question, continuation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force in the Golan Heights; annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights, and other aspects of the situation in the occupied territories, including the Al-Aqsa mosque and Israeli settlements.
Communications. By 13 letters addressed to the Secretary- General and/or the Security Council President during the first six months of 1982, Israel reported a series of attacks against its citizens, as well as against Jews and Jewish institutions outside Israel, which, it alleged, were carried out by PLO.
These attacks included: bombings at the El Al Israel Airlines office at Istanbul, Turkey, on 9 January (letter of 14 January(2)), and at a Jewish-owned restaurant in West Berlin on 15 January (letter of 19 January(3)); the infiltration of armed elements with a view to laying land-mines and attacking villages (letters of 2 February,(4) 12 April,(10) 13 April(11); the planting of explosive devices in public places in towns and villages of Israel (letters of 15 March,(5) 10 May(12), 24 May(13)); attacks against two members of West Bank village associations (letters of 17 March(6) and 31 March(7); the machine-gunning of the Israel Trade Mission building in Paris on 31 March (letter of the same date(8)); the murder of an Israeli diplomat in Paris on 3 April (letter of the same date(9)); and the wounding of the Israeli Ambassador in London on 3 June (letter of 4 June(14).
Following the completion on 25 April of Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, three letters were sent to the Secretary-General. On 28 April,(15) the USSR transmitted a statement dated 26 April from its news agency TASS, stating that the return of the Sinai to Egypt, like other consequences of the Camp David agreements, bore no relation to the task of establishing a just and stable peace in the Middle East, particularly as United States troops were to replace the Israeli occupation, giving that country a beach-head for intervention in the affairs of the States of the Middle East and contiguous areas.
Egypt replied on 5 May(18) that Israel's withdrawal from Egyptian territories was the first direct implementation of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, as embodied in the 1967 Security Council resolution on principles for a Middle East peace.(30)
On 3 May 1982,(17) Belgium transmitted a statement of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the European Community (EC) member States, meeting at the Council of Europe at Luxembourg on 26 and 27 April, welcoming the complete Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and expressing hope that the event would be followed by further negotiations conducive to a just and lasting peace on the basis of two principles: the right of all States in the region to existence and security, and justice for all peoples, which required recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians including the right to self-determination.
Report of the Secretary-General. On 12 October 1982, the Secretary-General submitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council a report on the Middle East situation,(20) as called for by the Assembly in December 1981.(29)
After giving an account of developments on various aspects of the situation since his previous report in November 1981,(32) the Secretary-General observed that the Palestinian problem and the Israel-Arab conflict had been a major concern of the United Nations for 35 years and had probably claimed more of its time and attention than any other international problem. In the absence of a resolution of the underlying political and security issues, the situation remained unstable, and over the years a succession of cease-fires had been marred by numerous incidents and five full-fledged wars. With the development of increasingly sophisticated weapons, each war had become more destructive and each new round of fighting had added to the complexity of the conflict. The recent tragic events in Lebanon had forcefully highlighted the urgent need for a peaceful settlement.
While noting that recent initiatives towards such a settlement contained provisions that, for the time being at least, were unacceptable to one party or another, the Secretary-General stated that they deserved careful study and that every opportunity should be seized to overcome the current impasse and shift the conflict from military confrontation to peaceful negotiation.
He concluded that, in order to reconcile the basic aspirations and vital interests of all parties, a settlement must meet the following conditions: Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, including those in Lebanon; respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from the threat or acts of force; and a just settlement of the Palestinian problem, based on recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, including self-determination. In that context, he added, the question of Jerusalem remained of primary importance.
The United Nations, especially the Security Council, should and could play a constructive role, both in the peace-making process and the peace-keeping. efforts essential to prevent a renewal of hostilities and to promote an atmosphere conducive to negotiations.
The report described four proposals for a peaceful Middle East settlement: principles contained in a draft resolution by Egypt and France submitted to the Security Council in July (see below, under ISRAEL AND LEBANON); proposals by the President of the United States in a statement of I September, principles adopted on 9 September in the Final Declaration of the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference at Fez, Morocco (transmitted to the Secretary-General on 3 December(19)); and principles set out in a statement of 15 September by the President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (transmitted to the Secretary-General on 17 September(16)).
The main points of the United States proposal were: reconciliation of Israel's legitimate security concerns with the rights of the Palestinians, on the basis of the Camp David accords; an immediate freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories; Israeli withdrawal from all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza; self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan, following a five-year transition period in which they would have full autonomy; an undivided Jerusalem whose status would be decided by negotiations; and no threats to the security of Israel.
The principles adopted at the Arab Summit Conference were: Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; dismantling of Israeli settlements there; guaranteeing freedom of worship in the Holy Places; reaffirmation of Palestinian rights to self-determination and to the exercise of national rights, under PLO leadership; placing the West Bank and Gaza under United Nations control for a transitional period of a few months; establishment of an independent Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital; peace guarantees by the Security Council for all States of the region, including the Palestinian State, and a Council guarantee of the implementation of those principles.
The USSR proposal called for: return of all Israeli-occupied territories to the Arabs, with the borders between Israel and its Arab neighbours declared inviolable; guarantee of the Palestinians' rights to self-determination and the establishment of their own State, and the right of refugees to return home or receive compensation for properties left behind; return of East Jerusalem to the Arabs as an integral part of a Palestinian State, with freedom of access to the Holy Places throughout Jerusalem; completely reciprocal guarantees of security, independent existence and development for all States in the region; and international guarantees for the peace settlement, with the permanent members of the Security Council or the entire Council as guarantors.
General Assembly action. By a resolution of 20 December 1982,(27) the General Assembly reaffirmed that the Palestine question was the core of the Middle East conflict and that a settlement could not be achieved without the participation of all parties, including PLO. It declared that Middle East peace was indivisible and must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution under United Nations auspices, ensuring Israel's complete withdrawal from the occupied territories and enabling the Palestinians to exercise their rights, including the right to an independent State. It rejected all agreements and arrangements that violated Palestinian rights and contradicted the principles of just and comprehensive solutions, and considered that the November 1981 strategic co-operation agreements between the United States and Israel encouraged Israel to pursue expansionist policies. States were called upon to put an end to military, economic and financial aid, as well as human resources, aimed at encouraging Israel to pursue aggressive policies.
The Assembly also condemned Israel's occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories and demanded its immediate and total withdrawal declared null and void Israel's decision to make Jerusalem its capital; and condemned Israel's aggressive and repressive practices against Palestinians in and outside the occupied territories and its annexationist policies in the Syrian Golan Heights.
The resolution, orally revised by its sponsors was adopted by a recorded vote of 113 to 17, with 15 abstentions. An amendment by Egypt,(1) reaffirming the principles and provisions of the 1967(30) and 1973(31) Security Council resolutions which set out the principles for a Middle East settlement, was not pressed to a vote.
In a resolution of 16 December 1982 on Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights,(22) the Assembly deplored any political, economic, financial, military and technological support to Israel that encouraged it to commit aggression and consolidate and perpetuate its occupation and annexation of Arab territories. It determined that Israel's actions confirmed that it was not a peace-loving State, had persistently violated the Charter of the United Nations and had failed to carry out its obligations under the Charter and under the 1949 Assembly resolution admitting it to United Nations membership.(28) The Assembly called on Member States to apply the following measures with respect to Israel: refrain from supplying or acquiring weapons and related equipment, and suspend military assistance; suspend economic, financial and technological assistance and co-operation; sever diplomatic, trade and cultural relations; and cease all dealings in order totally to isolate Israel in all fields. United Nations organizations were called upon to conform their relations with Israel to the resolution.
Similar provisions were included in a resolution adopted by the Assembly on 5 February at its emergency special session on the Golan Heights, except that it did not contain the determination that Israel had persistently violated Charter principles.(21)
The Assembly adopted six resolutions under its agenda item on the Middle East situation – five on 16 December dealing with specific aspects and the most general one of 20 December (summarized above). By the first five resolutions, the Assembly emphasized its demand that Israel rescind its December 1981 decision on the Syrian Golan Heights,(33) resulting in its effective annexation of that territory;(22) called on Israel to restore Palestinian cultural property seized during its occupation of Beirut, Lebanon;(23) deplored the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem;(24) condemned the massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps near Beirut;(25) and called for strict respect of Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty, unity and independence.(26)
Introducing the 20 December resolution on behalf of 12 nations, Cuba said it contained the basic principles for a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East solution which had been established earlier by the Assembly, the Security Council and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.
Explaining its opposition to the resolution, Israel said it contradicted the 1967 Security Council resolution, the only agreed basis for a Middle East settlement; the so-called Arab peace plan adopted at Fez, which was welcomed in the resolution, was a step towards Israel's destruction. Denmark, speaking for the EC members, said they had important reservations on resolutions not in accordance with those States' common position on principles for an Arab-Israeli settlement.
In the opinion of the United States, the resolution was a step backwards and a reiteration of the inevitability of conflict, as it lacked balance and failed to take appropriate account of the building-blocks of the peace process – the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions, the Camp David accords and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty.
Inclusion of a reference to those resolutions, as proposed by Egypt in the amendment it did not press to a vote, would have been preferred also by the EC members (as stated by Denmark); Finland which abstained, and Chile, Colombia and Peru, which voted in favour.
Voting against the resolution, Portugal dissociated itself from any appeal or act that might be prejudicial to efforts aimed at a negotiated comprehensive and just Middle East solution, in particular from paragraphs 9 and 10.
Finland and Sweden, which also abstained, took exception to the same paragraphs, Sweden particularly objecting that the call to end the flow of human resources was a curtailment of the right of individuals to move to a country willing to receive them. Chile, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Paraguay, Samoa and Spain, though voting in favour, also voiced reservations on them. The Dominican Republic abstained, saying that it disagreed with some of the paragraphs; it trusted that agreements between the parties would only supplement United Nations activities.
Reservations on paragraph 9 were expressed also by other supporters of the text, such as Ecuador, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, Thailand and Turkey; Jamaica said it did not share the view that the agreements on strategic co-operation between Israel and the United States necessarily had an adverse effect on peace efforts or threatened the region's security, while Thailand and Turkey said such agreements were within the prerogative of States.
Peru said it understood that neither that paragraph nor paragraph 5 disregarded peace efforts in the region. Reservations on paragraph 5 were voiced also by Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay; Ecuador remarked that it could not oppose agreements freely entered into which had led to the restitution of some territories, giving expression to the obligation to settle disputes peacefully.
Democratic Yemen, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic, on the other hand, emphasized that, in their understanding, the rejection of all agreements and arrangements violating Palestinian rights included the Camp David agreements.
Other supporters of the resolution expressed reservations about parts of it in more general terms. In Bolivia's opinion, the resolution contained terms that ran counter to international courtesy and distorted its underlying principles; the United Nations, in compliance with its role of preserving peace and promoting understanding, should, act with impartiality Colombia said although the resolution contained valuable elements for the achievement of peace, some of its paragraphs had been drafted in a way that might hamper a rapid and final solution. Venezuela thought that the call for an end of aid to Israel, as well as other provisions, did not contribute to peace efforts and to a recognition of Palestinian rights.
Spain would have liked the resolution to contain an explicit mention of the right of all States in the region, including Israel, to live in peace within secure and recognized borders.
Iran, on the other hand, voiced reservations on references which, in its view, implicitly or explicitly suggested recognition of or negotiation with the Zionist usurpers, and in particular: it would have liked to delete from the preamble the mention of the Fez peace plan; it objected that paragraph 3 suggested that the Palestinians recognized the Zionist usurper; and, as it did not differentiate between occupation before and after 1967, it would rather have seen the phrase "occupied since 1967" deleted from paragraph 4.
Explaining that it could not accept certain provisions, especially those welcoming the Fez peace plan, Albania did not participate in the vote. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya also expressed reservations about the preambular paragraph welcoming the Fez peace plan.
During the Assembly debates on the Middle East situation (6-8 December) and the Palestine question (30 November-2 December), as well as during the 20-28 April and 24 September meetings of the emergency special session on the Palestine question, the view was widely voiced that, due to Israel's aggressive policy, tension in the region had heightened and was threatening international peace and security. Among those holding this position were Albania, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia.
Algeria said Israeli leaders had an insatiable appetite for further territorial conquest in the hope of achieving a greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. Although Israel had invoked the need to defend itself and guarantee its security Bahrain stated, the international community realized that it had been the first to introduce violence, massacre and terrorism into the region. Botswana believed Israel would be dangerously deceiving itself if it depended on pre-emptive strikes against its neighbours and on the facility with which it could wreak havoc on them; the wars fought in the Middle East since 1948 had made Israel less secure and more beleaguered, because they had not addressed the root causes of the conflict. Israel had defied the authority of the only universal Organization established for the maintenance of international peace and security, ignoring the fact that it had been created by that Organization, said Finland. In the view of the German Democratic Republic, the escalation of Israel's policy of aggression and oppression was only the prelude to yet another large-scale act of international piracy. Guyana held that Israel had set itself above the law and arrogated to itself the right to attack any State in the region in the name of what it called its security interests. In that regard, Kenya commented that no State must be allowed to occupy another State in order to have what could be claimed as secure borders.
Indonesia remarked that the Assembly had been forced to put out the fires of new Israeli acts of aggression rather than beginning to build lasting peace. Turkey stated that Israel must stop treading a dangerous and destructive path, if only for the sake of its own interests.
In Egypt's view, Israel, encouraged by massive military and financial aid, had recently been relying on a long-arm policy to achieve hegemony in the Middle East. Guyana observed that Israel was occupying parts of four neighbouring States. The United Arab Emirates said the situation was deteriorating daily because the peoples of the Middle East found themselves obliged to defend themselves and resist Zionist aggression. Among others holding Israel responsible for the deterioration of the Middle East situation were Bangladesh and Nigeria.
Iran believed that peace would be restored to the Middle East only when Israel was eliminated and the State of Palestine was restored in the occupied land; concessionary negotiations would only exacerbate the situation.
Israel, for its part, maintained that the Arab-Israel conflict was but one focus of the many Middle East tensions and was far from being the most crucial; 12 armed conflicts were currently raging in the region, which was being destabilized by repression, the flagrant abuse of social groups and exploitation by undemocratically established régimes, notably in Iraq, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic. At the root of the Arab-Israel conflict was the Arabs' refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist.
A number of speakers argued that Israel would not have been able to commit aggression and continue its occupation of Arab territories without the material and moral support of the United States. This view was expressed by Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, the German Democratic Republic, Guyana, Hungary, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Poland, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR and Viet Nam.
The German Democratic Republic said the United States aim was to increase its military presence in the Middle East. The United States taxpayer, said Iraq, was underwriting the expenses of Israel's acts of aggression and its settlements in the occupied territories. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya believed the American people would soon lose patience with the immoral United States policy of supporting aggression and oppression in the Middle East and question the viability of continued United States aid to Israel. The Lao People's Democratic Republic, among others, criticized the November 1981 agreements on strategic co-operation between Israel and the United States as displaying in concrete form the hegemonic and expansionist aims of the two countries in the region. The Ukrainian SSR referred to Israel as the United States gendarme in the Middle East. The United States intended to raise the non-reimbursable portion of military assistance to Israel up to one half of the total amount of $2 billion, as a reward for its aggression, according to the USSR.
In the view of Albania, both the USSR and the United States were working to the detriment of Arab countries, the latter by aiding Israel and the former by seeking to use Arab antagonism to American imperialism as an aid to its own imperialist penetration and domination.
Denmark said the EC members considered Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai on 25 April an important stage in the development of peaceful relations between Israel and Egypt, as well as the initiation of the peace process in the Middle East. Many other countries held negotiations more necessary than ever to settle the Middle East conflict peacefully. Japan felt that positive developments, such as progress in the normalization of relations between Israel and Egypt, had occurred; on the other hand, a solution to a more and more complex problem was becoming increasingly elusive.
Opposition to the consequences of the Camp David agreements continued to be voiced by some, including Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia and the Ukrainian SSR. The so-called Camp David peace process had, in the opinion of Bulgaria and Hungary, among others, only helped heighten tension and the arms race in the region and had culminated in Israel's aggression against Lebanon. The German Democratic Republic saw so-called autonomy talks for the West Bank inhabitants and attempts to revive the bankrupt concept of separate deals as aimed at permanently denying Palestinian rights. In the view of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Camp David agreements were an invitation to war and an attempt to isolate Egypt. After Camp David, said the USSR, Israel's aggressive, anti-Arab policy had become even more starkly evident.
The Camp David process offered the only practical way towards a comprehensive solution, including the question of the Palestinians, Israel said. Egypt declared that any peaceful, comprehensive settlement should take into consideration the right of Israel to existence, recognition and security, on the basis of equality and reciprocity.
Austria stressed negotiation among all parties, including PLO, as the sole path to a Middle East solution, and rejected the use of force and all acts of terrorism; it repeated a previous suggestion that Israel and PLO enter into exploratory talks without pre-conditions. Bhutan called for the establishment of a State of Palestine and added that all States of the region had the right to live peacefully within internationally recognized boundaries. As the most significant representative of Palestinian aspirations, said Finland, PLO had the right to participate in negotiations on their future.
For Japan, a Middle East peace should contain four elements: it should be just, lasting and comprehensive; it should be achieved through implementation of the Security Council peace settlement resolutions of 1967 and 1973 and respect for legitimate Palestinian rights, including self-determination; consideration should be given to the legitimate security requirements of the countries of the region and to the aspirations of all peoples including the Palestinians, and Israel and PLO, representing the Palestinians, must participate in the peace process. Spain also identified four elements: Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 1967; the unacceptability of Israel's settlements policy and its attempts to alter the nature and status of Jerusalem; the right of all States in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized borders; and implementation of the national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination in their homeland.
King Hassan II of Morocco, addressing the Assembly as President of the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference, observed that the peace proposals adopted at Fez on 9 September (see above) had been unanimously adopted by all Arab leaders at the highest levels.
The Fez peace plan was welcomed by a number of speakers, including Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, Nepal, Pakistan, Poland, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, the Ukrainian SSR and Zambia. Many viewed it as an historic decision and, as Iraq referred to it, a demonstration of the Arab States' unanimous and sincere desire for peace.
Denmark, for the EC members, viewed the Fez proposals as an expression of the unanimous will of the participants, including PLO, to work for a just Middle East peace encompassing all States, including Israel. In Jordan's view, the Fez Conference had been one of the most incisive and in-depth dialogues on Palestinian issues and had explored all options. In Djibouti's view, the plan included all the principles which could lead to a peaceful Middle East settlement. India considered the plan foremost among the proposals for a solution and one which could lead to a lasting and just peace.
Morocco said the plan was realistic and had led to a relaunching of efforts to resolve the Middle East crisis. In Turkey's view, the plan might establish an important threshold in the search for peace. At Fez, Egypt stated, the Arab States had proved that they could go beyond differences to adopt a common pragmatic position. The Syrian Arab Republic said the Fez plan was based on the same principles it had proclaimed. Qatar believed that the Fez resolutions restored to the United Nations its legitimate role in solving the Middle East problem, together with the other principal parties to the conflict, including PLO. Kuwait said the Fez plan should be regarded as a basis for a just solution that ensured justice for the Palestinians, the principal victims in the Middle East conflict.
In Uganda's opinion, the Fez plan took into account Israel's fears. Iran, however, felt that the decisions of the Fez Summit had given Israel more encouragement in its aggression. Saudi Arabia said Israel's reaction to the Fez plan had been the same as in the past: it would respond to any initiative aimed at settling the Palestinian problem by establishing more settlements, plundering more Arab territory, and resorting to more repressive measures and terrorist acts.
The United Arab Emirates hoped that the Security Council would bear in mind the historic significance of the development at Fez.
A number of delegations expressed their views on the proposal put forward on 1 September by the President of the United States. Turkey thought the proposal contained elements that could contribute significantly to the elaboration of a framework for negotiations. Similarly, Austria, Denmark (for the EC members) and Morocco found in the proposal many constructive elements for compromise and reconciliation, Morocco adding that it hoped the Palestinians would eventually be given their due place.
Bulgaria, Nicaragua, the Ukrainian SSR and others, however, cautioned that this so-called peace initiative was no more than an element in the political and military strategy of the United States designed to give priority to Israel's security, and an attempt to revive the Camp David agreements. Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR and Czechoslovakia said the United States plan contradicted the position of the Arab countries in that it did not recognize the Palestinians' right to establish an independent State, and the requirement that Israel relinquish all occupied Arab lands and recognize PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine. Czechoslovakia said the world was coming to realize the anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian nature of the plan. Hungary remarked that proposals which did not even mention PLO as a party to the proposed settlement and completely avoided the issue of Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories could lead nowhere. The purpose of the United States initiative was, in the view of the USSR, to divide the Arab countries, weaken their struggle against American and Israeli expansion, and impose on them decisions advantageous to the United States and Israel alone.
In the opinion of Democratic Yemen, neither the United States proposal nor the Fez plan served the Arab cause, interests or rights. Iraq believed that the United States proposal would share the fate of former plans which had been rejected by Israel.
Any proposal that discriminated in favour only of Israel, Ghana said, begged the crux of the problem.
Democratic Yemen, Mauritania, Yemen and others opposed all partial agreements which did not provide for the participation of all parties in a settlement, including PLO.
Albania believed that both the USSR and the United States proposals were directed against the vital interests of the Arabs, whom the two super-Powers were trying to persuade had no choice but to accept their protective umbrella.
The USSR reiterated its position in favour of a fundamental comprehensive settlement based on United Nations decisions, and recalled to that effect its proposals put forward on 15 September (see above). A constructive step in the search for a negotiated comprehensive solution would be, according to Cuba and others, the convening of an international conference under the aegis of the United Nations, with the participation of all parties on an equal footing, including PLO. Bulgaria held such a conference to be the only way of bringing about a comprehensive settlement, which could not be achieved through mediation missions or by appeasing the aggressor by increasing concessions.
Bangladesh, Madagascar, Nigeria, Pakistan Poland, Romania, Sri Lanka and Tunisia expressed support for the holding of such a conference. The German Democratic Republic and Viet Nam, among others, favoured its convening without delay, as proposed by the USSR. Romania called for a redoubling of political and diplomatic activities to that end.
Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mongolia and the Ukrainian SSR believed that the USSR proposal met all the requirements of a comprehensive settlement and coincided with the principles adopted at Fez. Czechoslovakia noted that the Fez plan was not at variance with what the socialist States had been advocating for many years. The Byelorussian SSR held that it proceeded from the need for strict observance of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force; the recognition and implementation of Palestinian rights; and the recognition of the right of all States in the area to a secure existence and to development under international guarantees. The plan was also endorsed by the German Democratic Republic and Poland.
Finland said all three recent proposals contained a number of similar elements and had a common denominator: the achievement of peace through negotiations. Egypt felt that all the proposals offered tremendous challenges – the challenges of peace. The peace proposals were welcomed also by Romania, Sweden and Tunisia; Romania thought they created conditions for intensifying political and diplomatic activity towards a just and lasting settlement, while Sweden hoped Israel would respond to offers of negotiations based on explicit recognition by all parties of its right to exist within secure and recognized borders. India saw in those efforts a starting-point for negotiations within a United Nations framework. Malta, Rapporteur of the Committee of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, found a wide area of convergence in the different proposals, which Bangladesh felt should be studied as a possible basis for negotiations.
Denmark, speaking for the EC members, called for a similar expression of a will for peace on Israel's part. Jordan considered most important the will of all parties to press ahead with the implementation of the various peace initiatives. Mali stated that Israel must be forced to agree to peace.
Bahrain, Nepal, Norway, Portugal and Uganda welcomed the United States initiative along with the Fez plan, while Japan expressed appreciation of them. Brazil saw in both a useful basis for discussion and negotiation, and Portugal felt they should not be considered separately.
Egypt welcomed the positive aspects of the United States plan but said that, without a sustained effort to implement it, the initiative would lose momentum, a constructive dialogue between the United States and PLO should start as soon as possible. In Greece's opinion, the United States initiative could be a first step and the Fez plan could lead to a settlement acceptable to the Palestinians. In Jordan's opinion, the United States initiative contained very positive elements that could evolve into a reconciliation with the Fez plan. Kuwait appealed to the United States to recognize PLO and start a dialogue with it; by excluding the basic solution of a Palestinian State, Kuwait added, the United States remained under the illusion that it could freeze the Palestine question through a patchwork solution.
Other diplomatic initiatives discussed included the proposal to the Security Council by Egypt and France on 1 July, in which Austria, Denmark (for the EC members) and Nigeria, in particular, found positive elements. Egypt said the proposal, which still stood, was based on the idea that the logical overture towards a peaceful settlement was mutual recognition of the rights of both parties by Palestinians and Israelis.
Israel said a solution was offered within the Camp David framework and there was no need for alternative plans. Though having not yet achieved its goal, the Camp David process was the greatest concrete step towards peace, the United States said.
Many speakers, including Afghanistan, Algeria, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen and Pakistan considered sanctions or measures under Chapter VII of the Charter necessary in view of Israel's aggressive policy. Bahrain felt that condemnations did not suffice and that strict measures were needed to compel Israel to respect international law. Nicaragua said the United Nations and the non-aligned countries had on innumerable occasions urged that no military agreement be concluded which would strengthen Israel's military capacity and enable it to develop its aggressive and expansionist policies. The Syrian Arab Republic favoured a resolution asking Member States to break relations with Israel, calling on the United States to end all its assistance to that country, rescinding the admission of Israel to the United Nations and asking that aid be given to the Arab States so that they could face up to aggression.
Nigeria said it had severed all political and economic links with Israel since 1967 as a demonstration of its displeasure with Israeli policies. Malaysia regretted that the United Nations had on several occasions been prevented from playing a more effective rode, it believed that the unified determination of the international community to compel Israel to comply with United Nations decisions and international norms, complemented by the efforts of the countries of the region, had become more imperative. Cuba, Democratic Yemen Nicaragua and others deplored the fact that the Security Council had been prevented by the United States veto from adopting enforcement measures against Israel. Failure to secure Israel's compliance with the collective demands of the United Nations membership, Pakistan cautioned, could lead to incalculable consequences.
Amendment not pressed. (1) Egypt, A/37/L.55.
Letters:
Israel: (2) 14 Jan., A/37/65-S/14836; (3) 19 Jan., A/37/7- S/14842; (4) 2 Feb., A/37/79-S/14856; (5) 15 Mar., A/37/116- S/14906; (6) l7 March, A/37/118-S/14910 & Corr.1; (7) 31 Mar., S/14938 (1 Apr., A/37/165); (8) 31 Mar., S/14939 (1 Apr., A/37/166), (9) 3 Apr., S/14951; (10) 12 Apr., A/37/175 (S/14965); (11) 13 Apr., S/14972 (16 Apr., A/37/l90); (12) 10 May, A/37/223 (S/15066); (13) 24 May, S/15107 (25 May, A/37/253); (14) 4 June, A/37/266 (S/15158).
USSR: (15) 28 Apr., A/37/213-S/15015; (16) 17 Sep., A/37/457- S/15403.
Others. (17) Belgium: 3 May, A/37/218-S/15039; (18) Egypt: 5 May, A/37/220-S/15051. (19) Morocco, 3 Dec., transmitting Arab Summit Conference Declaration, A/37/696-S/15510.
Report. (20) S-G, A/37/525-S/15451.
Resolutions (1982). GA: (2l) ES-9/l, 5 Feb.; (22) 37/123 A, 16 Dec.; (23) 37/123 B, 16 Dec. (24) 37/123 C, 16 Dec.; (25) 37/123 D, 16 Dec.; (26) 37/123 E, 16 Dec.; (27) 37/123 F, 20 Dec., text following.
Resolutions (prior). GA: (28) 273 (III), 11 May 1949 (YUN 1948-49, p. 405); (29) 36/226 A, 17 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 262). SC: (30) 242 (1967), 22 Nov. 1967 (YUN 1967, p. 257); (31) 338 (1973), 22 Oct. 1973 (YUN 1973, p. 213).
Yearbook references. 1981, (32) p. 258, (33) p. 309.
Meeting records. GA: A/37/PV.44, 92-96, 108, 112 (26 Oct. & 6-20 Dec.).
General Assembly resolution 37/123 F
20 December 1982 Meeting 112 13-17-15 (recorded vote)
12-nation draft (A/37/L.48) and Corr.1 and Add.1), orally revised, agenda item 34.
Sponsors: Bangladesh, Cuba, Guyana, India, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.
The General Assembly,
Having discussed the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East,"
Reaffirming its resolutions 36/226 A and B of 17 December 1981 and ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982,
Recalling Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) of 19 March 1978, 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981, 508 (1982) of 5 June 1982, 509 (1982) of 6 June 1982, 511 (1982) of 18 June 1982, 512 (1982) of 19 June 1982, 513 (1982) of 4 July 1982, 515 (1982) of 29 July 1982, 516 (1982) of 1 August 1982, 517 (1982) of 4 August 1982, 518 (1982) of 12 August 1982, 519 (1982) of 17 August 1982, 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982 and 521 (1982) of 19 September 1982,
Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General of 12 October 1982,
Welcoming the world-wide support extended to the just cause of the Palestinian people and the other Arab countries in their struggle against Israeli aggression and occupation in order to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights, as affirmed by previous resolutions of the General Assembly relating to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East,
Gravely concerned that the Arab and Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, still remain under Israeli occupation, that the relevant resolutions of the United Nations have not been implemented and that the Palestinian people is still denied the restoration of its land and the exercise of its inalienable national rights in conformity with international law, as reaffirmed by resolutions of the United Nations,
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem,
Reiterating all relevant United Nations resolutions which emphasize that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law and that Israel must withdraw unconditionally from all the Palestinian' and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
Reaffirming further the imperative necessity of establishing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region, based on full respect for the Charter and the principles of international law,
Gravely concerned also at recent Israeli actions involving the escalation and expansion of the conflict in the region, which further violate the principles of international law and endanger international peace and security,
Welcoming the Arab peace plan adopted unanimously at the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference, held at Fez, Morocco, on 25 November 1981 and 9 September 1982,
Bearing in mind the address made, on 26 October 1982, by His Majesty King Hassan II of Morocco, in his capacity as President of the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference,
1. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of the Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, and demands the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from all these occupied territories;
2. Reaffirms its conviction that the question of Palestine is the core of the conflict in the Middle East and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region will be achieved without the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights and the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from all the Palestinian and other occupied territories;
3. Reaffirms further that a just and comprehensive settlement of the situation in the Middle East cannot be achieved without the participation on an equal footing of all the parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people;
4. Declares once more that peace in the Middle East is indivisible and must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the Middle East problem, under the auspices of the United Nations, which ensures the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and which enables the Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to exercise its inalienable rights, including the right to return and the right to self-determination, national independence and the establishment of its independent sovereign State in Palestine, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations relevant to the question of Palestine, in particular General Assembly resolutions ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 36/120 A to F of 10 December 1981, 37/86 A to D of 10 December 1982 and 37/86 E of 20 December 1982;
5. Rejects all agreements and arrangements in so far as they violate the recognized rights of the Palestinian people and contradict the principles of just and comprehensive solutions to the Middle East problem to ensure the establishment of a just peace in the area;
6. Deplores Israel's failure to comply with Security Council resolutions 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 and 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 and General Assembly resolutions 35/207 of 16 December 1980 and 36/226 A and B of 17 December 1981, determines that Israel s decision to annex Jerusalem and to declare it as its "capital" as well as the measures to alter its physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and status are null and void and demands that they be rescinded immediately, and calls upon all Member States, the specialized agencies and all other international organizations to abide by the present resolution and all other relevant resolutions including Assembly resolutions 37/86 A to E;
7. Condemns Israel's aggression and practices against the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories and outside these territories, particularly Palestinians in Lebanon, including the expropriation and annexation of territory, the establishment of settlements, assassination attempts and other terrorist, aggressive and repressive measures which are in violation of the Charter and the principles of international law and the relevant international conventions;
8. Strongly condemns the imposition by Israel of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, its annexationist policies and practices, the establishment of settlements, the confiscation of lands, the diversion of water resources and the imposition of Israeli citizenship on Syrian nationals, and declares that all these measures are null and void and constitute a violation of the rules and principles of international law relevant to belligerent occupation, in particular the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;
9. Considers that the agreements on strategic co-operation between the United States of America and Israel signed on 30 November 1981 would encourage Israel to pursue its aggressive and expansionist policies and practices in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, would have adverse effects on efforts for the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and would threaten the security of the region;
10. Calls upon all States to put an end to the flow to Israel of any military, economic and financial aid, as well as human resources, aimed at encouraging it to pursue its aggressive policies against the Arab countries and the Palestinian people;
11. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council periodically on the development of the situation and to submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session a comprehensive report covering the developments in the Middle East in all their aspects.
Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, 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, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Prance, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Burma, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Finland, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Japan, Malawi, Sweden, Uruguay, Zaire.
Credentials of Israel in the General Assembly
By a letter of 22 October 1982 to the General Assembly President,(2) 49 States conveyed their reservations to the credentials of Israel to the Assembly's regular session, citing the following reasons: Israel had flagrantly and persistently violated international law and the United Nations Charter, and had consistently defied United Nations resolutions; the Assembly had declared on 5 February that Israel was not a peace-loving State; (5) Israel had refused to implement United Nations resolutions on Jerusalem, which it had illegally annexed and claimed as its capital, and had refused to implement resolutions demanding that it rescind its December 1901 decision which had resulted in the effective annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights; its credentials, issued in Jerusalem, implicitly alleged that the delegation represented the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights; it had consistently refused to implement United Nations resolutions on Palestinian rights and on its withdrawal from occupied territories, and it had invaded Lebanon and committed genocide against the Palestinians there.
On 25 October,(3) Israel responded that the completely unfounded attack on its credentials was an attempt to abuse the credentials procedure and was one more manifestation of the obsessive hatred of States bent on Israel's destruction, in violation of international law and the Charter, particularly the provisions prohibiting the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State and enjoining all Members to settle their international disputes peacefully; the approach in the letter of 22 October was liable to affect adversely the ability of the United Nations to perform its primary functions for the maintenance of international peace and security.
On 26 October, the Assembly adopted, by a recorded vote of 74 to 9, with 32 abstentions, a motion submitted by Finland also on behalf of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden,(4) by which it decided not to act on an amendment by Iran(1) to add the phrase "except with regard to the credentials of Israel" to a draft resolution by the Credentials Committee proposing that the Assembly approve its report accepting all credentials for the regular session received to date. Following the vote on the motion, the Assembly adopted the credentials resolution(6) unamended and without vote.
Presenting its amendment, Iran said the time had come to act against Israel's credentials, because by the following year the Assembly was likely to have moved further away from consensus on the issue and Israel's recognition by a group of Arab States would be only a matter of time; if the United States carried out its threat to withdraw from the Assembly because of such an action, Iran was ready to pay more than its share to make up the resulting financial deficit.
Putting forward the motion, Finland said the Nordic States were motivated by their dedication to uphold the capacity and authority of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security.
Israel stated that unjustified aspersions, such as Iran's, cast on credentials that were in due form and had been accepted by the Credentials Committee, were in clear violation of the Charter and of the Assembly's rules of procedure.
Explanations of vote in support of the Nordic States' motion were made by Chad and Greece.
During the November/December Assembly debate on the Palestine question, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya called again for the expulsion of Israel from the United Nations and its specialized agencies, adding that the signing by 49 States of a document expressing reservations on Israel's credentials was a step in the right direction.
Portugal, on the other hand, believed that a peaceful solution could be reached only through constant dialogue between all the parties; for this reason, it condemned any attempt to prevent a Member State from participating in the Assembly.
Speaking in April at the resumed seventh emergency special session, Jordan said if Israel was allowed to persist in its aggression, the Assembly would find itself with no alternative but to declare Israel a non-peace-loving State and to review its United Nations status and credentials. Saudi Arabia believed that Israel had forfeited its eligibility for United Nations membership many years ago.
In view of the Security Council's failure to shoulder its responsibilities for safeguarding international peace and security, the Syrian Arab Republic stated, the Assembly had no choice but to revoke Israel's membership on the grounds that it had not fulfilled its obligations as a Member State.
In addition to Israel's expulsion, Iran requested that States withdraw their recognition of Israel as a decisive step towards the restoration of justice to the Palestinians.
Norway, Sweden, the United States and others opposed any effort aimed at excluding Israel from the United Nations. The United States said the attempts to expel Israel and to assert that it was not a peace-loving State were not consistent with the Charter purposes. Sweden considered such efforts to be extremely harmful to the Organization's universality and authority, and Norway said such attempts would damage not only the possibilities for the United Nations to help the Middle East peace process, but the United Nations itself.
Following Israel's invasion of Lebanon in June, Cuba stated that Israel had committed enough criminal acts against the Charter and had adopted so hostile an attitude towards the United Nations that whether it deserved to belong to the Organization should urgently be considered. In Jordan's opinion, Israel had proved once more that it was a non-peace-loving nation and should therefore not continue to enjoy the respectability the United Nations conferred. PLO considered it incumbent on the international community to impose sanctions on Israel or to expel it or suspend its membership, treating it as an outlaw. The United Arab Emirates said the Assembly was obliged to implement the Charter and expel Israel as it did not respect United Nations resolutions or the United Nations observers to be deployed in the Beirut area. In the view of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Israel must be expelled as it did not respect the Charter, or must at least be castigated by declaring its illegitimacy. The Syrian Arab Republic held it imperative to deprive Israel of United Nations membership or at least exclude it from participating in the work of the Assembly.
Amendments not acted upon. (1) Iran, A/37/L.9.
Letters. (2) Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, China, Comoros, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, 22 Oct., A/37/563 & Add.1; (3) Israel, 25 Oct., A/37/565.
Motion adopted. (4) Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, A/37/L.11.
Resolutions (1982). GA: (5) ES-9/1, 5 Feb.; (6) 37/5 A, 26 Oct.
Meeting record. GA: A/37/PV.45 (26 Oct.).
Palestine question
In 1982, the General Assembly dealt on several occasions with the Palestine question. The seventh emergency special session, originally convened in 1980,(37) resumed in April, June, August and September 1982.
Of the seven resolutions adopted at the 1982 emergency special session, one, adopted in April, concerned the credentials of representatives to the session, and two, adopted in June and September, dealt mainly with Israel and Lebanon. By two others, in August 1982, the Assembly set dates in 1983 for the International Conference on the Question of Palestine and decided on the annual commemoration of the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression.
Five resolutions adopted in December of the regular Assembly session included two on broad aspects of the question and one each on the work programme of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People the work of the Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights and the 1983 Conference.
Action by the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission. On 11 February 1982,(9) the Commission on Human Rights, in a resolution on self-determination for the Palestinians, reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to establish a fully independent and sovereign State of Palestine and to return to their homes and property; it expressed strong opposition to all partial agreements and treaties violating Palestinian rights, and rejected negotiations on "autonomy" for the Palestinians within the Camp David framework.
The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities called on 8 September(26) for the full exercise of those rights, and urged the implementation of all United Nations resolutions on the Palestine question and other occupied Arab territories in order to establish a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
General Assembly action (April). The seventh emergency special session was reconvened on 20 April at the request of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, following a decision of the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries held in Kuwait from 5 to 8 April. At that meeting, according to its final communiqué transmitted to the Secretary-General by Kuwait on 20 April,(5) the Ministers approved a programme of action which, in addition to calling for resumption of the Assembly session, called for an intensified campaign for political and economic sanctions against Israel and for the application by the Security Council of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions, called on the Council to compel Israel to rescind the annexation of the Golan Heights and called on the Secretary-General to initiate contacts with the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict in search of concrete ways to achieve a just and lasting solution.
Israel, by a letter of 21 April,(3) and the United States, by a letter of 19 April,(6) opposed the resumption so long after the session had been temporarily adjourned, saying that the action undermined the Assembly's rules of procedure; Israel considered the emergency to be contrived and any resolutions adopted at the session illegal, while the United States said the session was being reconvened without regard to the views of the majority. By a letter of 20 April to the United States,(1) the Assembly President responded that the 1980 resolution by which the emergency special session had been temporarily adjourned(32) permitted such resumption, on the request of Member States even after several Assembly sessions had intervened.
By a resolution of 28 April 1982,(10) the Assembly reaffirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force; rejected plans to resettle Palestinians outside their homeland; and condemned policies which frustrated the exercise of the Palestinians' inalienable rights, including encouragement of the flow of human resources to Israel, enabling it to proceed with colonization and settlement in the occupied territories, as well as the provision of military, economic and political assistance and the misuse of the veto in the Security Council, enabling Israel to continue its aggression and occupation. The Assembly declared that Israel's actions confirmed that it was not a peace-loving State and had not carried out its obligations under the United Nations Charter. It urged the Security Council to recognize Palestinian rights and called on the Secretary-General to initiate contacts with all parties, including PLO, in search of a just and lasting solution.
The Assembly also reaffirmed the applicability of conventions on the protection of civilians in war-time to all territories occupied by Israel since 1967 demanded that Israel comply with United Nations resolutions on Jerusalem and condemned it for various actions in the occupied territories.
The 26-nation draft was adopted by a roll-call vote, requested by Israel, of 86 to 20, with 36 abstentions.
Introducing the text, Senegal said it recalled facts and advocated peaceful means in the spirit of the Charter to solve the Palestine question, its scrupulous implementation would contribute towards strengthening the credibility of the United Nations and restoring peace, mutual understanding and co-operation among all States and peoples of the region.
In Israel's view, the resolution regurgitated the main components of the many anti-Israel resolutions that had been steamrolled through the Assembly in recent years by the Committee on Palestinian rights as a tool of PLO. The text did not mention the 1967 Security Council resolution(33) which had served as the basis for the Camp David accords and the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and which remained the only agreed framework for a negotiated settlement. Paragraph 7 contained a series of blatant lies that had failed of adoption in the Security Council and maintained that Israel had failed to fulfil its alleged obligations under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, yet in the same breath chided Israel for dismissing certain mayors and disbanding a municipal council, acts that were explicitly authorized under the Convention. The libel in paragraph 11 that Israel was not a peace-loving State was an abomination.
The United States rejected the draft as ill-inspired and offensive, saying it violated the spirit of reason and peace, debased the Charter, reinforced an attitude of cynicism towards the United Nations, and not only rejected the framework for peace established by the Council in 1967(33) and 1973,(34) but condemned the United States for exercising its constitutional prerogative under the Charter to vote against resolutions which aggravated international situations and harmed the cause of peace.
Norway opposed the resolution on the grounds that it was one-sided and unbalanced, lacked any reference to Israel's right to exist, appeared to move towards Israel's exclusion or suspension from the United Nations, prejudged the outcome of a comprehensive settlement and reaffirmed earlier resolutions which Norway had voted against.
Sweden explained that the overriding reason for its negative vote was the inclusion of elements aiming at Israel's exclusion from the United Nations its vote should be interpreted as a vote for a strong United Nations and should in no way be construed as support for various elements of Israel's policy.
Speaking also on behalf of Denmark, France the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom Belgium said the resolution did not reflect the principles they regarded as fundamental. They opposed in particular paragraph 11, saying it might lead to a questioning of Israel's membership status in the United Nations, a negative process for the chances of achieving peace. The measures in paragraphs 8 and 9 sought to isolate Israel and could not contribute to the quest for a peaceful solution; the eight European States also could not associate themselves with the criticism of the exercise of a right a Council member possessed under the Charter. They disagreed in particular with the language in paragraph 10, saying its substance ran counter to the fundamental freedoms contained in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.(29) In addition, they regretted that paragraph 15 tied the Secretary-General's action to the implementation of controversial proposals. In their view, the resolution did not respond to the challenge of the Palestine question in all its complexity and seriously departed from the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions.
Associating itself with Belgium's statement Ireland said that, despite elements with which it agreed, the resolution would not advance but could hinder a comprehensive settlement.
Portugal said it was prevented from voting in favour by references to third States, and in particular by the unacceptable implications of the language used, which gave the text a scope that might cause acute apprehension against the spirit of universality of the United Nations.
France declared its opposition to any action prejudicial to the principle of universality and deemed it illogical to wish to exclude one of the parties essential to the search for a settlement. Also, the text did not take account of the relevant Charter provisions which laid down the respective competencies and responsibilities of the Security Council and the Assembly.
Canada and Finland said the resolution contained many elements they could not support, particularly paragraph 11 which might be employed to limit Israel's participation in the Assembly and ran counter to the principle of universality. Though Canada felt that the call on the Secretary-General to initiate contacts moved in a positive direction, it could not support the paragraph fully as it attempted to set pre-conditions which were unacceptable to one of the parties and therefore undermined the prospects of success; the basic guidelines for any efforts should continue to be those in the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions. Finland regretted that the text fell short of its expectations – to recognize Palestinian rights and achieve peace on the basis of the 1967 Council resolution.
Though expressing agreement with a number of elements of the resolution, Austria voted against, saying it neglected Israel's right to exist within safe boundaries and lacked the balance on which any constructive steps towards peace would have to be based. Referring specifically to paragraphs 8 and 10, Austria felt it was clearly beyond Assembly prerogatives to condemn the exercise of the veto of permanent Council members or to attempt to curtail the basic human rights of emigration and choice of residence. Austria also rejected the attempt to put into question Israel's status in the United Nations as a possible interpretation of paragraph 11.
Reservations on the same paragraphs were voiced by Japan which abstained. Also abstaining, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Thailand did not accept the attempt to expel Israel. Bolivia considered that within an Organization devoted basically to preserving peace, no accusatory or cutting terms should be used against Member States. In Ecuador's opinion, the attempt to disqualify Israel as a Member would dislocate the structure of the Organization and run counter to Article 6 of the Charter (stating that a Member which had persistently violated the Charter principles might be expelled on the recommendation of the Security Council); it would also frustrate the purposes sought in paragraphs 14 and 15.
Thailand believed that for the United Nations to continue to provide the framework for a settlement, the principle of universality must be upheld; also, it was convinced that a settlement acceptable to all parties could be based only on the 1967 Council resolution and other relevant resolutions. Japan had reservations also on the second preambular paragraph – noting with regret and concern that the Council, on 2 and 20 April 1982, at meetings on the Israeli-occupied territories and on the attack against the Islamic Holy Places in Jerusalem, respectively, had failed to take a decision as a result of the negative votes of the United States – and expressed doubts whether the resolution would contribute to the search for a just solution.
Costa Rica felt that the imbalance of and certain expressions in the text seriously hindered a solution. It especially could not accept paragraphs 8 and 11. With regard to the former, Costa Rica remarked that if the right of veto did not exist, the very existence of the United Nations would be at stake, and no United Nations organ could legitimately even discuss the exercise of that right. As to paragraph 11, Costa Rica considered it an unjust and dangerous anachronism at a time when universality was an accepted principle.
Panama and Peru also had reservations on the language and meaning of some paragraphs. Peru disagreed in particular with the second and eighth preambular paragraphs and operative paragraphs 8 and 11. In its opinion, the resolution did not reflect fundamental elements for a Middle East peace and an impartial approach to a complex situation, and prejudged and indiscriminately condemned the powers of a permanent Council member. Even though some points condemned the Israeli acts in the occupied territories in a broader context, they were none-the-less incompatible with the efforts that should be undertaken on the basis of the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions.
Chile abstained on the grounds that the resolution was unbalanced and did not contribute to harmonizing the positions of the interested parties. In particular, it had serious reservations on paragraphs 8 to 11 and on the second, third and eighth preambular paragraphs.
Emphasizing its attachment to the use of procedures governing international law and its opposition to the use or threat of force to resolve conflicts, Colombia said it would have liked a more balanced text which took into account not only the negative aspects but also the positive advances, such as the return of the Sinai to Egypt. It felt that there should have been positive elements which would provide the Secretary-General with a basis for acting successfully in bringing about a settlement.
Zaire said that. while accepting most of the stipulations, it could not vote in favour because paragraph 11 created a fundamental imbalance and went far beyond the framework of the discussion; also, it might create a serious precedent and might backfire against one or the other Member State.
Fiji and Spain felt obliged to abstain because of the inclusion of certain critical or negative aspects; Spain did not agree in particular with certain interpretations of the Charter.
Brazil explained that its abstention reflected a divergence on the proceedings that could take place on the basis of the resolution; such proceedings would have to be considered without the necessary legislative authority and their very implementation might fall short of the results the resolution purported to achieve, which would lead to a further deterioration of negotiation possibilities.
Egypt said a resolution that resorted to threat and intimidation was a slow-acting sedative which might calm extreme feelings but would not redress the situation, restore rights and bring peace in the Middle East closer. The text omitted indispensable principles and bases for a solution, such as the 1967 Security Council resolution.
Though voting in favour, Nepal dissociated itself from paragraph 11 and reiterated its view that certain measures called for were the exclusive prerogative of the Council. It would have preferred a different formulation of certain elements in paragraphs 7 and 8. Suriname reserved its position on paragraphs 11 and 4 (the latter demanding that Israel comply with a 1980 Council resolution on Israel's settlements policy(35)); however, it was pleased with the call on the Secretary-General to initiate negotiations with all parties, including PLO.
Greece and Turkey had reservations on paragraph 8. Greece regarded it as not proper to single out one specific case of the exercise of the veto, and Turkey said such condemnations were not likely to bring useful elements to the search for a solution. Turkey also had doubts on the meaning and legal implications of paragraph 11, and could not support the references in the preamble to the negative vote of the United States in the Council.
Togo stressed that its vote in favour should not be interpreted as the taking of any stand on the suspension or possible exclusion of Israel from the United Nations. In addition, it reserved its position on paragraph 11 which, it said, was taken from a resolution on the situation in the occupied territories, adopted in February at the Assembly's ninth emergency special session;(16) Togo believed the situation had evolved a great deal since then, particularly with the return of the Sinai to Egypt on 25 April. It also felt that paragraph 10 prejudged the right of any individual to move freely; with regard to paragraph 7 (d), Togo would have liked a distinction between the act of an individual and the act of a State.
Though supporting the text, Trinidad and Tobago declared that it had difficulties with certain elements. The United Republic of Cameroon regretted that the text did not take note of the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions outside which there could be no solution. Sierra Leone voted for the resolution in view of Israel's policies and increased military repression in the occupied territories, and the launching of a military attack against Lebanese territory.
Jordan felt that the resolution did not go far enough and would neither alleviate the plight of the Palestinians nor change the irreversible course of Israeli aggression.
Iraq voted in favour, though it believed that the resolution merely reaffirmed previous resolutions which Israel had refused to implement, Iraq would have liked to see measures likely to put an end to the Israeli acts of aggression. It believed that the United States should have been condemned not only because of its veto, but also because of its pursuit of a policy hostile to Palestinians and Arabs and its military and material support to the aggressor. Also, paragraph 15 was not compatible with Iraq's position.
The Syrian Arab Republic believed that the resolution should have explicitly condemned the United States for its support to Israel and should have imposed sanctions against both countries. Also, paragraph 5 was not clear, and those of ill will – Egypt, Israel and the United States – could interpret it outside its true context, namely, the rights of the Palestinians.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya felt that, although representing collective support for the Palestinians, the resolution did not meet the demands of the majority of States which had condemned Israel's aggressive actions and crimes; no action had been taken to punish the aggressor and expel it from the United Nations, even though its very existence was no more legitimate than had been the existence of the Smith régime in Zimbabwe. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stressed that paragraph 15 should not be understood to imply recognition of the legitimacy of Israeli occupation or of the Nazi Zionist entity.
Democratic Yemen reserved its position on paragraphs 1 and 15, on the grounds that they contained an indirect reference to the 1967 Council resolution.
Referring to reservations by several States, PLO said the exercise of the veto was nowhere challenged, only its misuse condemned. With regard to the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions PLO asked how they could provide for peace when the right to self-determination of the Palestinians was not taken into consideration. Concerning the initiation of contacts by the Secretary-General, PLO believed that he did not need the support and concurrence of the Security Council for his endeavours. PLO regretted that the Assembly failed to discharge its task and to honour its first purpose, namely, the suppression of acts of aggression.
During the debate, Senegal, speaking as Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, pointed to the need to defuse a dangerous situation by seeing to it that the Palestinians achieved their inalienable rights, in particular in view of Israel's seeming to step up its annexation process.
In the view of PLO, the emergency special session would not have been necessary had the United States not prevented the Security Council from punishing Israel for pursuing its war against the Palestinians and its occupation of Arab territories. The Palestinians, however, would fight for their right to exist on their land until complete Israeli withdrawal. In this context, PLO appealed to the Council to take measures for the protection of the Palestinians and their land.
As a result of Israel's persistence in a policy of aggression, expansion and oppression, China stated, tension in the Middle East had been aggravated, making a resumption of the session necessary. A similar position was held by others, among them Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Burundi, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Djibouti, the German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Hungary, India, Iraq, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mongolia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Cameroon, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. In view of the deteriorating situation, Japan and the Philippines held the discussion of the Palestine question most timely.
Democratic Yemen said it was not surprised that both Israel and the United States had strong reservations about the resumption of the session, as obviously the United States would prefer to have the Palestine and Middle East questions dealt with exclusively in the Security Council, where it used its veto power to block even the most reasonable resolutions.
Speaking for the European Community (EC) members, Belgium stated that any solution to the Palestine question implied the reconciliation of two realities, the State of Israel and the Palestinians. Sweden said PLO must recognize Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized borders, just as Israel must recognize the rights of the Palestinians, including the right to establish an independent State. A similar position was held by Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, Finland, Hungary, India, Japan, Nicaragua, Poland, Tunisia, Turkey and others.
Mutual recognition, the Philippines stated would enable the parties to resolve their differences and learn to live in peaceful coexistence.
New Zealand saw little chance for real progress towards a settlement until Israel was prepared to respect the rights and interests of the other States and peoples of the region and until it came to terms with the concept of an independent Arab Palestinian State; at the same time, there was no prospect of worthwhile negotiations unless all parties were prepared formally to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Israel said the fact that two States had been established on the territory of the former Palestine Mandate, the Palestinian Arab State Jordan and the Palestinian Jewish State Israel, was central to any discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict; the cause of the conflict was the Arabs' refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist.
The Philippines felt that Israel's intransigence was a direct effect of its concern over its safety and its right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries.
Romania supported the call of the non-aligned countries in Kuwait in April that the Secretary-General should undertake contacts with the parties towards a settlement, and Togo considered it even a turning-point. Zambia commended the efforts of the non-aligned countries, and Indonesia urged the Assembly to endorse the programme of action adopted at that meeting.
In the opinion of the United Republic of Cameroon, the fate of the Palestinians, reduced to stateless refugees, was the very heart of the Middle East problem, a view shared by Fiji and others. Angola, Djibouti, Finland, Ghana, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, the United Republic of Cameroon and many others believed that no viable peace could be achieved without the restoration of Palestinian rights. Mexico declared its strong support for any decisions aimed at guaranteeing the full exercise of those rights.
The absence of progress in a Palestinian solution could lead only to an increasingly dangerous situation in the region and throughout the world, Romania believed. A similar view was expressed by Djibouti, Madagascar and Mali. The failure to find a solution Ghana thought, would be to acquiesce directly in the further violation of Palestinian and Arab rights.
Failure to recognize Palestinian rights, Nepal said, had led to violence and human tragedy on a great scale, and in Yugoslavia's opinion, the Palestine question was reaching a turning-point.
A basic corollary of the restoration of Palestinian rights, Nigeria said, was the recognition of PLO as representative of the Palestinians, a view shared by many other speakers, among them Afghanistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Uganda and Zambia. Sri Lanka considered Israel's refusal to recognize PLO as the truest manifestation of the authenticity of PLO. In the opinion of the United Republic of Cameroon, the recent events in the West Bank and Gaza demonstrated that it was futile to attempt to separate the Palestinians from their sole authentic representative.
New Zealand believed that major obstacles to a solution would remain until PLO was acknowledged by all principal parties, and Yemen said if the United States truly desired to establish peace in the Middle East, it behoved it first to recognize PLO.
Participation of PLO in any peace negotiations was also advocated by Belgium (for the EC members).
Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, Finland, Hungary, India, Japan, Mali, Mongolia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Romania, Togo, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, Venezuela and others stated that a comprehensive just and lasting Middle East settlement required unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories; implementation of Palestinian rights, including the right to establish their own State; and the guarantee of the security and sovereignty of all States of the region, including Israel. Israeli withdrawal and recognition of Palestinian rights was considered a prerequisite for a settlement by most other countries, including Bangladesh, Jordan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nepal, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Uganda, the United Republic of Cameroon, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia.
While Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Seychelles, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR and others believed that the Camp David accords, ignoring the question of self-determination of the Palestinians, had created new obstacles to a Middle East settlement, the United States regarded them as the greatest concrete step towards peace in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, however it added, a great distance remained to be travelled towards real peace in accordance with the 1967 and 1973 Security Council resolutions.
Reiterating its commitment to the Camp David accords and the establishment of a comprehensive peace based on the recognition of Palestinian rights, as well as rejecting Israel's policies in the occupied territories, Egypt saw the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai as a significant step forward in the peace process and as a new incentive to continue the march towards justice and sovereignty of all countries and peoples in the area.
The Egypt-Israel peace treaty and Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai were welcomed by a number of speakers, among them Austria, Japan, Mauritius, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines and Sweden. For the first time, Sweden stated there existed a recognized international border between Israel and one of its neighbours. For the first time in nearly two decades, Malta said, Israeli-occupied territory had been returned, a restitution that was overdue and did not generate the right to compensation by expansion in other illegally occupied territory.
While the Philippines saw the return of the Sinai to Egypt as a point of departure for possible peaceful agreements in other areas of the region, Austria expressed regret that Israel showed no intention of taking similar steps with regard to other occupied territories, and Japan pointed out that the Palestinian autonomy talks had not achieved the hoped-for progress. Finland said a comprehensive Middle East peace seemed as remote as ever.
Democratic Yemen, on the other hand, considered the withdrawal the dead end of the Camp David path, with Israeli forces terminating their occupation but leaving behind American soldiers and a neutralized Egypt. Iraq said there was every indication that the Camp David accords had died with Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai and with the failure of the capitulationist policy which had brought Egypt isolation and weakness against Israel. Yemen maintained that the peace between Egypt and Israel was about to collapse any day because it ignored the Palestine problem and Palestinian rights. A similar position was held by several others, including Seychelles. Jordan said Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai had been made conditional on giving Israeli aggression a more or less free hand in obliterating the existence of the Palestinians, and the Byelorussian SSR considered Israel's aggressive actions a direct outcome of the policies of separate deals.
The United States wondered if it would have been too much to expect the Assembly to welcome the signing of the peace treaty and Israel's withdrawal as a momentous step towards a Middle East peace; the peace treaty had been achieved according to the 1967 Security Council resolution, a process which stood in stark contrast to the approach that insisted on Israeli withdrawal in the absence of peace.
Primarily due to United States support, Cuba stated, Israel had been able to disregard United Nations resolutions and to continue its aggressive and expansionist policy, a view shared by Afghanistan, Bahrain, Burundi, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Viet Nam, among others. The stepped-up involvement of external forces in the region, India said, could hardly be conducive to a relaxation of tension; in Albania's view, Israel benefited from the difficulties created for the Arabs because of the Middle East rivalry and bargaining between the two imperialist super-Powers.
The United States sheltering of Israel from international censure of its policies, Pakistan and others believed, only served to aggravate the already explosive Middle East situation. The misuse of one of the Security Council's primary powers was far more dangerous than missiles Mauritius said. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said amendment of the Charter and abolition of the veto must be considered.
Due to the United States veto, the Lao People's Democratic Republic stated, the Council had been unable to carry out its mandate and had failed to take a decision on Palestinian rights. The United States veto demonstrated Washington's direct participation in Israel's anti-Arab aggression, the USSR said. Indonesia and Nicaragua saw in the veto an encouragement of the escalation of Israeli violence and oppression. In Burundi's opinion, a Palestine solution had been delayed because of the interests pursued by the imperialist Powers.
Turkey called on Israel's friends to exercise their influence to impel it to stop its aggression, and Nicaragua believed that the United States must seriously review its policy towards Israel.
In view of Israel's refusal to implement United Nations resolutions and its continued occupation of Arab territories, China called for enforcement measures, including sanctions, a call supported by Afghanistan, the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Djibouti, the German Democratic Republic, Ghana, India, Iraq, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia. In addition, India called for individual action by States to isolate Israel in all fields. Enforcement measures were also called for by Saudi Arabia, Seychelles and Tunisia. If Israel persisted in its lawlessness, Pakistan believed, the Security Council must act firmly in view of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Mali said the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter should be applicable to any Member State that imperilled peace. Malaysia held it imperative that the international community did its utmost to obliterate the injustice against the Palestinians.
Holding the Security Council fully responsible for all that happened on Palestinian land, PLO appealed to it to take the necessary measures for the protection of the Palestinians and their land, and to ensure Israel's full withdrawal.
Many speakers, among them Cyprus, Malaysia and Pakistan, saw in the 1976 recommendations of the Committee on Palestinian rights(36) a firm basis for a solution to the Palestine problem. The German Democratic Republic, Turkey, Yugoslavia and Zambia called for endorsement of these recommendations by the Security Council as a concrete step towards a just and durable settlement. Malta considered such endorsement a positive step towards ending the cycle of violence; the process recommended by the Committee advocated a role for the Council where all parties to the Middle East conflict were represented.
In Angola's opinion, an international mechanism was needed to oversee the delivery of justice to the Palestinians. Romania reiterated its suggestion that a committee of Member States undertake efforts to achieve a Middle East settlement.
Brazil felt that the only alternative to the use of force was to resort fully to United Nations mechanisms. Argentina said the United Nations had a fundamental role to play and could not shirk its responsibilities, a view shared by Ghana, Bangladesh, Fiji, Finland, Japan and others saw the framework for a comprehensive settlement in various United Nations resolutions. In Jordan's view the only legally binding decisions on the future of Palestine were the 1947 plan for the partition of Palestine(27) and the 1948 resolution establishing the Conciliation Commission for Palestine,(28) which provided for a Palestinian Arab State and a Jewish State and for the right of the Palestinians to return, Israel's admittance to United Nations membership in 1949(30) had been conditional on its acceptance of those resolutions. Iran, however, felt that the partition resolution was a conspiracy and without validity from the very beginning and that its reference to the maintenance of peace had been a deception to manipulate the United Nations.
A settlement could best be achieved through an international conference under United Nations auspices with the participation of all interested parties, including PLO, Czechoslovakia and Hungary believed. As a first step towards a settlement, Austria thought, direct talks without any pre-condition should be initiated between Israel and PLO. Negotiations between the parties concerned were also advocated by the Philippines and Sweden.
Romania supported the call of the non-aligned countries at the Kuwait meeting that the Secretary-General undertake contacts with the parties towards a settlement. That approach, Togo believed, was likely to be a decisive turning-point. Zambia commended the programme of action adopted at the Kuwait meeting and Indonesia urged the Assembly to endorse it.
General Assembly action (June). At the request of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries conveyed by Cuba as its current Chairman, the General Assembly again resumed its seventh emergency special session on 25 and 26 June, mainly to consider the situation resulting from Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
Reaffirming its conviction that the Palestine question was the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace settlement would be achieved without the full exercise by the Palestinians of their inalienable rights and without PLO participation, the Assembly, by a resolution of 26 June,(11) supported the Security Council demands that Israel withdraw from Lebanon and that all military activities cease within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. It again decided to adjourn the session temporarily and authorized its President to resume its meetings upon request.
During the debate, PLO charged that the aim of Israel's acts of aggression, particularly in Lebanon, was the elimination of the Palestinians and PLO, a view shared by many others. Yugoslavia said the only way out of the vicious circle and towards a peaceful settlement was the recognition for the Palestinians of the rights which all peoples enjoyed. Indonesia believed that a Middle East solution could never be achieved until the Palestinians regained their rights.
General Assembly action (August). In view of the situation in Lebanon, the General Assembly again resumed its emergency special session on 16 August and adopted three resolutions on 19 August. The request to reconvene the session by the end of August had been made by an Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries on the Palestine question (Nicosia, Cyprus, 15-17 July), and was contained in a final communiqué and programme of action transmitted to the Secretary-General by Cyprus on 29 July.(2)
By the first resolution,(12) the Assembly called for the free exercise in Palestine of the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination and national independence – a paragraph adopted by 107 votes to 5, with 26 abstentions. It reaffirmed its rejection of policies and plans to resettle the Palestinians outside their homeland and called again on the Secretary-General to initiate contacts with all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including PLO, with a view to convening an international conference on ways of achieving a just and lasting solution.
By other provisions, the Assembly demanded that Israel carry out United Nations resolutions on the occupied territories and the Security Council resolutions on the Israel-Lebanon situation, and urged the Council, in the event of Israel's continued failure to comply, to consider the application of relevant Charter provisions. The Secretary-General was urged to take measures to guarantee the security of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in South Lebanon, and to investigate Israel's application of international instruments in the case of detained persons.
By the second resolution,(13) the Assembly decided to convene an International Conference on the Question of Palestine in Paris in August 1983. By the third,(14) it decided to commemorate 4 June of each year as the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression.
Israel rejected the first resolution as another attempt to undermine the peace process and its only agreed basis, the 1967(33) and 1973(34) Security Council resolutions.
Haiti felt obliged to abstain in view of the imminent ending of the Lebanese crisis.
Also abstaining, Sweden regretted that the resolution did not address itself directly to the situation in Lebanon and did not reaffirm the inviolability of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity Some provisions were unacceptable to it, in particular paragraph 2 as it could be interpreted that Israel as a State should be eliminated, and paragraph 4 which reaffirmed a number of resolutions which Sweden had been unable to support.
Canada could not accept the assertion that the Palestine question was the core of the Arab-Israeli dispute; it did not agree that the Assembly was the appropriate body to determine the existence of a threat to peace, breach of peace or act of aggression, and could not endorse the implied status regarding PLO as the only representative of the Palestinians. Concerning paragraphs 2 (on which it cast a negative vote) and 11, Canada did not want to advocate specific options regarding the nature of the homeland, which would have to be settled through negotiations, and it did not believe that an international conference would currently promote a comprehensive settlement.
New Zealand felt that the resolution ignored many elements of the interrelated fates of the Lebanese and Palestinians; it had particular difficulties with paragraphs 2, 4, 6, 9 and 11.
Norway had reservations about the wording of certain paragraphs and felt that the resolution did not strike the balance between the interests of the parties needed for progress towards a just and lasting solution and tended to prejudice the outcome of future negotiations.
For the EC members, Denmark expressed agreement with the general thrust of the text but considered that it did not reflect the necessary balance on which a just and lasting settlement must be based.
Ireland added that it abstained with some regret; however, it felt that it could not vote in favour of a text asserting the Palestinians' right to self-determination, including the right to an independent State, without reference to the principle of the right of all States, including Israel, to live in peace.
France deemed the resolution not timely under current conditions; it also believed that several formulations impinged on the Security Council's competence.
Australia was unable to support a number of aspects of the resolution, particularly paragraphs 2 (on which it cast a negative vote) and 4, and considered that no account had been taken of the stage reached in the negotiations for a settlement in Lebanon.
Though voting in favour of the text as a whole Fiji abstained on paragraph 2; it believed that any settlement arising out of the exercise by the Palestinians of their right to self-determination should recognize the right of all States, including Israel, to exist within secure boundaries. Honduras, on the other hand, expressed the opinion that the free exercise of the Palestinian right to self-determination did not imply ignoring Israel's right to exist within its own clearly defined frontiers.
Also voting in favour but abstaining on paragraph 2, Austria regretted that the resolution did not take into account the most recent development, especially the efforts of the United States, and contained a number of formulations that lacked clarity or might have legal or political implications that could complicate future efforts.
Burma stressed reservations on the wording and formulation of operative paragraph 11 and the second and tenth preambular paragraphs. To be consistent with its past stand on specific aspects, Burma had found it necessary to abstain in the vote on paragraph 2.
Declaring that its affirmative vote did not affect its position on the Palestine question, Japan stated difficulties with the wording and content of paragraphs 2 and 11 in particular. In connection with paragraph 2, on which it abstained, Japan felt that reference should have been made to the principles for a Middle East peace, adopted by the Council in 1967(33) and 1973.(34)
Singapore also expressed support for these principles and stressed that, in its understanding, paragraph 2 referred to the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza, and that one element of lasting peace would be the recognition of the right of all States, including Israel, to existence and security.
Uruguay reserved its position on the Assembly resolutions on the occupied territories mentioned in paragraph 4, saying it had not supported them at the time of their adoption; in addition, it emphasized that the Assembly could not encroach on the Council's competence by adopting measures exclusively in the latter's purview.
Paraguay regretted that the text did not fully answer the need for measures to alleviate the suffering of the people of Lebanon as well as to guarantee its territorial integrity and independence.
Spain felt that the resolution was moderate and realistic and put forward a number of praiseworthy ideas, in both political and humanitarian terms. Panama said the text coincided with its own position. Ecuador felt that the machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes needed to be strengthened and considered it unacceptable that repeated United Nations decisions continued to be ignored.
Turkey stressed that its vote in favour should be understood in the light of its established Middle East policy, particularly given the fact that there existed certain elements in the text which lacked clarity in terms of their implications and consequences.
Colombia voted for the resolution as it held necessary the quest for a just solution through talks involving all parties and it thought that account should be taken of the interests and obligations of the parties, together with respect for Israel's existence and rights. Though stating reservations on certain formulations and abstaining on paragraph 2, Finland saw the resolution as an expression of universal indignation at Israel's military actions in Lebanon and as a serious effort to call for a new and decisive United Nations effort to reach an agreement on the entire Middle East problem, not only a just solution of the Palestine question.
Chile also supported the text saying it was consistent with its basic approach of not accepting the use of force in settling international disputes. However, it had reservations on certain preambular and operative paragraphs which did not include all Palestinians, implied excessive condemnation and called for actions impinging prerogatives within the exclusive competence of the Security Council, and it believed that the inclusion of a reference to the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions would have been a very positive step.
Iran felt that the resolution could have been much stronger and more constructive by punishing the Zionist usurpers and by including the right to payment of war reparations and the right of the Syrian supporters.
The Syrian Arab Republic would have wished a firm condemnation of Israel and the reaffirmation that it was not a peace-loving State, as well as a call on Israel to be a good neighbour and a reiteration that numerous States had broken off their relations with Israel as a last resort.
Reservations on the paragraph calling for contacts with a view to convening a conference were expressed by Albania, Democratic Yemen and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Democratic Yemen emphasized that its affirmative vote was based on the understanding that the reference to "relevant resolutions" did not include the 1967 Security Council resolution. Albania declared its opposition to plans by the imperialist super-Powers to convene meetings and conferences on the Middle East situation and the Palestine problem. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said its attitude towards an international conference was well known.
In addition, Albania voiced reservations to references in the text to certain Council resolutions which it deemed harmful to the just struggle of the Palestinians, in particular provisions that tended to put on an equal footing the aggressor and its victim. In the view of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the text was a strict minimum and did not reflect in detail the ideas expressed during the session; the Assembly ought to have taken effective action against Israel by expelling it and ought to have condemned United States policy designed to encourage Israel.
During the debate, China, Cuba, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Viet Nam and others expressed the conviction that the heroic struggle of the Palestinians would eventually triumph. Turkey said Israel's policies of aggression, suppression and annexation could not weaken the Palestinians' determination to exercise their rights, a view shared by Democratic Yemen, Mauritania and others. Indonesia said PLO remained the soul and conscience of the Palestinians. In Cuba's view, any agreement or initiative that did not take PLO into account was treachery.
General Assembly action (September). At a one-meeting resumption of the seventh emergency special session on 24 September, the General Assembly adopted a resolution(15) urging the Security Council to investigate the circumstances and extent of the massacre of Palestinians and other civilians in Beirut on 17 September, demanded respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and independence, supported Council demands for Israel's withdrawal and cessation of military activities in Lebanon, and urged the Council to consider practical ways and means in accordance with the Charter in the event of Israel's continued failure to comply with those demands. The Assembly resolved that the Palestine refugees should be enabled to return to their homes and property, and called for humanitarian aid to the victims of the Israeli invasion. The session was again adjourned temporarily and the Assembly President was authorized to resume meetings upon request from Member States.
Though voting in favour, Chile, Guatemala and Uruguay expressed reservations on the call for practical means in the case of Israel's non-compliance, saying it infringed on the Council's prerogatives Uruguay had similar reservations on the seventh preambular paragraph.
Canada, Denmark (also speaking for Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), Ireland and Norway had reservations on a mention in the preamble of the PLO statement during the debate.
Costa Rica said that, as long as the Palestinians did not have a State in which they could live in peace, there would be no definitive solution to the Palestine question. Canada, Denmark (again also for the seven Western European States), Haiti, Ireland, New Zealand and Norway voiced reservations on the paragraph stating that the Palestine refugees should be enabled to return to their homes and property.
Democratic Yemen would have liked the resolution to contain a clear condemnation of Israel and the United States. Iran deemed the resolution to be very reticent; it expected a stronger and more explicit statement that the Zionist base of imperialism must be destroyed, and said there was no Palestine problem, rather the problem of the Zionist régime. Iraq said its favourable vote should not be construed as a change in its position on settlement of the Palestinian question. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya believed that the resolution was not an appropriate response to Israel's crimes; the United Nations must impose comprehensive sanctions and expel Israel so that the Palestinians could return to their territory and create their own independent State.
By a letter of 22 September to the Assembly President,(4) Israel stated that there was no basis for holding an emergency special session simultaneously with the regular session, particularly as the item to be dealt with was on the agenda of the regular session.
Activities of the Committee on Palestinian rights. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People continued throughout 1982 to follow developments in the territories occupied by Israel and actions by Israel which the Committee regarded as violations of international law or of United Nations resolutions.
In a number of letters to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, the Committee Chairman drew attention to Israeli plans to evacuate Palestinian Bedouins from the Negev Desert, requested decisive steps to protect the rights of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, drew attention to Israeli actions against Palestinian demonstrators and expressed concern at the Israeli decision to dissolve the elected municipal council of two West Bank towns. He called for action to end Israel's invasion of Lebanon, expressed extreme concern at the massacre of Palestinians in the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps near Beirut, called attention to Israeli plans to establish new settlements in the West Bank and expressed concern at the closing of Bir Zeit University.
In its September report to the General Assembly,(8) the Committee again expressed its conviction that positive action by the Security Council on the Committee's recommendations, which constituted the basic principles for a solution to the Palestine problem, would advance prospects for a just and lasting peace. It therefore unanimously decided to reiterate the validity of the recommendations it had first made in 1976(36) and which had been repeatedly endorsed by the Assembly. (These called, among other things, for the establishment by the Council of a timetable for Israeli withdrawal, a United Nations take-over of the evacuated territories, handing them over to PLO as representative of the Palestinians, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian entity.) The Committee expressed its conviction that the repression of Palestinians in the occupied territories, as well as the tragic events in Lebanon, could have been avoided if the Council had taken timely and positive action on those recommendations.
The Committee met at United Nations Headquarters on 29 November in observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. The New York meeting and a similar one at Geneva were addressed by a number of United Nations officials and government representatives.
With the Committee's participation, three seminars on the Palestine question were organized in 1982 by the United Nations Secretariat's Special Unit on Palestinian Rights (redesignated in August as the Division for Palestinian Rights).
The first North American seminar (New York, 15-19 March) included in its report a suggestion that a better organized campaign be made on behalf of the Palestinian aspect at various levels, particularly through non-governmental organizations, since only an elementary awareness of the question had been reached in North America. The second seminar (Valletta, Malta, 12-16 April) adopted a programme of action and an appeal to Western European Governments for justice in Palestine, and the Western European participants addressed an appeal for a Western European initiative in the Near East. The third seminar (Dakar, Senegal, 9-13 August) addressed several recommendations to the Committee, including one that it consider the utility and viability of convening a war crimes tribunal to assess Israel's conduct of hostilities. The reports of the seminars were annexed to the Committee's report to the Assembly.
Presenting the Committee's report to the Assembly, the Rapporteur said that against Israeli repression and violence which had run riot in the occupied territories, the Security Council had remained immobilized and it did not take Israel too long to go even further and launch a massive military incursion against Palestinians and civilians in Lebanon. As a last resort, the Committee recommended holding an international conference on the Palestine question in 1983, earlier than originally planned.
General Assembly action (December). In December, at its 1982 regular session, the General Assembly adopted five resolutions on the Palestine question.
By one of these,(22) of 10 December, the Assembly again reaffirmed that a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East peace could not be established without unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and without the exercise and attainment of Palestinian rights. The Assembly requested the Security Council to discharge its responsibilities under the United Nations Charter and to recognize those rights, including the rights to self-determination and the establishment of an independent Arab State in Palestine. The Assembly reiterated its request that the Council take measures to implement the plan recommending the establishment of such a State.
This resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 113 to 4, with 23 abstentions. It was sponsored by 22 nations and introduced by Malta, as Rapporteur of the Committee on Palestinian rights.
Palestinian rights were reaffirmed by the Assembly in another resolution, adopted on 20 December.(23) Stating that the internationally accepted principles relevant to the Palestine question – including the right of all States in the region to exist within internationally recognized boundaries, and justice and security for all peoples – required the recognition and attainment of the Palestinians' rights, the Assembly demanded Israel's complete and unconditional withdrawal from the occupied territories, to be followed by a short transitional period of United Nations supervision during which the Palestinians would exercise self-determination. It urgently called for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace, based on resolutions of the United Nations and under its auspices, with the participation of all parties, including PLO, on an equal footing. It recommended that the Security Council take early action to promote a just and comprehensive solution. The Assembly declared Israeli policies and practices aimed at annexing the occupied territories to be in violation of international law.
This resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 123 to 2, with 19 abstentions. It was sponsored and revised by 20 States, including 18 of the 23 members of the Committee on Palestinian rights and was introduced by Senegal, Chairman of the Committee.
By the three other resolutions on the Palestine question, adopted on 10 December, the Assembly again endorsed the 1976 recommendations of the Committee and requested it to keep the situation under review;(19) requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the Secretariat's Division for Palestinian Rights continued to discharge its tasks;(20) and endorsed recommendations on preparations for the 1983 International Conference on the Question of Palestine.(21) In the last resolution, the Assembly also called on Member States to contribute to the achievement of Palestinian rights and to support modalities for their implementation.
Aspects of the Palestine question were dealt with in four other resolutions adopted by the Assembly in December 1982.
In a resolution of 3 December on the self-determination of peoples,(17) the Assembly strongly condemned Israel's expansionist activities and the continual bombing of Palestinians, and urged States and organizations to support the Palestinians through PLO, as their sole and legitimate representative, in their struggle for self-determination and independence.
In another resolution of the same date,(18) the Assembly expressed grave concern at Israel's policy of defiance of basic principles and objectives of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,(31) and called for the respect and preservation of the national and cultural identity of the Palestinian people. This paragraph was adopted in the Third (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) Committee by a recorded vote of 98 to 16, with 20 abstentions.
In a resolution of 10 December on United Nations public information activities,(24) the Assembly requested the preparation by the Secretariat of a documented summary account of world media coverage of developments affecting the Palestinians from June to December.
Finally, by a 20 December resolution on the Middle East situation,(25) the Assembly reaffirmed that the Palestine question was the core of the Middle East conflict and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace would be achieved without the full exercise by the Palestinians of their inalienable national rights and Israel's immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal from the occupied territories.
Introducing the 22-nation draft, Malta said it took into account the developments in the area as well as the recently reiterated PLO declaration that it would pursue its role in a solution to the Palestine question on the basis of the attainment in Palestine of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in accordance with United Nations resolutions.
Israel opposed the resolution, saying it attempted to set back the clock of history 35 years. The Arabs could not ask for what they had destroyed by armed force in 1947 and 1948, and the spurned proposals of the 1947 partition resolution(27) could not now be resurrected into reality.
Also casting a negative vote, Canada found the reference in the preamble to the 1947 partition plan inappropriate and could not accept the reaffirmations of certain political objectives; the nature of the Palestinian homeland and its relations to its neighbours should not be prejudged, but should be decided by the parties through negotiations. Costa Rica voted against because it thought that the call for unconditional withdrawal interfered with the work of the Security Council and was not in line with the search for a constructive solution within the framework of the Council resolutions of 1967(33) and 1973(34) setting out the principles for a Middle East peace.
In the opinion of the United States, the resolution sought to define in advance the nature of a solution, when this could come only through negotiations by the parties and could not be dictated by the Council, it spoke of the need for unconditional Israeli withdrawal, when withdrawal would be part of a comprehensive peace to be worked out by the parties; and it lacked balance, making demands on and ascribing sinister motives to one party while affirming alleged rights of another, and failing to call on any other party to make the concessions necessary for negotiations to commence.
Abstaining, Australia considered it inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of negotiations on a settlement and believed that some wording in the resolution would not assist in constructive efforts. Japan abstained because the text did not refer to the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions, specify the geographical area of the proposed State or refer to Israel's right to exist. In New Zealand's view, the resolution did not adequately reflect the balance of principles in the 1967 resolution.
Explaining the abstentions of the EC members, Denmark said they had important reservations on those elements which were not in accordance with their common position on principles for a comprehensive settlement and considered that the approach to a solution should have been more balanced. Greece did not like the wording of the paragraph requesting implementation of the plan for an Arab State in Palestine, while it supported the establishment of an independent State, it maintained also that Israel should live sovereign and secure within the boundaries shaped before 1967.
Norway believed that the resolution, like the others presented on the Palestine question, did not reflect the balance between the interests of the parties necessary to achieve a just and lasting peace; Norway supported the right of the Palestinians to self-determination but thought that principle must be transformed into reality through negotiation. Finland also found the resolutions unbalanced. Portugal abstained owing to procedural and conceptual reservations on the requests to the Security Council. Sweden considered that the resolution ignored the need to resolve the conflict through negotiations.
Though voting in favour, Albania observed that it disagreed with or had reservations on some past resolutions on the Palestine question and the Middle East situation, and said it consequently had reservations on the unspecific mention of such texts in paragraphs 1 and 5. Iran said the establishment of justice and lasting peace simply implied elimination of the result of the original aggression, namely, the illicit creation of the Zionist base in the area. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya opposed the references in the preamble to the 1947 partition resolution(27) and the 1948 resolution establishing a conciliation Commission for Palestine,(28) as well as any other reference which might be construed to imply recognition of the Zionist entity.
Austria voted for the resolution on the ground that it incorporated essential elements on which there was wide international agreement, relating to secure boundaries, Palestinian self-determination and Israeli withdrawal. Spain, though voting in favour, would have preferred recommendations instead of requests to the Council, as only the Council could adopt measures in cases jeopardizing international peace and security; it would have abstained on those paragraphs if there had been a separate vote. Speaking of the same paragraphs, Uruguay felt they safeguarded the Council's competence in accordance with the Charter. Jamaica stated that its vote in favour was in accord with its policy, which consistently advocated Israeli withdrawal and recognition of Palestinian rights to statehood as well as of the right of every State in the area to live in peace and security within internationally recognized boundaries.
Singapore supported both the 22-and 25-nation texts on the understanding that the request to implement the plan for an independent Arab State in Palestine referred to the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The 25-nation draft resolution was revised by its sponsors to have the Assembly call for the achievement of peace based on United Nations resolutions and under its auspices, instead of having it call for negotiations aimed at a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on United Nations resolutions.
Introducing the revised text, Senegal said it had been changed in the light of the views expressed during consultations with various parties and particularly in the light of the primary objective, the restoration of peace, for which certain preconditions had to be met, such as: participation of all interested parties in negotiations, respect for international law and conventions with regard to occupation, Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the role of the Security Council in the process of Israeli withdrawal.
Israel rejected the resolution as an attempt at political warfare and as detrimental to the idea of conciliation, undermining the peace process and degrading the principles of the United Nations. The text tampered with and sought to isolate in a selective and deliberately distorted manner elements of the 1967 Security Council resolution which, together with the 1973 Council resolution, constituted the only agreed framework for a peaceful settlement. The resolution deliberately ignored the inalienable rights of Israel and the Jewish people, and the sole purpose of some ostensibly non-controversial provisions was to mislead certain well-intentioned, if not naive, observers of the Middle East scene.
The United States opposed the text because of its selective approach; however, it applauded the fact that the resolution explicitly recalled the right of all States to exist within recognized borders, even as it also recognized the need to meet the rights and requirements of the Palestinians.
Albania did not participate in the vote because of what it regarded as certain inaccurate and complicated elements, such as the recalling of numerous past resolutions and documents, some of which it disapproved of or had reservations on.
Among those abstaining, Canada, though welcoming the mention of the right of all States in the region to existence and security, thought the call for complete and unconditional Israeli withdrawal did not reflect the spirit or letter of the Security Council's 1973 resolution and would not promote a negotiated settlement.
Speaking on behalf of the EC members, Denmark said that, while they welcomed the efforts to introduce new elements reflecting a more balanced approach, they abstained because of important reservations on elements not in accordance with their position on principles for a comprehensive settlement, specifically the reference in the preamble to the right of all States in the region to exist within internationally recognized boundaries should have stated that this included Israel, and an explicit reference to negotiations should have been retained in the paragraph calling for a comprehensive peace.
Japan said the resolution was not well-balanced in that it did not clearly acknowledge Israel's right to exist or refer to the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions which called for a negotiated settlement.
Although abstaining, Portugal stressed the importance of the preamble in reference to the two principles which it considered fundamental: the right of all States in the region, including Israel, to live in peace and security within internationally recognized boundaries, and recognition of the Palestinians right freely to determine their future.
Though voting in favour, Austria said that, while the resolution incorporated essential elements on which there was wide international agreement, it would have preferred a more affirmative recognition in the operative part to the right of all States in the region, including Israel, to exist within secure boundaries; and it would have preferred the call for complete and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories to be less sweeping, as territorial aspects formed part of peace negotiations. Voting in favour as an expression of its support for the Palestinians' right to self-determination, Finland emphasized that it continued to conceive the realization of those rights within the framework of a comprehensive Middle East settlement on the basis of the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions.
Sweden had reservations on the demand for complete and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories, believed that some elements of the resolution would prejudge the outcome of negotiations, would have preferred the explicit reference to negotiations contained in the original version of paragraph 6, and stressed that a settlement must be based on the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions as well as on recognition of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinians.
The Dominican Republic said its positive vote was on the understanding that the 1967 and 1973 Council resolutions would be respected. Uruguay voted in favour on the understanding that the resolution implied recognition of Israel's right to exist within secure boundaries; it added that the representation of the Palestinians should be decided by them in exercise of their right to self-determination.
New Zealand did not consider the order of the elements in the resolution as prejudging the outcome of the negotiations called for in paragraph 6, it particularly welcomed the mention in the fourth preambular paragraph of the right of all States in the region to existence within internationally recognized boundaries but would have preferred reaffirmation of that right in the operative part. However five States voting for the resolution criticized that paragraph and its specific provisions.
Algeria stressed that the paragraph could be interpreted only in the context of the principles adopted on 9 September in the Final Declaration of the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference at Fez, Morocco; total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories must be among the principles of a just and lasting solution. Democratic Yemen said its positive vote did not imply recognition of Israel. Iraq considered that the reference did not apply to the Zionist entity, which had officially rejected the boundaries delineated and recognized by the United Nations, and beyond which it could not acquire sovereignty. The Syrian Arab Republic criticized the fact that the principle of complete Israeli withdrawal was not included and said the text paved the way for recognition of the Zionist entity which occupied Palestine. The United Arab Emirates said it would have voted against the paragraph because the indirect reference to recognition of Israel went beyond the statement of the Fez Conference.
Iran maintained its reservations on the phrase "all parties" or other phrases which presumed a Status for the Zionist usurping elements equal to that of the Palestinians or which implied any legality or legitimacy for the Zionist entity.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya explained that it had not participated in the vote as it felt that the rights of the Palestinians to regain their usurped land and to self-determination were not ensured; it also objected to the 1947 partition resolution and to the indirect recognition of the Zionist entity in the preamble.
Several States explained their votes in the Assembly's Third Committee on the paragraph of the resolution on racial discrimination expressing concern at Israel's defiance of the Convention against racial discrimination, as reflected in the 1982 report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).(7)
Those voting against this paragraph or abstaining on it gave the following reasons: It was improper for the Assembly, whose membership included many States not parties to the Convention, to judge the policies of a State party with reference to the Convention (Australia, Canada, against) or to single out a particular State party (Federal Republic of Germany, against; Italy, abstaining). The paragraph dealt with a political issue outside the scope of the Convention (Costa Rica, France, Netherlands, Portugal, abstaining). The CERD report had been used in a distorted or misleading fashion (Australia, Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, against), since CERD had expressed no views on the subject (Finland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, against). In addition, Finland said the Nordic States could not agree that Israel's policy was in defiance of the Convention.
Also in the Third Committee, explaining its negative vote on the resolution on self-determination of peoples, the United States gave as one of its reasons its objection to the treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Ireland, which abstained in the vote, said that although the resolution recognized the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, it did not recognize Israel's right to exist within secure frontiers. Uruguay, which voted in favour, said it would have preferred a wording on the Middle East reflecting all the reasons for friction there. Austria, however, though abstaining, said it condemned Israel's policy in relation to the problems addressed in the resolution.
Regarding the provision urging support for the Palestinians through PLO in their self-determination struggle, Uruguay said the Palestinians would select their legitimate representative through exercise of their right to self-determination. Portugal, which abstained, said it had reservations on this provision. Greece, also abstaining, said it agreed with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and the establishment of their own independent State under PLO leadership.
During the debates on the Palestine question and on the Middle East situation at the Assembly's regular session, as well as at the seventh emergency special session, most speakers agreed that the Palestine question was the core of the Middle East conflict, while Israel stated that it was clearly not the central problem.
Declaring their support for Palestinian rights, Austria, Denmark (for the EC members), Finland Greece, India, Nepal, Norway, Singapore, Turkey and others also emphasized that every State in the region had the right to live within secure and recognized boundaries. Portugal and others held both principles fundamental for a peaceful solution. Israel's existence and security and that of its neighbours were two sides of one coin, Guyana stated, a view shared by several others. The secure existence and development of all States in the region under international guarantees was advocated by a number of States.
Speaking for the EC members, Denmark mentioned a 20 September statement by those countries at Brussels, Belgium, declaring that a Middle East settlement should be based on the principles of security for all States in the region recognition of Israel's right to exist, self-determination for the Palestinians and mutual recognition by all parties.
Declaring its commitment to Israel's existence within internationally recognized boundaries, Brazil said that while Israel had expanded and thrived, that had not been the case with the Arab Palestinian State for whose existence the United Nations, under the 1947 partition plan, was just as responsible. Bahrain held that the Palestinians did not reject the idea of coexistence with the Jews in Palestine on a basis of equality and without Zionist domination. In the opinion of Botswana, the denial of Israel's right to exist could only complicate the situation; Israel should be deprived of the excuse to persist in its expansionist course.
Israel reiterated its view that the core and cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict stemmed from the unwillingness of the Arabs to accept and coexist with a sovereign Jewish State and their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist, with everything else a pretext or subterfuge.
Saudi Arabia stated that Israel had pretended to seek peace and coexistence with the Palestinians, provided the security of its borders was guaranteed; Palestinians who had lived side by side with Jews in Palestine, however, knew that that was a deceitful claim and that the Zionist movements real purpose was to seize the whole of Palestine and transform it into a Jewish State, cleared of its Arab inhabitants.
Jordan said over most of the past 35 years, the real issue had been the denial of rights of the Palestinians, of whom 2 million were refugees, more than half a million displaced and 1.3 million under occupation. India said the non-aligned countries viewed Israeli policies as racist since they were based on an exclusionary doctrine that divided people into arbitrary categories. Kenya stated that Israeli policies towards the Palestinians hinged on the false assumption that the Palestinians did not exist as a people and therefore had no right to a homeland of their own.
The PLO observer challenged the view that Israel had ever offered the Palestinians any alternative other than displacement, annexation, confiscation of land, imprisonment, concentration camps and persistent denial of their national identity and inalienable rights. In Algeria's opinion, the repeated acts of Israeli aggression were part of a deliberate policy to side-step the Palestine question as the central element of the Middle East conflict. The Ukrainian SSR said any diplomatic or military manoeuvres to side-step or eliminate the Palestinian problem were doomed to failure. In the view of Cyprus and others, the Palestine question gave rise to one of the most dangerous hotbeds of tension in the world, primarily as a result of Israel's aggressive and expansionist policy manifested by the denial of Palestinian rights.
Viet Nam considered the struggle of the Palestinians for their rights to be an integral part of the joint struggle of the Arab peoples to safeguard their independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Attempts to give a distorted image of the just struggle of the Palestinians and to place it in the context of bloc rivalry, Yugoslavia felt, were reminiscent of the cold war. Albania said that, during recent years, a whole series of events dangerous and harmful to the Palestinian cause had occurred in the Middle East because of the direct intervention and plotting of the two super-Powers. For the non-aligned countries, India stated, the Palestine question had always been more than a colonial question or a refugee problem, it had affected the relationship between the major Powers especially because of the possibility of the region's becoming an arena for their confrontation.
Backed and supported by the main imperialist Power, the German Democratic Republic stated, Israel was trying to solve the Palestine question by committing genocide against the Palestinians. Turkey said Israel appeared intent on liquidating the Palestinian problem by physically and morally decimating the Palestinians. A similar view was expressed by Iraq, among others. Botswana felt that the major cause of the perpetual conflict was the brutalization of the Palestinians by Israel, a reality which Israel could ignore only at the risk of endangering its own right to exist as a permanent reality. Morocco blamed the cycle of violence on two factors: Israeli underestimation of the Palestinians' capacity for resistance, and the indifference and complicity of many major Powers in abandoning the Palestinians to their fate. Malaysia was confident that the Palestinians would emerge the ultimate victors in their struggle to regain their freedom and rights.
Denmark (for the EC members), the Gambia, Japan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and many others believed that no viable peace could be achieved without the restoration of Palestinian rights. Yugoslavia maintained that peace in the Middle East could not be based on the denial of the existence of a whole people. Instead of restoring Palestinian rights, Uganda said, emphasis had been put on the consequences of the problem, namely, the refugees and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Unless the Palestine question was solved, Pakistan warned, not only would the region be confronted with explosions of increasing intensity but serious conflicts might erupt even beyond. This view was shared by Botswana, Romania and others.
Romania considered it high time for an intensification of political and diplomatic efforts to bring about a settlement. Unless the new possibilities for substantive negotiations were grasped, Sweden feared that the conflict and frustration of Palestinian national aspirations might continue beyond the foreseeable future.
Many speakers expressed the view that a just and lasting Middle East peace could be achieved only by a comprehensive settlement that ensured Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967 and that would enable the Palestinians to exercise their rights, including the rights to return to their homes and land, to self-determination and national independence and to establish their own sovereign State in Palestine. Those taking this position included Algeria, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Greece, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Poland, Romania, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, the USSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia and Zambia.
India observed that recognition of the Palestinians' right to national independence was premised on the consciousness of their distinct territorial and national identity and not merely a response to Israel's occupation of their lands. Madagascar suggested that the Security Council amend its resolutions on a Middle East peace to recognize Palestinian rights.
Stating that the United States President's proposals of 1 September had shown some progress in the American position, the PLO observer said they nevertheless lacked the basic components needed for a just settlement – recognition of PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians, recognition of their right to self-determination and to establish their own independent State, and complete and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. Iraq stated that although the United States initiative recognized Palestinian rights, it made it very clear that the right to self-determination was not included. In Egypt's view, the common approach in the different peace proposals, despite their different manifestations, had led them to confirm the legitimacy of the wishes and aspirations of the Palestinians; the proposals had emphasized that the Palestine question was a question of people and of a State, not a matter of refugees.
Iraq said Israel persistently rejected or sabotaged every initiative that even remotely tried to secure acceptance of Palestinian rights or Israeli withdrawal. Israel's refusal to heed and implement United Nations decisions was deplored by many others.
Bahrain believed that the creation of a Palestinian State would facilitate the establishment of a society in which there would be coexistence between the different races, religions and cultures, as there had been before the creation of Israel. Romania said there was room in the Middle East for both an independent Palestinian State and the State of Israel.
Israel said it was well known that Jordan was the State in which the national identity and aspirations of the Palestinians had already found full expression; the terms "Palestinian Arabs" and "Jordanians" were virtually interchangeable and the Palestinians had achieved self-determination and national independence on more than three quarters of the area of the former Palestine Mandate, while the Jewish community in Palestine had achieved its national rights on considerably less than one fifth of that area. The only practical way towards a solution of the question of the Palestinian Arabs was the Camp David process, which invited the Palestinian residents of Judaea, Samaria and Gaza to play a far more active role than in their past experience in shaping their own future, by calling on them to participate in negotiations to determine the final status of the areas they lived in, as well as in the eventual negotiations on a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan in which the delimitation of boundaries between the two countries would be agreed.
Austria called on Israel and PLO to enter into exploratory talks without any pre-conditions. Kuwait said the countries which bore the major responsibility for creating the Palestine issue had the duty to recognize PLO and address the real party through its legitimate representative; Kuwait deplored the United States stand that it would not even engage in dialogue with PLO unless that organization recognized Israel's right to exist, particularly in view of Israel's position that it would never negotiate with PLO even if it recognized Israel. The Lao People's Democratic Republic said that, because of the constant United States obstruction in the Security Council, ways of eliminating obstacles to the exercise of Palestinian rights had not been found. The United Arab Emirates asked the United States to regard the Palestinians as the equal of all other peoples aspiring to freedom and self-determination.
The participation of PLO in any peace negotiations was advocated also by many others, including Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brazil, China, the Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Yemen, Denmark (for the EC members), Djibouti, Finland, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Singapore, the Sudan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia and Zambia. The PLO observer said that, without its full participation, as repeatedly affirmed by the Assembly, a solution to the Palestinian and Middle East problems could not be achieved.
In Nicaragua's opinion, any negotiations or agreement that did not include PLO on an equal footing would be unacceptable and legally invalid. Norway felt that the Palestinians could not be expected to accept the responsibilities inherent in any peace solution unless they had a voice in the negotiations. Sweden said Israel must realize that there could be no negotiations or agreements involving the Palestinians unless PLO was accepted as a party on an equal footing.
In Djibouti's view, PLO was the vanguard of the Palestinians' struggle. Qatar remarked that the support of the international community for Palestinian rights had not been confined to the adoption of resolutions, but had extended to increased recognition of PLO. Tunisia said that if there were some who still questioned that PLO represented the Palestinians, it was because they disregarded history and facts, which included the massive demonstrations and repeated strikes in the West Bank and Jerusalem in support of it. The USSR believed that the international prestige and authority of PLO had increased.
Denmark, for the EC members, said they wished to see the Palestinians in a position to pursue their demands by political means and by negotiation, and they believed PLO must be associated with the negotiations. Egypt called on PLO to weigh things from the standpoint of its national goals and aspirations, and to take calculated, well-considered and courageous practical steps; it also called on all Palestinians to close ranks. Japan held it essential that Israel and PLO recognize each other's position.
Israel said that, as stated in its charter, PLO aspired to the whole territory between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea as the future Arab State of Palestine and openly sought the destruction of Israel; there was growing awareness among the Palestinians that PLO leadership was incapable of guiding them towards any realistic solution.
Viet Nam believed that the Assembly must take more forceful steps, on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee on Palestinian rights, to create favourable conditions for the implementation of Palestinian rights, including a demand that the United States give up its policy of intervention in the Middle East and support of Israel. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya considered the recommendations an important step towards righting the wrong the Assembly had done to the Palestinians when it accepted the partition of Palestine and the establishment of Israel. Malaysia and others regretted that none of the recommendations reaffirmed by the United Nations on so many occasions, had been implemented so far.
By adopting the recommendations, Senegal felt the Security Council would greatly increase the chances of a Middle East settlement. Action in the spirit of those recommendations was called for by Hungary, while Guyana called for their widest possible acceptance.
Kuwait said a solution could only be reached by implementing United Nations resolutions which, however, required means the United Nations lacked.
To force Israel to implement United Nations resolutions on the Palestine question, the German Democratic Republic said it supported the demand by many States that the Security Council apply sanctions.
India considered it clearer than ever that a solution to the Palestine question could only be found if Israel's compliance with United Nations resolution was enforced by methods available in the Charter. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya called for a political, military and economic boycott of Israel, its expulsion from the United Nations, and condemnation of United States aid to Israel.
Mongolia held further efforts by the international community necessary to compel Israel to put into effect the repeated United Nations decisions and to prompt a Middle East settlement. Qatar appealed to the Council to assume its responsibilities fully, not only to restore Palestinian rights but also United Nations authority. The Syrian Arab Republic thought it time to deal with the matter not by statements but by action to force Israel to grant the Palestinians their rights. The United Arab Emirates said the Council was the only organ capable of giving tangible expression to the will of the international community by applying the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. Sanctions under Chapter VII should be considered if Israel refused to abide by the Assembly's resolutions, said Viet Nam. In Zambia s opinion, what was required was the political will, particularly of the permanent Council members, to find a solution within the United Nations framework. The Councils failure to apply sanctions was regretted by several others, among them Djibouti.
Summing up the debate, the United States said it repeated language that was clearly unacceptable to one or more of the parties, instead of bringing them together in the search for peace.
Letters. (1) GA President: 20 Apr., A/ES-7/17. (2) Cyprus: 29 July, transmitting communiqué of non-aligned countries, A/37/366-S/15327. Israel: (3) 21 Apr., A/ES-7/18 (A/37/217, annex II, 3 May); (4) 22 Sep., A/ES-7/20. (5) Kuwait: 20 Apr., transmitting communiqué of non-aligned countries, A/37/205-S/14990. (6) United States: 19 Apr., A/ES-7/16.
Reports. (7) CERD, A/37/18; (8) Committee on Palestinian rights, A/37/35 & Corr.1.
Resolutions (1982). (9) Commission on Human Rights (report, E/1982/12): 1982/3, 11 Feb. GA: (10) ES-7/4, 28 Apr., text following; (11) ES-7/5, 26 June; (12) ES-7/6, 19 Aug.; (13) ES-7/7, 19 Aug.; (14) ES-7/8, 19 Aug.; (15) ES-7/9, 24 Sep.; (16) ES-9/1, para. 11, 5 Feb.; (17) 37/43, paras. 21 & 23, 3 Dec.; (18) 37/46, para. 7, 3 Dec.; (19) 37/86 A, 10 Dec.; (20) 37/86 B 10 Dec.; (21) 37/86 C, 10 Dec.; (22) 37/86 D, 10 Dec., text following; (23) 37/86 E, 20 Dec., text following; (24) 37/94 B, para. 15, 10 Dec.; (25) 37/123 F, para. 2, 20 Dec. (26) SCPDPM (report, E/CN.4/1983/4): 1982/18, para. 1 (g) & (h), 8 Sep.
Resolutions (prior). GA: (27) 181 A (II), 29 Nov. 1947 (YUN 1947-48, p. 247); (28) 194 (III), 11 Dec. 1948 (YUN 1948-49, p. 174); (29) 217 A (III), 10 Dec. 1948 (ibid., p. 535); (30) 273 (III), 11 May 1949 (ibid., p. 405); (31) 2106 A (XX), annex, 21 Dec. 1965 (YUN 1965, p. 440), (32) ES-7/2, 29 July 1980 (YUN 1980, p. 391). SC: (33) 242 (1967), 22 Nov. 1967 (YUN 1967, p. 257); (34) 338 (1973), 22 Oct. 1973 (YUN 1973, p. 213); (35) 465 (1980), 1 Mar. 1980 (YUN 1980, p. 427).
Yearbook references. (36) 1976, p. 235 (text, 1980, p. 394); (37) 1980, p. 382.
Meeting records. GA: A/ES-7/PV.12-19, 20, 21 (20-28 Apr.), A/37/PV.84-89, 99, 112 (30 Nov.-20 Dec.).
General Assembly resolution ES-7/4
28 April 1982 Meeting 20 86-20-36 (roll-call vote)
26-nation draft (A/ES-7/L.3 and Add.1); agenda item 5.
Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.
Question of Palestine
The General Assembly,
Having considered the question of Palestine at its resumed seventh emergency special session,
Noting with regret and concern that the Security Council, at its 2348th meeting, on 2 April 1982, and at its 2357th meeting, on 20 April 1982, failed to take a decision as a result of the negative votes of the United States of America,
Having heard the statement by the Head of the Political Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,
Convinced that the worsening situation in the Middle East and the failure to find a solution to this question pose a grave threat to international peace and security,
Deploring the repressive measures taken by the Israeli authorities in the illegally occupied Palestinian Arab territories including Jerusalem,
Recalling the relevant United Nations resolutions pertaining to the status and unique character of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular Security Council resolutions 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 and 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980,
Affirming once more that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to all territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
Noting with regret that, owing to the negative vote of one of its permanent members, the Security Council has, so far, failed to take a decision on the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 31/20 of 24 November 1976, 32/40 A of 2 December 1977, 33/28 A of 7 December 1978, 34/65 A of 29 November 1979, 35/169 A of 15 December 1980 and 36/120 D of 10 December 1981,
1. Reaffirms its resolutions ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980 and 3236 (XXIX) and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974 and all other relevant United Nations resolutions pertinent to the question of Palestine;
2. Reaffirms the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force;
3. Reaffirms 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, apply to all territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and calls upon all parties to these instruments to respect and ensure respect of their obligations in all circumstances;
4. Demands that Israel should comply with the provisions of Security Council resolution 465 (1980);
5. Further demands that Israel should comply with all United Nations resolutions relevant to the status and unique character of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular with Security Council resolutions 476 (1980) and 478 (1980);
6. Expresses its rejection of all policies and plans aiming at the resettlement of the Palestinians outside their homeland;
7. Condemns Israel, the occupying Power for its:
(a) Failure to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War;
(b) Disbanding of the elected municipal council of El-Bireh;
(c) Dismissal of the elected mayors of Ramallah and Nablus;
(d) Violation of the sanctity of the Holy Places, particularly of Al-Haram Al-Shareef in Jerusalem;
(e) Shooting and killing and wounding of worshippers in the precincts of Al-Haram Al-Shareef by members of the Israeli army on 11 April 1982;
(f) Repressive measures, including shooting at the unarmed civilian population in the occupied Palestinian territory and in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, resulting in death and injury;
(g) Attacks against and interference with the functions of various civic and religious institutions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, in particular educational institutions;
8. Condemns all policies which illustrate the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, in particular providing Israel with military, economic and political assistance and the misuse of the veto by a permanent member of the Security Council, thus enabling Israel to continue its aggression, occupation and unwillingness to carry out its obligations under the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations;
9. Urges all Governments which have not yet done so:
(a) To recognize the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people;
(b) To renounce the policy of providing Israel with military, economic and political assistance, thus discouraging Israel from continuing its aggression, occupation and disregard of its obligations under the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations;
(c) To act accordingly in all the organs of the United Nations;
10. Condemns the policies which encourage the flow of human resources to Israel, enabling it to implement and to proceed with its colonization and settlement policies in the occupied Arab territories;
11. Declares once again 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 again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to observe and apply scrupulously the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and the principles of international law governing military occupation in all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories including Jerusalem;
13. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power should permit entry into the occupied territories of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories and of the Commission established by Security Council resolution 446 (1979), in order to facilitate the fulfilment of the mandates entrusted to them by the General Assembly and by the Council, respectively;
14. Urges the Security Council to recognize the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people as defined in General Assembly resolution ES-7/2 and to endorse the recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, as endorsed by the Assembly in its resolution 31/20 and in subsequent resolutions;
15. Calls upon the Secretary-General, in concurrence with the Security Council and in consultation as appropriate with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to initiate contacts with all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, with a view to finding concrete ways and means to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting solution, conducive to peace, in conformity with the principles of the Charter and relevant resolutions and based on the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee as endorsed by the General Assembly at its thirty-first session;
16. Requests the Secretary-General to follow up the implementation of the present resolution and to report thereon at appropriate intervals 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 "Question of Palestine";
17. Decides to adjourn the seventh emergency special session temporarily and to authorize the President of the latest regular session of the General Assembly to resume its meetings upon request from Member States.
Roll call vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, 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, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, 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, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstaining: Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Liberia, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire.
General Assembly resolution 37/86 D
10 December 1982 Meeting 99 113-4-23 (recorded vote)
22-nation draft (A/37/L.47 and Add.1); agenda item 31.
Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cuba, Cyprus, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mongolia, Pakistan, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolutions relevant to the question of Palestine, in particular resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974, 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974 and ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980,
Recalling the resolutions of the Security Council relevant to Palestine,
Having heard the statement of the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization,
1. Takes note of the declaration of the Palestine Liberation Organization of 19 April 1981 of its intention to pursue its role in the solution of the question of Palestine on the basis of the attainment by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights in Palestine, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations;
2. Reaffirms the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force;
3. Reaffirms once again that a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established without the unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian and the other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and without the exercise and attainment by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights in Palestine, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations;
4. Requests the Security Council to discharge its responsibilities under the Charter and recognize the inalienable rights of the Palestinian Arab people, including the right to self-determination and the right to establish its independent Arab State in Palestine;
5. Reiterates its request that the Security Council take the necessary measures, in execution of the relevant United Nations resolutions, to implement the plan which, inter alia, recommends that an independent Arab State shall come into existence in Palestine;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the progress made in implementing the present resolution as soon as possible.
Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, 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, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Canada, Costa Rica, Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway. Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom.
General Assembly resolution 37/86 E
20 December 1982 Meeting 112 123-2-19 (recorded vote)
25-nation draft (A/37/L.45/Rev.1); agenda item 31.
Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.
The General Assembly,
Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,
Expressing its extreme concern that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has been achieved and that this problem therefore continues to aggravate the Middle East conflict, of which it is the core, and to endanger international peace and security,
Recalling its previous relevant resolutions, particularly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 36/120 D of 10 December 1981 and ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982,
Recalling, in particular, the principles relevant to the question of Palestine that have been accepted by the international community, including the right of all States in the region to existence within internationally recognized boundaries, and justice and security for all the peoples, which requires recognition and attainment of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,
Recognizing the necessity of participation by all parties concerned in any efforts aimed at the attainment of a just and lasting solution,
1. Reaffirms the inalienable legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination and the right to establish, once it so wishes, its independent State in Palestine;
2. 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;
3. Demands, in conformity with the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, that Israel should withdraw completely and unconditionally from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem, with all property and services intact;
4. Urges the Security Council to facilitate the process of Israeli withdrawal;
5. Recommends that, following the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Palestinian territories, those territories should be subjected to a short transitional period under the supervision of the United Nations, during which period the Palestinian people would exercise its right to self-determination;
6. Urgently calls for the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace, based on the resolutions of the United Nations and under its auspices, in which all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, participate on an equal footing;
7. Recommends that the Security Council should take early action to promote a just and comprehensive solution to the question of Palestine;
8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session on the progress made in implementing the present resolution.
Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, 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 Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Burma, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom.
Work programme of the Committee on Palestinian rights
By a resolution of 10 December 1982,(6) adopted by a recorded vote of 119 to 2, with 21 abstentions, the General Assembly endorsed the 1982 recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People(4) and drew the attention of the Security Council to the fact that action on the recommendations it had made in 1976 was long overdue. The Assembly requested the Committee to keep under review the situation relating to the Palestine question and to report and make suggestions to the Assembly or the Council as appropriate, and authorized it to continue efforts to promote implementation of its recommendations. The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine and other United Nations bodies associated with the Palestine question were requested to co-operate fully with the Committee.
In other actions relating to the Committee's work, the Assembly, on 16 November, included it among seven bodies exempted from the general rule that subsidiary bodies of the Assembly would not be entitled to have summary records of their meetings during a three-year experimental period; and on 24 September, authorized several of its subsidiary bodies, including the Committee, to hold meetings during the regular 1982 Assembly session.(2)
The original draft of the resolution on summary records, submitted by the Committee on Conferences, did not include the Committee on Palestinian rights among the bodies to be entitled to that service. However, the Committee Chairman, in a letter of 20 October to the Assembly President, requested that summary records continue to be provided in recognition of the political importance of the Committee's work.(3) On 25 October, the Assembly's Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee adopted, by 86 votes to 2, with 16 abstentions, an amendment, introduced by the Syrian Arab Republic and also sponsored by 13 other States, adding the Committee on Palestinian rights to the list of exceptions.(1)
The 10 December resolution on the Committee's work was introduced by Senegal, as Chairman of the Committee, on behalf of 21 nations, most of them Committee members. Senegal said it reflected the consensus arrived at in Committee discussions and its adoption could only contribute to progress on the Palestine question.
Israel rejected the text, saying that the Committee's work was utterly biased and irresponsible. The United States voted against the resolution on the ground that the Committee was a partisan and therefore unhelpful body – as confirmed by its report – whose functions appeared to contribute not to solutions but to a solution-inhibiting acrimony.
Abstaining, Canada could not support all of the Committee's recommendations. On behalf of the EC members, Denmark said they had important reservations on elements in the recommendations which were not in accordance with their common position on principles for a peace settlement. New Zealand felt that the recommendations did not adequately reflect the 1967 Security Council principles on a Middle East peace.(8)
Costa Rica abstained because it could not approve the Committee's work. Finland abstained on the grounds that the resolution did not represent the balance which it considered to be a prerequisite for a negotiated settlement. A similar opinion was expressed by Norway.
Though voting in favour, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya did not accept the reference to the 1948 Assembly resolution establishing the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine,(7) or any other reference which might be construed to imply recognition of the Zionist entity. In Iran's view, the establishment of justice and lasting peace in the Middle East implied the elimination of the illicit creation of the Zionist base in the area.
Reservations on some paragraphs and provisions were expressed by Albania.
Spain said its positive vote was in line with its firmly established policy of support for the Palestinian cause. Jamaica, Portugal and Thailand gave similar explanations. Singapore regarded the resolution as a positive contribution to the search for a solution.
Amendment adopted. (1) Benin, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guinea, Lebanon, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, A/C.5/37/L.15 (to draft by Committee on Conferences, A/37/32).
Decision. (2) GA: 37/403, para. (d), 24 Sep.
Letter. (3) Committee on Palestinian rights Chairman, 20 Oct., A/C.5/37/L. 17.
Report. (4) Committee on Palestinian rights, A/37/35 & Corr.1.
Resolutions (1982). GA: (5) 37/14 C, pare. 3 (b), 16 Nov.; (6) 37/86 A, 10 Dec., text following.
Resolutions (prior). (7) GA: 194 (III), 11 Dec. 1948 (YUN 1948-49, p. 174). (8) SC: 242 (1967), 22 Nov. 1967 (YUN 1967, p. 257).
Meeting records. GA: A/37/PV.84-89, 99 (30 Nov.-10 Dec.).
General Assembly resolution 37/86 A
10 December 1982 Meeting 99 119-2-21 (recorded vote)
21-nation draft (A/37/L.42 and Add.1), agenda item 31
Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mongolia, Pakistan, Senegal, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolutions 3376 (XXX) of 10 November 1975, 31/20 of 24 November 1976, 32/40 of 2 December 1977, 33/28 of 7 December 1978, 34/65 of 29 November and 12 December 1979, ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, 35/169 of 15 December 1980, 36/120 of 10 December 1981, ES-7/4 of 28 April 1982, ES-7/5 of 26 June 1982 and ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982,
Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,
1. Expresses its appreciation to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People for its efforts in performing the tasks assigned to it by the General Assembly;
2. Endorses the recommendations of the Committee contained in paragraphs 114 to 119 of its report and draws the attention of the Security Council to the fact that action on the Committee's recommendations, as endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 31/20, is long overdue;
3. Requests the Committee to keep the situation relating to the question of Palestine under review and to report and make suggestions to the General Assembly or the Security Council, as appropriate;
4. Authorizes the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the implementation of its recommendations to send delegations or representatives to international conferences where such representation would be considered by it to be appropriate, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session and thereafter;
5. Requests the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, established under General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as other United Nations bodies associated with the question of Palestine, to co-operate fully with the Committee and to make available to it, at its request, the relevant information and documentation which they have at their disposal;
6. Decides to circulate the report of the Committee to all the competent bodies of the United Nations and urges them to take the necessary action, as appropriate, in accordance with the Committee's programme of implementation;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Committee with all the necessary facilities for the performance of its tasks.
Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, 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, 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, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, 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, Costa Rica, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Work programme of the Division for Palestinian Rights
Acting on a 1979 General Assembly request,(2) repeated in December 1981,(3) the Secretary-General, on 11 August 1982, redesignated the United Nations Secretariat's Special Unit on Palestinian Rights as the Division for Palestinian Rights in keeping with its expanded work programme.
By a resolution of 10 December,(1) adopted by a recorded vote of 121 to 3, with 18 abstentions, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General: to ensure that the Division continued to discharge its tasks, in consultation with and under the guidance of the Committee on Palestinian rights; to provide the necessary resources for that purpose; and to ensure the continued co-operation of the Department of Public Information and other Secretariat units. Governments and organizations were also invited to co-operate. The Assembly noted with appreciation the action taken by Member States to observe annually on 29 November the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People and their issuance of special postage stamps for that occasion.
Introducing the draft on behalf of 21 nations, most of them members of the Committee on Palestinian rights, Senegal, as the Committee Chairman, said it would make the Division's work easier.
Casting a negative vote, Canada had reservations with regard to the usefulness and appropriateness of the Division's activities. The United States saw no apparent merit in promoting the Unit to a division and regretted that it had been perpetuated at all, as its sole function in the past had been to generate acrimonious and irrelevant rhetoric. Israel said the unjustified upgrading of an illegimate Secretariat unit into a division would be a heavy drain on United Nations resources and severely compromised the Secretariat's standing and integrity.
Reservations particularly about the escalating cost of the Division were also expressed by New Zealand, which abstained. Costa Rica did not approve of the Division's work. Norway abstained on the grounds that the resolution did not reflect a balance between the interests of the parties which was necessary for a just and lasting peace. Finland gave a similar explanation.
Portugal, Spain and Thailand voted in favour out of support for the Palestinian cause.
Replying to statements that the Division would be a drain on United Nations resources, PLO said it wondered whether people were thinking of the hundreds of millions of dollars the United Nations was paying for a peace-keeping force as a result of Israel's aggression, violations and acts of genocide.
Resolution (1982). (1) GA: 37/86 B, 10 Dec., text following.
Resolutions (prior). GA: (2) 34/65 D, 12 Dec. 1979 (YUN 1979, p. 379); (3) 36/120 B, 10 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 273).
Meeting records. GA: A/37/PV.84-89, 99 (30 Nov.-10 Dec.).
General Assembly resolution 37/86 B
10 December 1982 Meeting 99 121-3-18 (recorded vote)
21-nation draft (A/37/L.43 and Add.1), agenda item 31.
Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mongolia, Pakistan, Senegal, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.
The General Assembly,
Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,
Noting, in particular, the information contained in paragraphs 103 to 111 of that report,
Recalling its resolutions 32/40 B of 2 December 1977, 33/28 C of 7 December 1978, 34/65 D of 12 December 1979, 35/169 D of 15 December 1980 and 36/120 B of 10 December 1981,
1. Takes note with appreciation of the action taken by the Secretary-General in compliance with General Assembly resolution 36/120 B;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to ensure that the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat continues to discharge the tasks detailed in paragraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 32/40 B, paragraph 2 (b) of resolution 34/65 D and paragraph 3 of resolution 36/120 B, in consultation with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and under its guidance;
3. Also requests the Secretary-General to provide the Division for Palestinian Rights with the necessary resources to carry out its tasks as urged in paragraph 109 of the Committee's report;
4. Further requests the Secretary General to ensure the continued co-operation of the Department of Public Information and other units of the Secretariat in enabling the Division for Palestinian Rights to perform its tasks and in covering adequately the various aspects of the question of Palestine;
5. Invites all Governments and organizations to lend their co-operation to the Committee and the Division for Palestinian Rights in the performance of their tasks;
6. Takes note with appreciation of the action taken by Member States to observe annually on 29 November the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people and the issuance by them of special postage stamps for the occasion.
Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, 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, 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, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, 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: Canada, Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Status of Jerusalem
Communications and report. By a letter of 27 January 1982,(4) Jordan protested the transfer of the Israeli Ministry of Housing to East Jerusalem on 30 December 1981, an action which, it said, violated Security Council and General Assembly resolutions on the status of the city and aggravated an already explosive situation; annexed was a letter of 12 January from the Minister for Occupied Territories Affairs to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Jordan informing the latter that other government buildings had also been erected in the district, including the premises for the Israeli Prime Minister's office and for the Office of Public Works and the Ministry of Agriculture.
By a letter of 17 May,(1) Costa Rica stated that on 9 May, in exercise of its national sovereignty, it had announced its decision to transfer its diplomatic seat from Tel Aviv to the western sector of Jerusalem after having sought and received assurances from Israel that the Holy Places of Christianity and Islam would be protected at all times it regretted that it could not comply with the 1980 Security Council call on States to withdraw their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem.(14)
Protests against Costa Rica's decision were conveyed by Jordan in a letter of 18 May;(6) by the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, whose statement was transmitted by Jordan also on 18 May;(5) and by Iraq as Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in a note verbale of 21 May transmitting a communiqué issued by that organization following a 19 May emergency meeting on the matter.(3) They considered it an act of provocation and a violation of United Nations resolutions and of Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations, by which Member States agreed to accept and carry out Security Council decisions. The two organizations urged Costa Rica to reconsider its decision.
On 1 June,(2) Costa Rica transmitted a communiqué from its Foreign Minister, dated 14 May, reiterating that the transfer of its diplomatic seat to Jerusalem should not be interpreted as an unfriendly act towards the Arab States and was based on the law applicable to relations between two sovereign States and on the respect for the decision of any State to establish the seat of its Government wherever it chose.
Reference to these letters was made in a June report of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly(7) on implementation of a December 1981 resolution(12) calling on Israel to rescind its 1978 proclamation of Jerusalem as the country's capital as well as other Israeli actions seeking to alter the Holy City's character and status. The Secretary-General also reported that, on 24 May 1982, in response to his request for information on action taken in regard to that resolution, Israel had stated in a note verbale (reproduced in the report) that, as it had told the Assembly in December 1981, Jerusalem remained the eternal capital of Israel and the Jewish people, and that Israel had given ample evidence of its profound regard for the city's religious and cultural legacy.
Action by the Commission on Human Rights. On 11 February 1982, in a resolution on human rights in the territories occupied by Israel, the Commission on Human Rights firmly rejected, and reiterated its condemnation of, Israel's decision to annex Jerusalem and alter its physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and status, and considered all those measures and their consequences to be null and void.(8)
General Assembly action. In a resolution of 28 April,(9) adopted at its emergency special session on the Palestine question, the General Assembly demanded that Israel comply with all United Nations resolutions on Jerusalem, in particular the two 1980 Security Council resolutions reconfirming that Israel's actions to alter the character and status of Jerusalem had no legal validity(13) and determining that all such actions must be rescinded.(14)
By a resolution of 16 December 1982,(10) the Assembly deplored the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem, in violation of the latter Council resolution, and called on them to abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with the United Nations Charter.
In a resolution of 20 December on the Middle East situation,(11) the Assembly deplored Israel's failure to comply with United Nations resolutions on Jerusalem, determined that Israel's decision to annex the city and declare it as its capital, as well as measures to alter its physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and status, were null and void, demanded that those actions be rescinded immediately, and called on Member States and international organizations to abide by the relevant resolutions.
The 16 December resolution orally revised by its sponsors, was adopted by a recorded vote of 137 to 1, with 4 abstentions. Cuba introduced the text on behalf of 15 nations.
Rejecting the text, Israel stressed that only the Jewish people had always regarded Jerusalem as the centre of their national and spiritual life. Reunited since 1967, the city enjoyed unprecedented freedom, which guaranteed access and right of worship to the adherents of all faiths. Israel would continue to further the peace and well-being of Jerusalem and its people, as well as preserve it as a special place for people of diverse faiths around the globe.
Abstaining, the United States expressed the view that the Council's call for the withdrawal of diplomatic missions from Jerusalem was not binding and had been an attempt to dictate to Member States, the city's ultimate character and status would emerge in peace negotiations.
Support for the resolution was expressed by a number of countries, among them Albania, Argentina, Malta, Peru, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and Trinidad and Tobago. Denmark, speaking for the European Community (EC) members, recalled the importance they attached to the 1980 Council resolution calling for the withdrawal of diplomatic missions from Jerusalem.(14) Venezuela stated that it had been the first country to withdraw its Embassy from Jerusalem, one month before the adoption of that resolution. Ecuador said it voted in favour because of its principles in the field of international relations and its respect for human rights.
A number of speakers during the Assembly debates on the Middle East situation and the Palestine question, among them Denmark (for the EC members) and Malaysia, regarded Israel's decision as contrary to international law and invalid. Cyprus thought that Israel's attempt to gain international acceptance of the transfer of its capital to Jerusalem could not be seen as contributing to peace. Morocco considered the unilateral proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel's unified and eternal capital the most significant example of illegal Israeli acts in the occupied territories, and one which had wounded the most intimate feelings of hundreds of millions of Moslems and Christians. Thailand did not recognize Israel's annexation of Jerusalem or the claim for it to become Israel's capital.
A number of States charged that Israel was trying to alter the character of the Holy City as a place common to several major religions. Bahrain said the international community had a responsibility to safeguard the spiritual heritage of Jerusalem, which had to be saved from Judaization. Malaysia added that Israel had tried to alter the character and identity of Jerusalem, and said the city's restoration to the Arabs was an essential element for a political settlement. Turkey regarded the preservation of the unique and historical character of Jerusalem and respect for its special status as an essential ingredient of a peace settlement. The Syrian Arab Republic charged that, in order to annex the city, approximately 90,000 Jews had been transported there.
At the seventh emergency special session, Belgium said the EC members rejected any initiative that would change the status of the city; any agreement on Jerusalem should guarantee the protection of and free access by all to the Holy Places.
Argentina expressed the view that the status of Jerusalem could not be defined in terms of strategic or military interests, but must take into account the values of the communities of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Norway maintained that the final status of Jerusalem could not be settled through unilateral acts but only through a comprehensive peace settlement which guaranteed free access to the Holy Places for Jews, Christians and Moslems alike.
Letters and note verbale (nv). Costa Rica: (1) 17 May, S/15109; (2) 1 June, A/37/262. (3) Iraq: 21 May, transmitting Organization of Islamic Conference communiqué, A/37/239- S/15114 (nv). Jordan: (4) 27 Jan., A/37/80-S/l4858: (5) 18 May, S/15091, (6) 18 May, A/37/231-S/15093.
Report. (7) S-G, A/37/275.
Resolution (1982). (8) Commission on Human Rights (report, E/1982/12): 1982/1 A, para. 4, 11 Feb. GA: (9) ES-7/4, para. 5, 28 Apr.; (10) 37/123 C, 16 Dec., text following; (11) 37/123 F, para. 6, 20 Dec.
Resolutions (prior). GA: (12) 36/120 E, 10 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 270). SC: (13) 476 (1980), 30 June 1980 (YUN 1980, p. 425), (14) 478 (1980), 20 Aug. 1980 (ibid., p. 426).
Meeting records. GA: A/37/PV.92-96, 108 (6-16 Dec.).
General Assembly resolution 37/123 C
16 December 1982 Meeting 108 137-1-4 (recorded vote)
15-nation draft (A/37/L.51 and Add.1), orally revised; agenda item 34.
Sponsors: Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 36/120 E of 10 December 1981, in which it determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which had altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called "Basic Law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, were null and void and must be rescinded forthwith,
Recalling Security Council resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, in which the Council, inter alia, decided not to recognize the "Basic Law" and called upon those States that had established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City,
1. Deplores the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980);
2. Calls upon those States to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, 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, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, 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, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, 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.
Abstaining: Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Malawi, United States.
Conference on the Palestine question (1983)
Convening of the Conference
The General Assembly, by a resolution adopted on 19 August 1982 at its resumed seventh emergency special session on the Palestine question,(3) decided to convene an International Conference on the Question of Palestine in Paris from 16 to 27 August 1983. States were invited to establish national focal points to co-ordinate preparations.
The resolution, sponsored by 39 nations, was adopted by a roll-call vote, requested by Israel, of 123 to 2, with 18 abstentions.
The initial decision to hold the Conference, not later than 1984, had been taken by the Assembly in December 1981.(4)
The recommendation to advance the date to 1983 was made by the Committee on Palestinian rights, acting as the Preparatory Committee for the Conference. After initially recommending on 27 May that the Conference be held in the first half of 1984, the Committee, according to its report to the Assembly,(2) reconsidered the matter in July in the light of the political and military situation in Lebanon and of a recommendation by the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries (Nicosia, Cyprus, 15-17 July) to review the decision with a view to advancing the date.(1)
Israel, explaining its position in the Assembly, rejected the holding of the Conference as another narcissistic excess.
Abstaining, Ireland said the Conference would have to involve all parties, including Israel and the recognized representatives of the Palestinians, and would have to address itself to all aspects of the Palestine problem; however, as envisaged, it did not meet those requirements. Sweden expressed a similar view, adding that, for any likelihood of positive results, the parties must agree on negotiations and on the procedure for them. France held the convening of a conference premature and said the elements of a settlement must be found through discussion among all States and political forces in the region, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Though doubting whether the Conference would contribute towards a Middle East settlement, Canada nevertheless hoped it would make a serious effort to reach balanced conclusions and perhaps explore new directions. Denmark, speaking for the EC members, expressed reservations in particular on the proposed basis of and preparations for the Conference.
Several countries, among them Chile, stated their support for the holding of the Conference. Honduras considered it a further means of bringing about the desired objective of a durable peace. Austria felt that the Conference could emphasize the urgency of achieving a peaceful solution to the Palestine question. Haiti believed that the Conference might prove useful in view of the turn of the events and hoped that it might produce at least a possible outline for a comprehensive solution. Fiji said the calling for an international conference was consistent with the policy of exploring all peaceful avenues to resolve the Middle East conflict. In Ecuador's opinion, there was a pressing need to strengthen United Nations machinery for a peaceful settlement. Singapore voted in favour in view of Israel's invasion of Lebanon and because it believed that a settlement could not be achieved without PLO participation.
Spain felt that the resolution was moderate and realistic and put forward a number of praiseworthy ideas. Panama said the substance of the text essentially coincided with its own position on the Palestine question.
Though voting in favour, Burma had some reservations on the establishment of national focal points. In Iran's opinion, the resolution could have been much stronger and more constructive.
PLO expressed satisfaction that there was agreement that it was the responsibility of the United Nations to convene a conference, which should be held on the basis of the principles of the United Nations Charter and of Assembly resolutions.
Speaking during the debate, Madagascar felt that it was time to convene such a conference, as the Middle East could not be left to piecemeal impulsive ventures or moves. The German Democratic Republic said such a conference could decide on measures which would help the Palestinians in the struggle for their rights and would relieve their suffering.
Among the supporters for the holding of a conference were Argentina, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malta, Romania, Togo, Turkey, the Ukrainian SSR and Yemen.
Also during the Assembly debates on the Middle East situation and on the Palestine question at the regular session, several speakers, including Bahrain, Bangladesh, the Gambia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, expressed support for the Conference. The German Democratic Republic and Viet Nam, among others, favoured its convening without delay, as proposed by the USSR. Romania called for a redoubling of political and diplomatic activities to that end.
Speaking as Rapporteur of the Committee on Palestinian rights and the Preparatory Committee for the Conference, Malta said the Conference could establish and define the broad parameters for a peaceful Middle East solution, and so set the seal of universal approval on the different peace proposals. Speaking as Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, Senegal said the Conference should give the international community an exceptional opportunity to guide the development of the Middle East situation. Nigeria regarded the Conference as the best way to resolve all outstanding issues, and Qatar believed that its successful outcome would be of great value in restoring stability in the region.
The Ukrainian SSR hoped that all States would take part in the Conference and that its decisions would contribute to the restoration of Palestinian rights. Democratic Yemen, the Gambia and Yugoslavia had similar expectations, and Indonesia was convinced that a conference with the widest possible participation could lead to a breakthrough in the search for effective measures to enable the Palestinians to attain and exercise their rights. A breakthrough was also hoped for by Jordan.
Letter. (1) Cyprus, 29 July, transmitting communiqué of non-aligned countries A/37/366-S/15327.
Report. (2) Preparatory Committee, A/37/49 & Corr.1.
Resolution (1982). (3) GA: ES-7/7, 19 Aug., text following.
Resolution (prior). (4) GA: 36/120 C, 10 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 271).
Financial implications. ACABQ report, A/37/7/Add. 2; S-G statements, A/ES-7/19, A/C.5/37/4.
Meeting records. GA: A/ES-7/PV.12-19 (20-26 Apr.), 22 (25 June), 25-28, 29-31 (16-19 Aug.).
General Assembly resolution ES-7/7
19 August 1982 Meeting 31 123-2-18 (roll-call vote)
39-nation draft (A/ES-7/L.6 and Add.1); agenda item 5.
Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.
International Conference on the Question of Palestine
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 36/120 C of 10 December 1981, by which it decided to convene an International Conference on the Question of Palestine, not later than 1984, for a comprehensive effort to seek effective ways and means to enable the Palestinian people to attain and exercise its rights,
Deeply alarmed at the explosive situation in the Middle East resulting from the Israeli aggression against the sovereign State of Lebanon and the Palestinian people, which poses a threat to international peace and security.
Deeply aware of the responsibility of the United Nations under its Charter for the maintenance of international peace,
Gravely concerned that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has been achieved and that this problem therefore continues to aggravate the Middle East conflict, of which it is the core, and to endanger international peace and security,
Taking note of the final communiqué of the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries on the Question of Palestine, held at Nicosia from 15 to 17 July 1982,
Recognizing the need to intensity all efforts by the international community to enable the Palestinian people to attain and exercise its inalienable rights as defined and reaffirmed in United Nations resolutions,
Stressing the importance of the work of the Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on the Question of Palestine and the need for securing the broadest possible involvement of Member States in the preparatory processes leading up to the Conference, and in the Conference itself,
1. Decides to convene the International Conference on the Question of Palestine at the headquarters of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, in Paris, from 16 to 27 August 1983;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to ensure that adequate resources from the regular budget of the United Nations are provided urgently in order to enable the successful holding of the Conference and to carry out the necessary preparations for and follow up activities to the Conference;
3. Calls upon all States to co-operate with the Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on the Question of Palestine in the implementation of the present resolution and invites them to establish national focal points for effective co-ordination of preparations at the national level.
Roll-call vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, 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, Haiti, 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, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Conference preparations
Preparatory Committee activities. As authorized by the General Assembly in December 1981,(4) the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People started acting in 1982 as the Preparatory Committee for the international Conference on the Question of Palestine. To that end, the Preparatory Committee held its first session, consisting of seven meetings, in New York from 31 March to 22 October. The Secretary-General appointed Lucille M. Mair as Secretary-General of the Conference as from 1 May.
In its report to the Assembly,(1) the Committee recommended that the Conference focus on two main objectives: to increase international awareness of the facts of the Palestine question, and to attain governmental and non-governmental support for effective ways to enable the Palestinians to exercise their rights in Palestine on the basis of United Nations resolutions. The Conference was to ensure a universal commitment by States to the achievement of Palestinian rights and the establishment of a Palestinian State within the framework adopted by the Assembly in 1976(3) (when it endorsed a plan by the Committee on Palestinian rights for a solution based on Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of an independent Palestinian entity) and to set in motion agreed modalities for the implementation of agreed decisions.
The Committee made recommendations on the Conference's agenda, preparatory activities, organization of work, documentation, participation and rules of procedure.
General Assembly action. The General Assembly, on 10 December 1982,(2) endorsed the Preparatory Committee's recommendations and called for the fullest support by United Nations organizations to the Conference and its preparation. The Assembly urged Member States to promote awareness of the Conference's importance, intensify national and regional preparations, participate in the Conference and in regional preparatory meetings, contribute to the achievement of Palestinian rights and support modalities for their implementation.
The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 123 to 2, with 17 abstentions. Introducing it on behalf of 22 nations, Senegal, Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, stated that the Conference would provide a unique opportunity to heighten awareness of the underlying causes of the Palestine question and to contribute to a comprehensive, just and lasting solution. Senegal stressed the importance of the participation of all Member States.
Opposing the text, Israel said it provided for another narcissistic excess, blowing away $5.7 million on sightseeing excursions by PLO propagandists and their fellow travellers. The United States regretted that the Assembly had again endorsed a propaganda exercise that could foster only continuing animosity and confrontation.
The EC members abstained on the ground, as stated by Denmark on their behalf, that such a conference would be worth while only if it were likely to assist progress towards a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement; they had serious doubts about Preparatory Committee recommendations which were not in accordance with a balanced and constructive approach. Australia regretted that the resolution would not aid in the endeavour to achieve a settlement; to be negotiated directly by the principal parties. Norway believed the right to self-determination of the Palestinians must be transformed into reality through negotiations between the parties. In Finland's opinion, the resolution failed to provide the balance which was a prerequisite for a negotiated settlement.
Canada could not support the objectives of the Conference as recommended by the Preparatory Committee. Though it had originally voted to convene the Conference, Costa Rica abstained on the 1982 resolution after remarking that the work of the Preparatory Committee had not only failed to contribute to peace in the region but had tended to exacerbate tension. In spite of continued reservations, Sweden voted in favour in the hope that the Conference would indeed realize the other objective stated by the Committee, namely, to heighten awareness of the underlying causes of the Palestine question.
Casting an affirmative vote, Thailand expressed the view that a solution to the Palestine question must be found through a peaceful negotiated settlement with the participation of all parties, including PLO, and on the basis of United Nations resolutions. Portugal supported the text on the basis of the principles of its foreign policy, such as respect for human rights, implementation of the right to self-determination and condemnation of all armed intervention. Jamaica and Spain voted affirmatively in line with their support for the just cause of the Palestinians.
In the understanding of the Syrian Arab Republic, the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, as referred to in the third preambular and first operative paragraphs, must be based on two fundamental and inseparable principles: the Palestinians must be allowed to exercise their rights to self-determination, to return and to establish a national State in Palestine; and Israel must be compelled to withdraw completely and unconditionally from all occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee on Palestinian rights during the Assembly debate on the Palestine question, Senegal held it a good idea that the Assembly once again called on all States to take an active part in the preparatory and actual work of the Conference.
Endorsing the Committee recommendations, Viet Nam said they would undoubtedly help mobilize even wider international support for the Palestinian cause and would contribute to a Middle East solution. The recommendations were endorsed also by others, including Bangladesh and the Ukrainian SSR. Hungary hoped and Guyana and India believed the Conference would help enhance the Palestinians' cause, Indonesia believed it could lead to a breakthrough in the search for measures to enable them to attain their rights peacefully, Pakistan that it would help mobilize international support for the struggle for their rights, and Poland that it would play an important role in making possible the attainment of those rights. Sri Lanka called the Conference a laudable attempt to demonstrate concern. The Conference was also welcomed by Afghanistan, Bahrain, Czechoslovakia, the Gambia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Qatar and Tunisia.
The United Arab Emirates declared that it was prepared to host a meeting of the Economic Commission for Western Asia (ECWA) in April 1983 to discuss Conference-related questions.
Report. (1) Preparatory Committee, A/37/49 & Corr.1.
Resolution (1982). (2) GA: 37/86 C,10 Dec., text following.
Resolutions (prior). GA: (3) 31/20, 24 Nov. 1976 (YUN 1976, p. 245); (4) 36/120 C, 10 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 271).
Meeting records. GA: A/37/PV.84-88, 89, 99 (30 Nov.-10 Dec.).
General Assembly resolution 37/86 C
10 December 1982 Meeting 99 123-2-17 (recorded vote)
22-nation draft (A/37/L.44 and Add.1); agenda item 31.
Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mongolia, Pakistan, Romania, Senegal, Ukrainian SSR Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolutions 3236 (XXIX) and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974 and all other United Nations resolutions, including resolution ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980, pertinent to the question of Palestine,
Recalling also its resolutions 36/l20 C of 10 December 1981, in which it decided to convene an International Conference on the Question of Palestine for a comprehensive effort to seek effective ways and means to enable the Palestinian people to attain and to exercise their rights, and ES-7/7 of 19 August 1982, in which it decided to convene the Conference at the headquarters of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, in Paris, from 16 to 27 August 1983,
Convinced that a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East can be established, in accordance with the Charter and relevant resolutions of the United Nations, through a just solution to the problem of Palestine on the basis of the attainment of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,
Convinced that the Conference will provide a unique opportunity to heighten awareness of the underlying causes of the question of Palestine and to contribute actively and constructively to a solution of the question on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions,
Stressing the need to assure the participation of all Member States in the Conference and their support for its preparation,
Taking note with appreciation of the report of the Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on the Question of Palestine,
1. Reiterates the responsibility of the United Nations to strive for a lasting peace in the Middle East through a just solution of the problem of Palestine;
2. Endorses the recommendations of the Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, contained in paragraph 32 of its report, concerning the preparatory activities for the Conference, the objectives, the documentation, the draft provisional agenda and the draft provisional rules of procedure of the Conference, the participation in the Conference and the organization of work of the Preparatory Committee;
3. Calls upon all organizations of the United Nations system to continue to extend their fullest support to the Conference and to its preparation;
4. Urges all Member States to promote heightened awareness of the importance of the Conference and to intensify preparations at the national, sub-regional and regional levels in order to ensure its success;
5. Calls upon all Member States to contribute to the achievement of Palestinian rights and to support modalities for their implementation, and to participate in the Conference and the regional preparatory meetings preceding it;
6. Decides to consider the results of the Conference at its thirty-eighth session.
Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, 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, 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, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, 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, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom.
Assistance to Palestinians
During 1982, United Nations assistance – particularly education and training – continued to be provided to Palestinians in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and neighbouring Arab States. This was in addition to aid supplied by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
Much of this assistance continued to be financed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). By the end of 1982, the initial $3.5 million allocated by the UNDP Governing Council in 1979(8) had been fully committed for projects to assist Palestinians in various sectors, including pre-primary education, technical and vocational training, health manpower development, housing, industrial development, and children's and youth institutions. Except for a project in the Syrian Arab Republic, executed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, all operations were in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
In consultations held by UNDP with the Governments directly concerned and representatives of the Palestinians, new project proposals for future years were developed in 1982, characterized by a greater involvement of private institutions. These included assistance to community centres, specialized training for the glass and ceramics industry, and assistance to private medical institutions.
In an April report to the Governing Council,(4) the UNDP Administrator made a number of suggestions concerning the future direction of the assistance programme. He informed the Council that an agreement had been worked out with all directly interested parties on an ad hoc project implementation system which took into account the special conditions of the West Bank and Gaza. Under these arrangements, all projects were to be implemented directly by UNDP rather than another executing agency, the transfer of UNDP funds to any Government or organization as an intermediary in project implementation would be prohibited, visits by UNDP personnel to the West Bank and Gaza and meetings there with organizations and individuals would be subject to advance approval by the authorities concerned, and the Administrator would be personally involved in all aspects of project design and implementation.
The cost of the programme for the remainder of the third programming cycle ending in 1986 was estimated at about $12 million, involving average annual expenditures of $2.7 million (as compared with the previous rate of about $1 million annually).
The Governing Council, on 18 June 1982,(1) endorsed the Administrator's approach and authorized him to draw up to $4 million from UNDP Special Programme Resources for the rest of the third programming cycle. It appealed to Governments and intergovernmental organizations to provide at least an additional $8 million for that period to supplement those resources.
In addition to this direct assistance, Palestinian trainees and scholars took part in UNDP-financed training programmes for the Arab States, including such institutions as the Arab Maritime Academy and the Arab Organization for Administrative Sciences, as well as in organizations aided by UNDP, such as the Regional Institute for Training and Research in Statistics (Baghdad, Iraq) and the Arab Planning Institute (Kuwait).
The Industrial Development Board of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), on 28 May,(5) took note with appreciation of the participation of Palestinian trainees in UNIDO-organized training programmes and sought the expansion of such activities. It noted with regret that other approved technical projects of assistance to Palestinians had not been implemented and condemned the Israeli occupation authorities for blocking UNIDO efforts. The Board urged the UNIDO secretariat to take all possible measures to implement the projects and increase technical assistance to Palestinians in consultation with PLO. The Board's conclusion was adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 to 1 (United States), with 11 abstentions.
An amount of $56,000 was allocated from the United Nations Industrial Development Fund for a survey of manufacturing in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, to be carried out as part of the development survey of Palestine to be prepared by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Funds for the UNCTAD survey, authorized by the Trade and Development Board in October 1981,(9) had not been found by the end of 1982.
The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) spent $263,612 on assistance to Palestinian children and mothers in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the West Bank and Gaza. Much of this was provided through UNRWA centres. In addition, throughout the hostilities in Lebanon, UNICEF undertook relief operations for women and children in Lebanon, as well as Lebanese and Palestinian women and children temporarily sheltered in the Syrian Arab Republic. The World Food Programme supplied 340 tons of food to those refugees between July and October, enough for basic rations for 7,000 persons for 90 days.
Also during the hostilities in Lebanon, special measures were taken, at the request of the Security Council and the General Assembly, to arrange for the protection of Palestine refugees and civilians in Lebanon.
On 11 May,(6) ECWA requested its Executive Secretary, when receiving requests from PLO for assistance, to be guided by the scale on which ECWA provided assistance to the region's least developed countries. It also acted to advance work on a census of the Palestinian population.
In May 1982 (and in a later addendum),(2) the Secretary- General reported to the Assembly on assistance to Palestinians provided or planned by 21 United Nations organizations and agencies with a view to establishing and implementing projects, many of them at the request of or in co-operation with PLO, to improve the social and economic conditions of the Palestinians. A similar report, mainly covering 1982 activities, was submitted to the Economic and Social Council in May 1983.(3)
General Assembly action. By a resolution of 17 December 1982,(7) the General Assembly requested intensification of United Nations efforts, in co-operation with PLO, to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinians, and requested that such assistance in the Arab host countries be rendered in co-operation with PLO and with the host Government's consent. The Assembly also condemned Israel for its invasion of Lebanon, inflicting severe damage on civilian Palestinians, and called for assistance to the victims.
The text was adopted by a recorded vote of 143 to 2, following its approval by the Second (Economic and Financial) Committee on 19 November by a recorded vote, requested by the United Arab Emirates, of 126 to 2, with 2 abstentions.
Introducing the 22-nation draft, Pakistan said that, when the entire Palestinian nation was fighting for survival, the international community had a moral obligation to offer assistance, and a massive emergency assistance programme would be required.
Voting against the resolution, Israel said it would try to prevent the adoption of resolutions which merely hampered future assistance efforts to the Palestinians in Lebanon and elsewhere. The United States cast a negative vote on the ground that the resolution had nothing to do with practical assistance to the Palestinians but rather aimed at strengthening the PLO claim to be their representative.
Lebanon declared its understanding that all assistance to Palestinians in Lebanon would be channelled through UNRWA under Lebanese supervision.
Though voting in favour on humanitarian grounds, Chile said it did not share some of the views in the text and thought political ideas alien to the issue should have been omitted. Japan voiced reservations on assistance through the United Nations system to national liberation movements. Speaking for the EC members, Denmark said they would continue to contribute humanitarian assistance directly, through the Community and through United Nations institutions, each of which should determine for itself how and through what channels it could assist the Lebanese and Palestinians. Norway cast an affirmative vote in support of United Nations humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians but added that its position towards PLO remained unchanged.
Also voting affirmatively, Benin urged increased United Nations assistance to the Palestinians. The USSR said it supported the resolution in accordance with its desire for a just solution to Middle East problems.
Speaking during the Assembly's resumed seventh emergency special session, Bangladesh said the Palestinian refugee problem was political in origin and no humanitarian measures would eliminate the problem unless a just and lasting solution was found to the Palestine question. The Palestinians must be settled in their own homeland from where they had been uprooted; meanwhile, the United Nations and its specialized agencies should provide the economic and technical assistance necessary for the consolidation of the Palestinian entity.
Decision (1982). (1) UNDP Council (report, E/1982/16/Rev.1), 82/13, 18 June.
Reports. S-G, (2) A/37/214 & Add.1, (3) E/ 1983/72; (4) UNDP Administrator, DP/1982/18 & Corr.1; (5) IDB, A/37/16.
Resolutions. (1982). (6) ECWA (report, E/1982/22): 108 (IX), 11 May; (7) GA: 37/134, 17 Dec., text following.
Yearbook reference. (8) 1979, p. 372; (9) 1981, p. 322.
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 37/134
17 December 1982 Meeting 109 143-2 (recorded vote)
Approved by Second Committee (A/37/679) by recorded vote (126-2-2), 19 November (meeting 41); 22-nation draft (A/C.2/37/L.39); agenda item 12.
Sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, China, Congo, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, India, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.
Assistance to the Palestinian people
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution ES-7/5 of 26 June 1982,
Recalling also Security Council resolution 512 (1982) of 19 June 1982,
Recalling further Economic and Social Council resolution 1982/48 of 27 July 1982,
Expressing its deep alarm at the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which claimed the lives of a very large number of civilian Palestinians,
Horrified by the Sabra and Shatila massacre,
Noting with deep concern the dire need of the Palestinian victims of the Israeli invasion for urgent humanitarian assistance,
Noting the need to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people,
1. Condemns Israel for its invasion of Lebanon, which inflicted severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy loss of human life, intolerable suffering and massive material destruction;
2. Endorses Economic and Social Council resolution 1982/48;
3. Calls upon Governments and relevant United Nations bodies to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian victims of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon;
4. Requests the relevant programmes, agencies, organs and organizations of the United Nations system to intensity their efforts, in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization, to provide economic and social assistance to the Palestinian people;
5. Also requests that United Nations assistance to the Palestinians in the Arab host countries should be rendered in co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organization and with the consent of the Arab host Government concerned;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session, through the Economic and Social Council, on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution.
Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, 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, Dominica, 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, 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, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden 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, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, United States.
Situation between individual Arab States and Israel
Israel's invasion of Lebanon in dune 1982, and its aftermath when hostilities ended in August, was a major focus of attention in the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Assembly also dealt with the situation between Iraq and Israel resulting from Israel's aerial attack against an Iraqi nuclear reactor in June 1981, and between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic. In the Assembly debates on the Middle East situation and the Palestine question, several speakers referred to Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai peninsula and its return to Egypt (see above, under MIDDLE EAST SITUATION).
Iraq and Israel
Communications. By a letter of 6 January(1) 1982 to the Security Council President and one of 13 January(2) to the Secretary-General, Iraq charged Israeli warplanes with violation of Iraqi airspace on 31 December 1981 and 4 January 1982.
Action by the Commission on Human Rights. Expressing its conviction that the Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installation in June 1981(9) constituted a violation of the right of States to scientific and technological progress for social and economic development, the Commission on Human Rights, on 19 February 1982,(4) strongly condemned Israel for its premeditated act and called on States to cease any moral, material or human assistance which would enable Israel to pursue its policies of aggression, expansion and human rights violations.
Report of the Secretary-General. In July 1982 and in an October addendum,(3) the Secretary-General transmitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council replies received from 19 Governments to his request of 12 April for information on action taken by them in response to a November 1981 Assembly resolution calling on States to cease providing arms and related material to Israel which enabled it to commit aggression.(7) The 19 Governments either stated that they did not supply weapons of any kind to Israel or condemned the 1981 Israeli attack.
The Secretary-General also reported that on 6 April 1982 he had requested information from Israel with regard to the Assembly's demand in the same resolution that it compensate promptly and adequately for the material damage and loss of life resulting from its 1981 attack. On 9 June, Israel responded that it did not consider itself bound by the resolution but that, out of humanitarian considerations, it had made an ex gratia payment to the family of a French citizen who had lost his life in the wake of Israel's action, the nature of Iraq's relations with Israel, however, did not require or permit consideration by Israel of Iraqi claims.
General Assembly action. By a resolution of 16 November 1982,(5) the General Assembly condemned Israel for its refusal to implement the June 1981 Security Council resolution(8) on the attack against Iraq's nuclear research centre (calling on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, and stating that Iraq was entitled to redress), as well as for its threats to repeat such attacks and for its escalation of aggression in the region. Considering the Israeli act to be a violation and a denial of human rights as well as of the right of a State to scientific and technological progress for social and economic development, the Assembly requested the Council to consider measures to deter Israel from repeating such an attack. It called for the continued consideration of international legal measures to prohibit armed attacks against nuclear facilities and threats thereof, and requested the Secretary-General to prepare in 1983, with the aid of a group of experts, a study on the consequences of the Israeli attack.
The twice-revised 32-nation draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 119 to 2, with 13 abstentions.
Introducing the text, Tunisia said it reflected the international concern at the grave precedent which seriously violated international law and confirmed Israel's selfish designs in the Middle East and its determination to thwart the legitimate aspirations of the Arab peoples to scientific and technological progress.
Rejecting the resolution, Israel said it was one-sided, contained unwarranted and unacceptable demands, and would require the expenditure of funds on a group of experts at a time when the United Nations could not find even lesser sums for constructive projects. Iraq had been in a state of war with Israel for over 30 years, had consistently violated prohibitions against the threat or use of force and had openly rejected Security Council resolutions on a Middle East peace. The best way to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the region would be the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone.
The United States, which also voted against, believed that the resolution served only to reopen old wounds; the Security Council had acted promptly at the time of the attack, and intemperate and futile debate in the Assembly, resulting in unenforceable resolutions, would do nothing to serve peace.
Abstaining, Chile stated that a number of paragraphs went beyond the topic and condemned alleged intentions without providing sufficient evidence; in addition, it was up to the Council to determine whether further action was warranted. Canada abstained on the ground that the Council had the sole responsibility for determining the existence of a threat to peace, breach of peace or act of aggression; it also reserved its position on paragraph 5, which could be interpreted as meaning that States had human rights, as well as on the efficacy and cost of the proposed study. The Ivory Coast, although recalling its condemnation of Israel's aggression at the time, stressed the importance of avoiding measures that would adversely affect the quest for peace.
Though voting for the resolution, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom expressed the view that it would serve no useful purpose for the issue to become a permanent agenda item. Belgium also believed that the preamble raised extraneous matters, and Denmark voiced reservations on operative paragraphs 2 and 3. The Netherlands, pointing out that the Council was already seized of the matter by virtue of its 1981 resolution, said its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security must be respected. France and the United Kingdom voiced reservations on paragraph 7.
The Federal Republic of Germany believed that other United Nations forums would be more appropriate for discussions of the attack and its consequences; it did not believe that repeated condemnations of Israel were likely to promote conditions for solving the problems resulting from the attack and it would not support future resolutions which perpetuated those elements. Though regarding the text as a considerable improvement over the 1981 resolution on the subject,(7) Italy objected to the use in an Assembly resolution of certain terms having specific legal implications according to the Charter of the United Nations. Norway questioned the usefulness of studies and reports on the consequences of the Israeli attack, and had strong reservations on the inclusion of the item in the 1983 Assembly agenda. Sweden could not fully support all the proposals in the text, or the general and sweeping character of some formulations.
India stated that its support of the resolution was without prejudice to its views on issues such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons(6) (NPT) and related safeguards, as well as on the understanding that nothing in the text, in particular the proposed study, would be interpreted or used in any manner to strengthen the Treaty or the safeguards régime.
During the debate, Iraq stated that the Assembly had to look into the implications and consequences of Israel's act of aggression, which had attacked the principle of international security and had established a precedent that had brought the world closer to a nuclear holocaust. Pointing to reports indicating the possession of atomic weapons by Israel, Iraq said the real motive behind Israel's acquisition of such weapons was to impose a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict on its own terms. In addition to depriving the Arabs of their lands and national rights, Israel was seeking to deprive them of scientific and technological progress. Meanwhile, Israel still refused to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards and to entertain any consideration of redress for the damage its aggression had caused.
Most speakers in the debate recalled the condemnation of the Israeli raid voiced by the Assembly and the Council in 1981 and deplored Israel's failure to comply with those resolutions. Taking this position were Albania, Algeria, Bahrain, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, China, Cuba Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, India, Indonesia, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Tunisia, Turkey, the USSR, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Yugoslavia. Most of them viewed the action as a continuation of an aggressive policy that had manifested itself again in Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
Denmark, for the European Community (EC) members, repeated their call on Israel to comply fully with the Council's 1981 resolution.
Cuba and India rejected the doctrine of preventive attack. The United Arab Emirates said Israel did not have the right to decide on its own that its action was in self-defence, and Yugoslavia stated that arbitrary interpretations of the right of self-defence could not be accepted. Given Israel's refusal to renounce its proclaimed pre-emptive right to attack the peaceful nuclear installations of other countries, said Indonesia, no country with a peaceful nuclear programme under IAEA safeguards could feel secure.
Many States expressed concern that Israel had not relinquished the threat to repeat such attacks. Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates mentioned statements by the Israeli Prime Minister to the effect that Israel would destroy any nuclear installation in any Arab country. That policy, said Algeria, constituted a serious threat to peace. India said the Assembly should demand a commitment from Israel that it would not resort to such actions in future. Pakistan remarked that Israel, having developed a nuclear capacity itself, had declared its intention to deprive other States in the region of the possibility of developing even peaceful nuclear energy programmes. A similar point was made by Jordan and other Arab States.
Bulgaria warned of the hazards that could be created by military attacks against nuclear reactors, notably the spread of deadly radiation among civilians. The German Democratic Republic urged that the intentional destruction of peaceful nuclear facilities be outlawed. Indonesia and Pakistan suggested that measures be considered to prohibit attacks on such installations.
Turkey remarked that Israel's presumably increased sense of security after the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear installation and the invasion of Lebanon was deceptive and ephemeral, as real security for Israel could come only with a just and durable Middle East settlement.
Albania, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the USSR and the United Arab Emirates deplored the support given to Israel's position by the United States, especially through the supply of arms. They urged all States to cease providing such support.
Bahrain and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya urged the application of sanctions against Israel, while the Byelorussian SSR and Tunisia were among those favouring effective measures by the Security Council to restrain the aggressor. Had enforcement measures been taken after the attack against Iraq, said Indonesia, subsequent Israeli aggression could have been mitigated. Algeria thought the Assembly should demand the dismantling of the Israeli nuclear arsenal.
Several speakers mentioned the decision by the IAEA General Conference on 24 September 1982 not to accept the credentials of Israel. The United Arab Emirates regarded what it called Israel's suspension from IAEA as the first step to putting an end to that country's resort to the law of the jungle.
China, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark (for the EC members), India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Yugoslavia reaffirmed the right of all States to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. India and others added that there was no evidence to support Israel's contention that Iraq had been on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. All of Iraq's nuclear activities had been carried out in the light of day and under IAEA safeguards, said Qatar, while Israel based its nuclear activity on clandestine operations.
Noting that Iraq was a party to NPT, Kuwait and Turkey urged that IAEA safeguards be applied to Israeli nuclear activities. Unless that happened, said Qatar, Israel would persist in its nuclear blackmail against the Arab countries. The USSR said the June 1981 attack had placed into sharp relief the danger inherent in Israel's refusal to adhere to NPT.
Letters. Iraq: (1) 6 Jan., S/14826; (2) 13 Jan., A/37/68.
Report. (3) S-G, A/37/365-S/15320 & Add.1.
Resolutions (1982). (4) Commission on Human Rights (report E/1982/12): 1982/5, 19 Feb. (5) GA: 37/18,16 Nov., text following.
Resolutions (prior). GA: (6) 2373 (XXII), annex, 12 June 1968 (YUN 1968, p. 17); (7) 36/27, 13 Nov. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 282); (3) SC: 487 (1981), 19 June 1981 (ibid, p. 282).
Yearbook reference. (9) 1981, p. 275.
Financial implications. 5th Committee report, A/37/615; S-G statement, A/C.5/37/36.
Meeting records. GA: plenary, A/37/PV.49, 50, 70 (29 0ct.-16 Nov.); 5th Committee, A/C.5/37/SR.34 (15 Nov).
General Assembly resolution 37/18
16 November 1982 Meeting 70 119-2-13 (recorded vote)
32-nation draft (A/37/L.12/Rev.2 and Rev.2/Corr.1 and Rev.2/Add.1); agenda item 24.
Sponsors: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Grenada, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.
Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace end security
The General Assembly,
Having considered the item entitled "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security,
Recalling the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly,
Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General,
Taking note also of the relevant resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Commission on Human Rights,
Viewing with deep concern Israel's refusal to comply with those resolutions, particularly Security Council resolution 487 (1981) of 19 June 1981,
Gravely alarmed by the dangerous escalation of Israel's acts of aggression in the region,
Gravely concerned that Israel continues to maintain its threats to repeat such attacks against nuclear installations,
Reiterating its alarm over the information and evidence regarding the acquisition and development of nuclear weapons by Israel,
Recalling the Declaration and the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States and the Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind,
Affirming the need to ensure against the repetition of such an attack on nuclear facilities by Israel or any other State,
1. Condemns Israel's refusal to implement resolution 487 (1981), unanimously adopted by the Security Council;
2. Strongly condemns Israel for the escalation of its acts of aggression in the region;
3. Condemns Israel's threats to repeat such attacks, which would gravely endanger international peace and security;
4. Demands that Israel withdraw forthwith its officially declared threat to repeat its armed attack against nuclear facilities;
5. Considers the Israeli act of aggression to be a violation and a denial of the inalienable sovereign right of States to scientific and technological progress for achieving social and economic development and raising the standards of peoples and the dignity of the human person, as well as a violation and a denial of inalienable human rights and the sovereign right of States to scientific and technological development;
6. Requests the Security Council to consider the necessary measures to deter Israel from repeating such an attack on nuclear facilities;
7. Calls for the continuation of the consideration, at the international level, of legal measures to prohibit armed attacks against nuclear facilities, and threats thereof as a contribution to promoting and ensuring the safe development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes;
8. Requests the Secretary-General to prepare, with the assistance of a group of experts,* a comprehensive study on the consequences of the Israeli armed attack against the Iraqi nuclear installations devoted to peaceful purposes, and to submit that study to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session;
9. Further requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session on the implementation of the present resolution;
10. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty-eighth session the item entitled "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security".
*Subsequently named Group of Experts on the Consequences of the Israeli Armed Attack against the Iraqi Nuclear Installation.
Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:
In favour: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, 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, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper vote, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Australia, Bahamas, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Guatemala, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Malawi, Paraguay.
Israel and Lebanon
During the first half of 1982, the cease-fire in the Israel-Lebanon sector which had come into effect in July 1981(24) generally held, although there were serious breaches on 21 April and 9 May and tension remained at a high level (see below). Intensive efforts were made both in the field and at United Nations Headquarters to maintain the cease-fire and to restore it after hostile acts occurred. In February, the Security Council approved an increase in strength of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) – stationed in the southern part of the country north of the border with Israel – from 6,000 to approximately 7,000 troops.
The situation changed radically in early June, when Israeli aircraft attacked targets in the Beirut area and Israeli forces moved into Lebanese territory in strength. They pushed through the UNIFIL area of operation and, by late June, reached the Beirut area.
The Security Council in June twice demanded an immediate cessation of all hostilities throughout Lebanon and unconditional Israeli withdrawal to the internationally recognized boundaries. It also extended the mandate of UNIFIL for two months and authorized it on an interim basis to protect and assist the civilians in the area. A call for a cease-fire and troop withdrawal was also made in June by the General Assembly, recalled into emergency special session. As fighting continued into July the Council demanded that Israel lift its blockade of Beirut so that supplies could be sent to the civilian population.
In August, following several aborted attempts to stop the fighting and after the Council authorized the deployment of United Nations observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut, a general cease-fire was achieved. The Council again extended the UNIFIL mandate, initially for two months and then, in October, for a further three months. Meeting again in August, the Assembly condemned Israel for non-compliance with Council resolutions. Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire were condemned in September by the Council, which also authorized an increase in the number of United Nations observers in the area, from 10 to 50. With the end of hostilities but with Israeli troops remaining in southern Lebanon, the Assembly, in September and again in December, called for strict respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon.
Throughout the period of hostilities and afterwards, the Council and the Assembly called repeatedly for measures to protect Palestine refugees and civilians in Lebanon. On the scene, several United Nations organizations were involved in emergency relief and rehabilitation efforts (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter III). A massacre of Palestinian and other civilians in two refugee camps near Beirut on 17 September was condemned by the Assembly as an act of genocide. In related action, the Assembly called in August for the annual observance on 4 June of an International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression and called on Israel in December to restore Palestinian cultural property seized by Israeli forces.
Throughout this period, the Secretary-General kept the Council informed of developments in Lebanon through a series of reports, and both the Council and the Assembly received a large number of communications from Governments, particularly concerning the situation of civilians in the area.
Report and communications (February). In a special report of 16 February 1982 on UNIFIL,(18) the Secretary-General informed the Security Council that, since the adoption of its December 1981 resolution reaffirming the UNIFIL mandate until 19 June 1982,(22) the cease-fire in southern Lebanon had been maintained. The basic underlying tensions in the area had persisted, however, and the situation had remained extremely volatile. The Force had continued to face attempts at infiltration by armed elements (mainly the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Lebanese National Movement) and encroachments established in the UNIFIL area of deployment by the de facto forces (Christian and associated militias) had not been removed.
The Secretary-General noted that, while impediments remained to the further deployment of UNIFIL in its entire area of operation up to the international border, the Lebanese Government had strongly reiterated its view that a phased programme should be set in motion to achieve an increased military and civilian presence of the Government in the south, along with consolidation of the UNIFIL area of deployment and its further deployment in accordance with its mandate. He supported the strong recommendation of the Commander and the wish of the Lebanese Government that the ceiling for UNIFIL troops (currently 6,000) be increased by no less than 1,000 to reinforce operations and make further deployment possible. He also stressed the importance of the full co-operation of the parties and remarked that the precarious cease-fire had never been intended as a substitute for fulfilment of the UNIFIL mandate.
By a letter of 16 February to the Council,(9) Lebanon confirmed the requests of its Government concerning UNIFIL, as presented in a memorandum to the Secretary-General on 14 December 1981.(25) On 23 February 1982,(10) Lebanon transmitted a memorandum of 16 February, prepared by a Lebanese parliamentary delegation prior to a meeting with the Secretary-General on 18 February, calling for full implementation of the UNIFIL mandate through the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon and the return of the Lebanese Government's effective authority in the area.
By a letter of 19 February,(3) Cuba, as Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and on behalf of its Co-ordinating Bureau, expressed concern over the concentration of Israeli war resources and troops at the border with Lebanon and called on the Security Council President and the Secretary-General to bring an end to those Israeli actions.
Security Council action (February). The Security Council met on 23 and 25 February 1982 in accordance with its December 1981 decision, at the time of its most recent renewal of the UNIFIL mandate, to review within two months the situation in southern Lebanon.
By a resolution of 25 February,(20) the Council reaffirmed its 1978 resolution calling on Israel to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and establishing UNLFIL,(21) and approved an immediate increase in the strength of the Force from 6,000 to approximately 7,000 troops. The Council re-emphasized the terms of reference and general guidelines of UNIFIL, and called on the Secretary-General to renew his efforts to reactivate the 1949 General Armistice Agreement(23) and, in particular, to convene an early meeting of the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission (ILMAC). The Secretary-General was also requested to continue discussions with the Lebanese Government and the parties, with a view to submitting a report by 10 June 1982 on the requirements for further progress in a phased programme of activities with the Government of Lebanon. He was also asked for a progress report on the situation as a whole within two months.
The resolution, prepared in the course of consultations, was adopted by 13 votes to none, with 2 abstentions. Before its adoption, Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic were invited, at their request, to participate without vote in the discussion.
At the request of Jordan in a letter of 23 February,(7) the Council decided on the same day that an invitation should be accorded to PLO 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 Council's provisional rules of procedure. a/ 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).
a/ Rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure states: "Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may be invited, as the result of a decision of the Security Council, to participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council when the Security Council considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected, or when a Member brings a matter to the attention of the Security Council in accordance with Article 35 (I) of the Charter."
The Council acted without vote to extend an invitation under rule 39 b/ to the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, as requested by Jordan in a letter of the same date.(8)
b/ Rule 39 of the Councils provisional rules of procedure states: The Security Council may invite members of the Secretariat or other persons, whom it considers competent for the purpose, to supply it with information or to give it other assistance in examining matters within its competence.
Poland and the USSR abstained in the vote on the resolution because of their positions of principle on UNIFIL. The USSR said, however, that it did not object to the increase in the Force's strength, primarily to ensure its possible further deployment in accordance with its mandate; in the light of the extremely tense and explosive situation in southern Lebanon, the Council must be enabled to monitor the situation and keep abreast of all matters connected with the strength of the Force and its deployment.
France and the United States supported the increase. France also favoured redeployment of the strengthened Force to effect a continuous link between its two current emplacements, endorsed its right to defend itself and return fire, and held it necessary to reaffirm Israel's obligation to withdraw from the enclave of the de facto forces and to resume the activities of ILMAC. The United States said the dangerous cycle of violence should be addressed in all its aspects and complexities, and hoped that a reinforced UNIFIL would be able to deal more effectively with incursions and violence of all kinds and from all sources; it regretted that some elements had been added that seemed extraneous to the basic purpose of the resolution.
Opening the debate, Lebanon said the Council had the power to reverse what otherwise appeared to be an irreversible process towards war, by reinforcing the existing conflict-control mechanisms and acting to prevent a frail and volatile cease-fire from becoming another prelude to death and destruction. To that end, Lebanon proposed the following Council action: an injunction to ensure Israel's withdrawal so that the 1949 General Armistice Agreement might be reinstated; a qualitative and quantitative enhancement of UNIFIL capabilities; and strict and forceful implementation of a joint phased programme of action, agreed upon between the Lebanese Government and the Secretary-General, to ensure the gradual transition of the responsibilities for peace and security from UNIFIL to the Lebanese Army thereby restoring Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity Lebanon reaffirmed its strong conviction that if UNIFIL was not given a new lease on life, it would remain a helpless hostage caught in an ever-expanding cycle of turmoil and violence.
Jordan stated that Israel's so-called de facto enclave, intended for use as a springboard for the seizure and annexation of southern Lebanon to steal the waters of the Litani River, had prevented UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army from carrying out their task of restoring the Lebanese Government's authority. The League of Arab States observer, supporting Lebanon's plea to recover its full authority in the south, said Israel, with its long-planned threat of invasion, intended to destroy the Palestinians' political and social presence everywhere, in all their places of temporary or permanent abode, as it had done in Palestine.
The Syrian Arab Republic charged Israel with plans for establishing a "Greater Israel" through occupation and annexation.
Israel stated that Lebanon's problems far transcended the issue of the UNIFIL area of operation; the erosion of Lebanon's sovereignty had begun in the early 1970s with the arrival of large numbers of armed PLO terrorists, who over recent years had turned southern Lebanon into a staging-post for murderous incursions into Israel. As long as non-Lebanese elements, including an occupying army of upwards of 25,000 Syrian troops, were allowed to operate within and from Lebanon, there would be no real progress towards the return of the Lebanese Government's effective authority. With regard to the 1949 General Armistice Agreement, Israel said it had been brought to an end by Lebanon in June 1967; after that, Lebanon had repeatedly demonstrated that it no longer considered the Agreement in force by concluding a series of agreements with PLO that were totally incompatible with its obligations under the Agreement. Israel continued to support the political independence, sovereignty territorial integrity and unity of Lebanon.
The PLO observer warned that Israel's statement and the concentration of its troops along the Lebanese border were a prelude to another invasion of southern Lebanon, aimed at eliminating the Palestinians and occupying Lebanese territory.
Ireland stated that the Council, in addition to approving the request to strengthen UNIFIL, should insist on full respect for the Force, maintain pressure on all concerned to co-operate with it and allow it to deploy fully; UNIFIL was not a substitute for continuing peace efforts.
The United States expressed its commitment to the restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity; believed that the cycle of violence afflicting the area was profoundly dangerous to the security, peace and well-being of the region and should be addressed in all its aspects and complexities. It expected that the reinforced UNIFIL troops would be able to deal more effectively with the incursions and violations of all kinds and from all sources.
The USSR shared the concern of the Lebanese Government over the abnormal situation in southern Lebanon and the failure of UNIFIL to implement its mandate, and charged that there were preparations for a new stage of Israeli aggression and the existence of a threat to Lebanon.
Communications (March). By a letter of 1 March,(2) the Secretary-General informed the Security Council President of his intention, in the light of the Council's resolution of 25 February, to request France to provide an infantry battalion to UNIFIL, to request other troop-contributing countries whose contingents needed to be strengthened to do so, and to request additions to the existing logistic and maintenance units of the Force. The President responded on 11 March(1) that the Council members, in informal consultations had agreed with the Secretary-General's proposals (see below, under UN INTERIM FORCE IN LEBANON ).
Security Council action (April). By a letter of 10 April,; (11) Lebanon complained to the Security Council President about massive Israeli troop concentrations on the Lebanese-Israeli border and Israeli threats against its territorial integrity. On 21 April,(12) it further charged that the Israeli Air Force had launched three extensive attacks on the coastal area south of Beirut and northeast of Sidon, causing heavy casualties and severe damage to civilian property, and requested urgent consultations of the Council on measures to avoid further escalation and deterioration of the situation.
On 22 April, following consultations, the President issued the following statement on behalf of the Council members:(17)
"The President of the Security Council and the members of the Council, having taken note of the letter dated 21 April 1982 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations, the oral report of the Secretary-General and his appeal of 21 April 1982, which reads as follows:
'The Secretary-General has learned with deep concern of the Israeli air strikes today in Lebanon.
'He urgently appeals for an immediate cessation of all hostile acts and urges all parties to exercise the maximum restraint so that the cease-fire, which has generally held since July 1981, can be fully restored and maintained.',
1. Urgently demand an end to all armed attacks and violations which jeopardize the cease-fire which has been in effect since 24 July 1981 and warn against any recurrence of violations of the cease-fire, in accordance with Security Council resolution 490 (1981) of 21 July 1981;
2. Enjoin all the parties to fulfil their responsibilities with respect to peace and invite them to work for consolidation of the cease-fire."
Report of the Secretary-General (April). On 25 April 1982,(19) in pursuance of the Council resolution of 25 February (see above), the Secretary-General submitted a special report on UNIFIL, in which he stressed that the situation in southern Lebanon had remained extremely volatile. While the cease-fire had generally held, unresolved tensions had led to the real danger of widespread hostilities. He referred to the Israeli air strikes into Lebanon on 21 April and to the appeal he had made that day for an immediate cessation of all hostile acts and for maximum restraint by all parties. Yet the cease-fire, however important, was no substitute for fulfilment of the UNIFIL mandate, and there had been little progress in that direction.
The Secretary-General informed the Council that Ghana, Ireland, Nepal and Norway had agreed to increase their UNIFIL contingents, and that France had agreed in principle to his request for a battalion of approximately 600 men. Further, he had instructed the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) to contact the Israeli and Lebanese Governments with a view to reactivating the 1949 General Armistice Agreement and convening an early meeting of ILMAC.
With regard to implementation of the phased programme of activities with the Government of Lebanon, the Secretary-General reported that the UNIFIL Commander had initiated meetings aimed at enlisting support for certain early steps that would demonstrate the parties' desire to co-operate with UNIFIL and contribute to a reduction of tension. He expressed the conviction that the unimpeded implementation of the UNIFIL mandate was in the best interest of all parties and that the Force was a critical factor for restraint and stability in a continuously dangerous situation.
Other communications (April-May). In connection with Israeli air strikes against Lebanon, a number of communications were addressed to the Secretary-General, including a letter from Japan, of 22 April, transmitting a statement of that date by the Director-General of the Public Information and Cultural Affairs Bureau of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs;(6) a letter of 26 April from the USSR transmitting a TASS statement of 22 April;(16) and a letter of 3 May from Mongolia conveying a statement of 24 April by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs.(15) All three deplored the bombardments, which the Japanese statement called an infringement on Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and which the others said were partly a United States responsibility because of its support for the aggressor.
On 10 May,(13) Lebanon complained to the Security Council President of further Israeli air raids against its territory on 9 May, which had resulted, according to preliminary reports, in the death of at least 11 persons, the wounding of 37 others and extensive property damage.
By a letter of the same date to the Secretary-General and the Council President,(4) Israel charged that PLO, operating from Lebanese territory against civilians in Israel, had been responsible for a number of terrorist attacks, including a bomb explosion on a passenger bus in Jerusalem and an explosion at a high school in Ashkelon, both on 9 May; Israel added that it was duty-bound to take all necessary measures to protect its citizens.
In a response of 17 May,(14) Lebanon stated that it could not be held accountable in that context and was not a party to the cease-fire of July 1981, which according to Israeli and United States statements was between Israel and PLO; the only agreement governing Lebanese-Israeli relations was the 1949 General Armistice Agreement.
Israel took exception to the Lebanese position in a letter of 27 May, stating that Lebanon's duty to prevent its territory from being used for terrorist attacks against other States was based on international law.(5)
General Assembly consideration (April). During the General Assembly's resumed seventh emergency special session in April, called to consider the Palestine question, a number of speakers among them China, Sweden, Uganda, the United Kingdom and Venezuela, condemned Israel's aggression against Lebanon. Concern at the renewed fighting was expressed by Japan, Norway and others. Once again, Malta remarked, Lebanon had become a synonym for senseless destruction and bloodshed.
Several countries expressed the fear that Israel was preparing for an invasion. In Iraq's view, Israel was preparing to strike at the Palestinian resistance in southern Lebanon; in preparation for its aggression, Israel had spread a huge wave of terror across the occupied territories. Qatar said 14,000 heavily armed Israeli soldiers had already been massed at the border.
The German Democratic Republic, Madagascar, the Philippines and others were concerned that the events in Lebanon were leading to the deterioration of an already explosive situation and towards war.
Austria also believed that the recent Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory had escalated the risk of confrontation. While Belgium (speaking for the EC members) said the recent development in Lebanon emphasized the need for peace efforts Romania believed that Israel's air raids made it more difficult to begin a genuine peace process. Far from reflecting a desire for peace, Pakistan stated, Israel's bellicose behaviour betrayed its insatiable avarice for expansion and its attempt to terrorize its Arab neighbours into accepting its occupation of Arab and Palestinian territories. In Djibouti's opinion, the attack on southern Lebanon revealed that Israel's policy was aimed at intimidating the Palestinians and weakening their determination to exercise their right to establish an independent State in Palestine. Togo felt that the bombing of Beirut on 21 April was pouring oil on the flames at a time when the Secretary-General had been requested to undertake new efforts to persuade all the parties to sit down at the negotiating table.
Sweden and Romania urged restraint by all parties, and Finland called for respect of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty. Norway strongly appealed to the parties to help UNIFIL fulfil its mandate.
Letters. (1) SC President: 11 Mar., S/14900. (2) S-G: 1 Mar., S/14899. (3) Cuba: 19 Feb., A/37/95-S/14880. Israel: (4) 10 May, A/37/223 (S/15066); (5) 27 May, A/37/257-S/15132; (6) Japan: 22 Apr., S/14994. Jordan, 23 Feb.; (7) S/14878; (8) S/14883. Lebanon: (9) 16 Feb., S/14875; (10) 23 Feb., S/14888 (11) 10 Apr., S/14962; (12) 21 Apr., S/14989; (13) 10 May, S/l5064 & Corr.1 (14) 17 May, A/37/228 (S/15087); (15) Mongolia: 3 May, S/15034. (16) USSR: 26 Apr., S/15005.
Note. (7) SC President, S/14995.
Reports. S-G, (18) S/14869, (19) S/14996 & Corr.1.
Resolution (1982). SC: (20) 501(1982), 25 Feb., text following.
Resolutions (prior). SC: (21) 425 (l978), 19 Mar. 1978 (YUN 1978, p. 312); (22) 498 (1981), 18 Dec. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 292).
Yearbook references. (23) 1948-49, p. 185; 1981; (24) p. 289; (25) p. 290.
Meeting records. SC: S/PV.2331, 2332 (23, 25 Feb.).
Security Council resolution 501 (1982)
25 February 1982 Meeting 2332 13-0-2
Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/14890).
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 427 (19781, 434 (1978), 444 (1979), 450 (1979), 459 (1979), 467 (1980), 474 (1980), 483 (1980), 488 (1981), 490 (1981) and 498 (1981),
Acting in accordance with its resolution 498 (1981), and in particular with paragraph 10 of that resolution in which it decided to review the situation as a whole,
Having studied the special report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,
Taking note of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the President of the Security Council,
Having reviewed the situation as a whole in the light of the report of the Secretary-General and of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon,
Noting from the report of the Secretary-General that it is the strong recommendation of the Commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, and also the wish of the Government of Lebanon, that the ceiling for troops of the Force should be increased, and that the Secretary-General fully supports the recommendation for an increase by one thousand of the troop strength of the Force,
1. Reaffirms its resolution 425 (1978) which reads:
"The Security Council,
"Taking note of the letters from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon and from the Permanent Representative of Israel,
"Having heard the statements of the Permanent Representatives of Lebanon and Israel,
Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and its consequences to the maintenance of international peace,
"Convinced that the present situation impedes the achievement of a just peace in the Middle East,
"1. Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally-recognized boundaries;
"2. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;
"3. Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;
"4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within twenty-four hours on the implementation of the present resolution."
2. Decides to approve the immediate increase in the strength of the United Nations interim Force in Lebanon recommended by the Secretary-General in paragraph 6 of his report, from six thousand to approximately seven thousand troops, to reinforce present operations as well as to make further deployment possible on the lines of resolution 425 (1978);
3. Re-emphasizes the terms of reference and general guidelines of the Force as stated in the report of the Secretary- General of 19 March 1978 confirmed by resolution 426 (1978), and particularly:
(a) That the Force "must be able to function as an integrated and efficient military unit";
(b) That the Force "must enjoy the freedom of movement and communication and other facilities that are necessary to the performance of its tasks";
(c) That the Force "will not use force except in self-defence";
(d) That "self-defence would include resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council";
4. Calls upon the Secretary-General to renew his efforts to reactivate the General Armistice Agreement between Lebanon and Israel of 23 March 1949 and, in particular, to convene an early meeting of the Mixed Armistice Commission;
5. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his discussions with the Government of Lebanon and the parties concerned with a view to submitting a report by 10 June 1982 on the necessary requirements for achieving funkier progress in a phased programme of activities with the Government of Lebanon;
6. Decides to remain seized of the question and invites the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the situation as a whole within two months.
Vote in Council as follows:
In favour: China, Franca Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Panama, Spain, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire.
Against: None.
Abstaining: Poland, USSR.
Armed conflict
Following further Israeli air raids in the Beirut area on 4 June and intense exchanges of fire on the ground in southern Lebanon, Israeli forces moved into Lebanon in strength on 6 June. At 10 meetings throughout dune end July, the Security Council considered the situation, calling on 5 and 6 June for a cessation of all military activities, adherence to the cease-fire that had been in effect since July 1981, and unconditional Israeli withdrawal. The Council was kept informed of the events in Lebanon by the Secretary-General, who received information from UNIFIL and United Nations officials in various parts of Lebanon.
The Council's demands were supported by the General Assembly in a resolution adopted on 26 June at its seventh emergency special session on the Palestine question.
As recommended by the Secretary-General, the Council renewed on 18 June the mandate of UNIFIL for an interim period of two months and authorized the Force to carry out humanitarian assistance. On 19 June, the Council called on the combatants to refrain from violence against civilians and appealed to them to facilitate relief efforts. On 4 July, the Council called for a restoration of vital facilities such as water supply, electricity, food and medicines, particularly to the Beirut population. Further, on 29 July, the Council demanded that Israel lift its blockade of Beirut to permit the dispatch of supplies and distribution of aid.
Not adopted because of negative votes by a permanent member of the Council – the United States – were a draft resolution by Spain (8 June) and one by France (26 June). A proposal by Egypt and France was not pressed to a vote (29 July).
Security Council action (4 June). By a letter of 4 June,(36) Lebanon complained that Israeli military aircraft had conducted nine successive bombing raids on the city of Beirut that afternoon, hit tiny civilian targets in densely populated areas. Further, Israeli forces supported by seacraft had begun to shell the area north of Nabatiyeh in southern Lebanon, causing an undetermined number of casualties. By the same letter, and by another of the same date,(37) Lebanon called for urgent consideration of the situation by the Security Council.
Also on 4 June, Jordan transmitted a letter of the same date from the PLO Deputy Permanent Observer at the United Nations charging Israel with bombing attacks against Beirut and southern Lebanon lasting two hours, hitting the Palestine refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila, and leaving at least 35 dead and 150 seriously wounded by incomplete count.(24)
On the same day, following consultations, the Council members authorized the President to make the following statement on their behalf:(89)
"The President and the members of the Council have learned with concern of the serious events which occurred today in Lebanon and of the loss of human life and the destruction caused by those events. The President and the members of the Council make an urgent appeal to all the parties to adhere strictly to the cease-fire that had been in effect since 24 July 1981 and to refrain immediately from any hostile act likely to provoke an aggravation of the situation."
Security Council action (5 June). On 5 June (11) Cuba transmitted to the Security Council President a message of the same date from the Chairman of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries, then in session at Havana, Cuba, requesting an immediate Council meeting to put an end to Israel's continued aggression and to adopt appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The Council, meeting on 5 June in response to Lebanon's request of the previous day, unanimously adopted a resolution(79) by which it called on all parties to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border by 0600 hours local time on 6 June. The Council requested Member States in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear on those concerned so that the cessation of hostilities declared by the Council in duly 1981(87) could be respected. The Secretary-General was requested to report within 40 hours on implementation of and compliance with the resolution.
Submitting the text, Japan warned that the use of force could escalate further.
Before the adoption of the resolution, the Council invited Israel and Lebanon, at their request to participate in the discussion without vote.
At Jordan's request, conveyed by a letter of 5 June,(25) the Council also decided that an invitation should be accorded to a PLO representative and that the invitation would confer on it the same rights of participation as those conferred on a Member State invited under rule 37 of its provisional rules of procedure.c/ The decision was taken by a vote, requested by the United States, of 11 to 1 (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Japan, United Kingdom).
c/ See footnote a.
Also at the request of Jordan,(26) the Council extended an invitation under rule 39 d/ to the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations.
d/ See footnote b.
Addressing the Council, the Secretary-General gave an overview of developments in Beirut and southern Lebanon, based on information from UNIFIL and UNTSO. He reported that Israeli air strikes around Beirut had lasted about an hour on 4 June. Targets had included a Palestinian camp, the sports stadium area next to Sabra camp and the western perimeter of Beirut airport. Initial casualty estimates included some 40 dead, but the number could be higher. In the south, heavy exchanges of fire had commenced between positions of the armed elements (mainly PLO and the Lebanese National Movement) on one side and the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and the de facto forces (Christian and associated militia) on the other. As of 5 June, firing was still in progress, and Israeli air strikes had taken place in southern Lebanon and around Beirut and Damour. In view of the continuing hostilities, the build-up of forces south of the border and the danger of further escalation, he had remained in close touch with the parties urging them to restore and maintain the cease-fire and to cease hostilities simultaneously by 0600 hours on 6 June.
Lebanon considered the resolution adopted by the Council a practical measure to stop a catastrophe, adding that not only the fate of Lebanon was at stake, but also peace and security in the Middle East. Air raids and artillery shelling from land and sea were continuing, not against military positions but against civilians. Thousands of refugees were flooding Beirut from the south, seeking shelter despite the air raids against the city itself. To penalize Lebanon for everyone's crimes was simply murderous.
Israel said that if Lebanon was unwilling or unable to prevent the harbouring, training and financing of PLO terrorists openly operating from Lebanese territory with a view to harassing Israel, Israelis and Jews world-wide, it must be prepared to face the risk of Israeli countermeasures. Since July 1981 about 150 terrorist acts had been instigated by PLO against Israelis and Jews in Israel and elsewhere, most recently the wounding of the Israeli Ambassador in London (on 3 June). PLO deliberately established bases in civilian neighbourhoods and thus bore responsibility for losses of civilian lives in such places.
The PLO observer stated that his organization had no connection with the attempt to assassinate the Ambassador and was opposed to any act of violence outside the occupied land or involving an innocent party; however, Israel, which had expelled the Palestinians from their homes, had pursued them into their places of refuge, killing and destroying indiscriminately.
Ireland and the United Kingdom believed that the assassination attempt did not justify the massive Israeli attacks on Lebanese cities and towns, and called for a halt to the conflict and restoration of the cease-fire. France, condemning the Israeli air raids, said force would not guarantee Israel's right to live within secure and recognized boundaries, the right of the Palestinians to their own land and Lebanon's right to live in peace.
The USSR believed that in adopting the resolution the Council had not met all its responsibilities; the text did not reflect clearly enough the condemnation Israel deserved and the Council should use all means available in accordance with the United Nations Charter to halt Israeli aggression.
The observer of the League of Arab States said the Council's resolution should be a deterrent to the further escalation of aggression and the invasion of Lebanon which Israel had been planning.
Report of the Secretary-General (6 June). Submitting on 6 June the report(74) requested by the Council on 5 June, the Secretary-General stated that, following the adoption of the Council resolution, PLO had reaffirmed its commitment to stop all military operations across the Lebanese border, while reserving its right to respond to any Israeli aggression. Israel had informed him that while it had been acting in exercise of its right to self-defence, the Council resolution would be brought before the Cabinet. The Secretary-General also had instructed the UNIFIL Commander to use every possibility to follow up on his appeal to the parties and on the Council resolution.
Despite all efforts throughout the night, however, it had not been possible to effect a cease-fire. Rather, the hostilities had escalated dangerously and Israeli ground forces, estimated at more than two mechanized divisions with full air and naval support, had moved into southern Lebanon. This movement, including a large number of tanks and armoured personnel carriers in the coastal, central and eastern sectors, had begun at around 0930 hours (GMT) (11.30 a.m. local time) on 6 June, following intensive air attacks.
As Israeli forces moved into southern Lebanon, the report stated, the UNIFIL Commander had ordered standard operational procedures to be put into effect by all units, including measures to block advancing forces and also defence measures. However, the overwhelming strength and weight of the Israeli forces had precluded the possibility of stopping them, and UNIFIL positions in the line of the invasion had been overrun or bypassed. One Norwegian soldier of the Force had been killed by shrapnel.
Security Council action (6 June). By a resolution of 6 June,(80) the Council demanded that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon, and that all parties strictly observe its 5 June call for immediate and simultaneous cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. All parties were called upon to communicate to the Secretary-General their acceptance of the resolution within 24 hours.
The resolution was adopted unanimously. Introducing it, Ireland said that, in view of the massive invasion, the Council had to demand an end to all hostilities and the strictest respect for Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence.
In addition to Israel, Lebanon, PLO and the League of Arab States, invited by the Council on 5 June, Egypt was invited, at its request, to participate without vote in the discussion.
Speaking in the Council, Israel reaffirmed its right to self-defence to stop the attacks across its northern border from PLO bases in southern Lebanon, to deter continued terrorism against its citizens and to ensure their safety. Of the 15,000 armed PLO terrorists in Lebanon, operating under complete Syrian control, over 2,000 were positioned south of the Litani River, including around 700 within the UNIFIL area of operation. However, the Council had not evinced the slightest interest in the warfare, violence and terrorism committed by Arabs against Israel. The Israeli Cabinet had decided on 6 June to instruct the IDF, in an operation called "Peace for Galilee", to place all the civilian population of Galilee (in northern Israel) beyond the range of the terrorists' fire from Lebanon. During that operation, the Syrian army would not be attacked unless it attacked Israeli forces. Israel continued to aspire to signing a peace treaty with Lebanon, its territorial integrity preserved, the Cabinet had added.
Lebanon stated that the aggressor, having sent its armies, air force and navy to kill and destroy, was pretending to be the victim of aggression. According to Israel's interpretation of international law, the United Nations should be disbanded and Israel should be entrusted with implementation of the Charter and preservation of the rights of nations. However, Israel could not live peacefully by endlessly killing and destroying. While Lebanon would have preferred a different resolution, it considered the text adopted an important step towards peace and the guarantee of everybody's rights.
The PLO observer said that, as long as Palestinian children slept in refugee camps, Israel could expect no peace in Palestine; in the face of Israel's brutal attacks aimed at extermination of the Palestinians, the latter were simply exercising their right to self-defence.
Declaring firm support for the Lebanese struggle against aggression, China said the Council should adopt a resolution which explicitly condemned Israeli aggression, demanded its cessation and called on Israel to withdraw its troops immediately, totally and unconditionally.
Egypt, condemning the invasion, said the Council had to prevent a return to concepts and doctrines which should have been abandoned after the initiation of the Middle East peace process.
Guyana stated that the unfortunate attack on the Israeli Ambassador in London did not justify the widespread destruction, human suffering and illegal invasion that had taken place; to accept such justification would be to usher in a system of inter-State relations based on vengeance and violence.
In Poland's opinion, there were good reasons to believe that Israel's attack was only the first stage of a larger military and political design; something more forceful than remonstrations had to be applied in order to deter the aggressor. Though holding that the resolution did not fully respond to the extremely serious and steadily worsening situation and did not reflect the need to condemn Israel for its acts of aggression, the USSR supported the text, taking into consideration the demand for full and unconditional Israeli withdrawal; it saw Israel's action as an attempt to annihilate the Palestinian resistance fighters, frighten the Palestinian people and break their resolve to struggle for freedom and independence.
The United States said the two interrelated objectives of the resolution – cessation of hostilities by all parties and Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon – had to be implemented simultaneously.
The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, interpreted the resolution as transitional and aimed at rectifying a fundamental transgression of Lebanese sovereignty; in the case of Israel's non-compliance, the Council must see to it that there was a contingency plan.
By a letter of 6 June,(44) Oman, on behalf of the members of the League of Arab States at the United Nations, urged the Council to take immediately all necessary measures to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of its resolutions and to help restore Lebanon's territorial integrity, and called for condemnation of Israel's defiance of the Council's unanimous will.
The Secretary-General informed the Council, in a report of 7 June,(75) of the responses received that day to its resolution of 6 June. While it would have preferred a resolution clearly based on the 1949 General Armistice Agreement and calling on Israel to abide by it, Lebanon pledged its full support for the Council's efforts to restore peace and security. Israel declared that any withdrawal of its military forces prior to the conclusion of concrete arrangements which would permanently and reliably preclude hostile action against its citizens was inconceivable. The PLO reply was that its Lebanese Palestinian Joint Command agreed with the Secretary-General's message transmitting the resolution.
Security Council consideration (8 June). Stating that the Council's urgent appeal had been totally ignored by Israel, Spain introduced on 8 June a draft resolution(3) condemning Israel's non-compliance with the Council resolutions of 5 and 6 June, and urging the parties to comply strictly with the regulations attached to the Hague Convention of 1907 (on the conduct of warfare). The Council was asked to reiterate the demand for withdrawal of all Israeli military forces and strict observance of the call for immediate and simultaneous cessation of all military activities, and to demand that all hostilities be stopped within six hours. In the event of non-compliance, the Council would have met again to consider practical ways and means in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
The resolution received 14 votes to 1 (United States) and was not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent Council member.
Introducing the draft, Spain said it was difficult for Israel to convince the Council by citing a long list of acts of violence, when the most serious violence was that of depriving a people of the right to its homeland, its territory and to a free life; it was tragic that Israel should point an accusing finger and attempt to undermine the prestige and prerogatives of the Council at the very time when it was launching an armed invasion against a sovereign State, ignoring both the calls of the Council and the requests and appeals for peace made by numerous heads of State.
Explaining its opposition, the United States said the text was not sufficiently balanced to end the cycle of violence in Lebanon; the United States would continue its own efforts to bring the violence to an end.
Expressing deep regret at the non-adoption of the text, Ireland said it had voted in favour because it wanted an end to the bloodshed, was concerned about the dangers of the conflict spreading and feared the damage to the concept of United Nations peace-keeping; the total of lives lost and casualties suffered in all attacks on Israeli citizens over recent years must have been less than the deaths and injuries caused by the Israeli air raids on Beirut, which were merely one aspect of the larger attack.
Describing the United States vote as disgraceful, the USSR said the attack on Lebanon, undertaken with Washington's agreement and support, was a direct consequence of American-Israeli strategic co-operation. The Council should immediately take measures to ensure that the aggression ceased, to force Israel to respect the Charter and United Nations resolutions, and to protect Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and legitimate Arab rights and interests.
France, stating that it fully supported the draft resolution, said it had no hesitation in condemning Israel's intervention just as it had had none in condemning the other interventions in Lebanon carried out against the country's legitimate rulers.
Lebanon trusted that the Council would take note of the fact that there was also a serious United States commitment to immediate and unconditional Israeli withdrawal, and that the United States would continue its efforts in response to the Council's appeal.
The PLO observer stated that the veto of a resolution that would have helped to maintain international peace and security meant that the United States was determined to maintain war, aggression and bloodshed; it had not tried to stop the invasion and it had had a part in what was happening. The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, remarked that the perception of the United States being in collusion with Israel could have been corrected, had the United States not exercised its veto.
At a meeting of 8 June preceding the one at which the vote was taken, the Secretary-General reported that information received from the area indicated that extensive hostilities were still in progress. On the coast, the inhabitants had left the town of Tyre and UNIFIL was trying to get food, water and medical supplies to the area. Intensive military activity had continued north of the Litani River, including air strikes. Positions of UNIFIL continued to be overrun despite their efforts to place obstacles in the way of advancing Israeli tank columns. Force headquarters at Naquora had been cut off from all UNIFIL battalions since the start of the operation. The continuing spread and escalation of the hostilities was a matter of most profound concern.
Lebanon appealed to the Council to enforce its resolutions of 5 and 6 June and to take all measures in its power and under the Charter to stop the war immediately and to prevent a Member State from being murdered. Israel was not only violating Lebanon's integrity, but also human rights and the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The Lebanese Red Cross had stated that its ambulances, automobiles and volunteers had been attacked by Israelis and prevented from fulfilling their duty to evacuate the wounded and to transport medical supplies and food.
Israel said the Council had convened in order to save a terrorist organization from well-deserved and long-overdue retribution, after having treated with indifference Israeli complaints with regard to PLO barbarism originating from Lebanon. It was Israel's right and duty to protect the lives of its citizens and ensure their safety. Israel had no territorial ambitions in Lebanon, but was entitled to demand arrangements to ensure that Lebanon would no longer serve as a staging ground for terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Israel fully supported restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty but insisted that Lebanon equally acknowledge Israel's right to live in peace and security without the threat of harassment and attacks.
Expressing concern that the stability of the entire Middle East might be seriously jeopardized if Israel's massive invasion was prolonged and the counter-attacks continued, Japan demanded that all parties cease hostilities at once and that Israel withdraw immediately and unconditionally.
Security Council action (18 June). As the mandate of UNIFIL was due to expire on 19 June 1982, the Secretary-General submitted on 10 June (with later addenda) a report on the activities of the Force from the period just prior to the most recent renewal of its mandate in December 1981(88) until 13 June when the large-scale movement of Israeli forces into Lebanon was still in progress.(76)
In the main part of this report, covering the period 11 December 1981 to 3 June 1982, the Secretary-General noted continued activities by armed elements the Lebanese Shi'ite armed organization AMA, the de facto forces and IDF within and near the UNIFIL area of operation, along with attempts by armed elements to establish positions in the UNIFIL area. The presence of Israeli personnel and equipment inside the enclave of the de facto forces (a zone on the Lebanese side of the Israel-Lebanon border within which UNIFIL could not fully exercise its functions) remained at a high level, and further work had been undertaken by IDF to strengthen observation posts and gun positions. During 17 reported incidents, UNIFIL positions and personnel had come under close fire by IDF. Force personnel had observed numerous violations by Israel of Lebanese airspace and waters. Both at United Nations Headquarters and in the field, intense efforts had been made to restore the cease-fire, especially after the Israeli air attacks on 21 April and 9 May.
In two addenda to his report, dated 11 and 14 June, the Secretary-General referred to events between 4 and 10 June and between 11 and 13 June, respectively, during which time Israeli forces moved into Lebanon in strength (see above). By 7 June, Israeli forces had reached positions north of the UNIFIL area, and subsequent events, including intense fighting reported from numerous areas of Lebanon, occurred outside its area of operation. Despite the fundamentally altered situation and restrictions of movement, UNIFIL troops continued to man their positions and were endeavouring, to the extent possible, to extend protection and humanitarian assistance to the population in the area, as instructed by the Secretary-General.
There were reported agreements on a cease-fire on 11 and 12 June but the fighting had continued. On both occasions, PLO had informed the United Nations of its acceptance of the Council's cease-fire resolutions.
The Secretary-General believed that UNIFIL could usefully contribute to the objectives prescribed by the Council. However, for the Force to function effectively, there would need to be a clear definition by the Council of its terms of reference in the current situation, as well as full co-operation from the parties. Lebanon had expressed the view that UNIFIL should continue to be stationed in the area pending further consideration of the situation in the light of the 6 June Council resolution.
By a resolution of 18 June,(81) the Council decided, as an interim measure, to renew the UNIFIL mandate for two months, until 19 August. The Council also authorized the Force during that period to carry out certain interim tasks described in the Secretary-General's report, concerned with extending protection and humanitarian assistance to the population. It called on all parties to co-operate fully with the Force.
The resolution, drawn up in consultations among the Council members, was adopted by 13 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (Poland, USSR).
Prior to the vote, the Council invited Israel, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Sweden and the Syrian Arab Republic, at their request, to participate without vote in the discussion. At Jordan's request,(27) the Council also decided that an invitation should be accorded to a PLO representative under rule 37 of its provisional rules of procedure. 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).
Also at Jordan's request,(28) the Council invited under rule 39 the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States.
The USSR emphasized that the decision to extend the mandate was an interim measure. Poland stated that its previous reservations concerning certain political and financial aspects of UNIFIL remained valid.
The United States said it had voted in favour of extending the UNIFIL mandate without any extension of responsibilities, functions or territorial scope in the belief that that course would contribute most directly to the restoration of peace and of Lebanon's sovereignty.
Ireland noted that the events of the past two weeks had brought a major change in the situation and said contempt had been shown for a United Nations peace-keeping force, which had been brushed aside by a vastly superior military force; in the circumstances, prolongation of the mandate was no more than a holding operation, after which larger decisions and new dispositions must be made.
The United Kingdom felt that it was still too early to know whether there was a role for UNIFIL in the new and radically altered circumstances, but believed that the option for such a role should be preserved; it called on Israel to show full respect for the Force.
China said it had voted for extending the mandate in view of the need created by the development of the situation and the request of the Lebanese Government.
France was in favour of the interim renewal of the Force's mandate, since the Lebanese authorities so desired; in its opinion, the decision must be followed by a thorough review of the situation so as to define the modalities of the UNIFIL mission and enable it fully to discharge its duties.
Zaire, deploring the lack of co-operation by the parties in UNIFIL efforts fully to discharge its mandate, said the Council must immediately call on all the parties to refrain from activities incompatible with the objectives of the Force.
In Israel's understanding, the resolution was not intended to change the existing UNIFIL mandate. Israel would reject any attempt to make a de facto change in that mandate.
Appealing to Israel to respect UNIFIL fully, to withdraw its units from UNIFIL sectors and to allow humanitarian assistance without hindrance, the Netherlands believed that in the future the Force should serve the interests of all parties concerned, should be ensured of their full co-operation in the implementation of a durable mandate, and should operate in an uninterrupted and clearly defined area.
Sweden expressed the view that Israel's invasion violated not only the independence of Lebanon but also the political authority of UNIFIL and of the Council; that UNIFIL should provide relief to the population in as wide an area as possible, not confined to what had been its area of operations; and that a continued UNIFIL operation would not be construed as confirming the advancement of positions which Israel had obtained through its aggression against Lebanon.
Paying tribute to UNIFIL, Lebanon said the Council had taken a risk by asking the Force to stay, to maintain positions, to ensure freedom of movement and perform a humanitarian task.
The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States described the Council's action as an expression of international insistence on the continued legitimacy of a United Nations presence in Lebanon, in the face of Israel's contempt for United Nations resolutions and its attempt to remove the international authority from the scene so that it could pursue its objectives of destroying Lebanon and dispersing the country's Lebanese and Palestinian population.
Most speakers also commented on the situation in Lebanon resulting from the continuing hostilities, including what Ireland described as Israel's occupation of the whole of southern Lebanon up to the suburbs of Beirut, which was under siege. Most repeated the call for a cessation of fighting and for the withdrawal of Israeli forces back to the Israel-Lebanon boundary.
Israel repeated that it did not want to stay in any part of Lebanon and that it supported. Lebanese sovereignty, eroded over the past 10 years by PLO and then by the Syrian occupation army.
China expressed support for the Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian armed forces and peoples in their struggle to resist Israeli aggression and safeguard their national rights.
Deploring and condemning the Israeli invasion Ireland said its fruits could be a source of deep bitterness for which Israel and the world might pay heavily in years to come. The recent display of force, stated the Netherlands, could not be justified under international law and created the danger of further escalation rather than conditions for a durable settlement. Sweden said Israel could not secure its right to live within secure and recognized boundaries by military means; only through negotiations could a lasting peaceful solution be attained. Noting that there had been fighting between Israeli and Syrian forces, the United Kingdom expressed concern about the risks of spreading the conflagration and said it could not accept that Israel's action amounted to self-defence.
Poland read out a 9 June statement by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs charging that the aim of the invasion was the physical liquidation of Palestine refugees in Lebanon, the destruction of their political and military organizations, terrorizing the Arab nations and imposing separatist solutions that negated Palestinian rights. The USSR mentioned a 14 June statement by its Government warning Israel that events in the Middle East could not but affect the interests of the Soviet Union. Both countries again accused the United States of seeking advantages from Israel's actions in Lebanon.
The Syrian Arab Republic held the view that the Council could no longer delay the application of mandatory sanctions against Israel.
Most speakers also expressed sympathy for the suffering of civilians in Lebanon and several announced contributions to international relief efforts. Israel said it had authorized representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to assess the situation of the Lebanese civilians and had sent a team of 70 doctors to study immediate problems; IDF had distributed bread, milk powder and tents within 48 hours of entry into Lebanese towns and villages, and was repairing water, electricity and communications systems.
The immediate dispatch of a special commission to investigate the Israeli crimes and the situation in Lebanon was requested by PLO in a letter of 16 June to the Secretary-General, transmitted on the same date by Oman; the letter cited what it called preliminary casualty figures of 30,000 killed or wounded, 10,000 missing and 800,000 displaced (45)
Security Council action (19 June). By a resolution of 19 June in which it expressed deep concern at the sufferings of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations,(82) the Security Council called on all parties to respect the rights of civilians, to refrain from acts of violence against them and to take measures to alleviate their suffering, particularly by facilitating the dispatch and distribution of United Nations and non-governmental aid. It appealed to Member States to continue to provide the most extensive humanitarian aid possible, stressed the humanitarian responsibilities of the United Nations and called on the parties not to hamper the exercise of those responsibilities and to assist in humanitarian efforts.
The resolution was adopted unanimously. Introducing it, France said urgent action was required, many obstacles remained to be overcome, and the Council must see to it that aid was dispatched and distributed effectively.
Speaking after the vote, Japan urged that all the parties, in particular the Israeli occupying forces, fully co-operate with the international organizations engaged in humanitarian relief activities. Expressing its commitment to serving the human needs of the people of Lebanon, the United States hoped that no party and no Government would exploit fundamental humanitarian concerns for narrow political purposes.
Israel welcomed co-operation with the Secretary-General in promoting genuine humanitarian efforts but asked what humanitarian resolutions the Council had adopted over the previous seven years when 100,000 or so Lebanese had been killed and more than 1 million displaced in Lebanon; it rejected the innuendo in the paragraph calling on all the parties not to hamper the exercise of United Nations responsibilities and to assist in humanitarian efforts.
The USSR remarked that the United States had originally objected to the humanitarian resolution, agreeing to it only out of fear of finding itself completely isolated. Replying, the United States said the improvements it had suggested in informal consultations had been intended to make the text a well-designed and finely targeted resolution.
Expressing appreciation for the prompt Council reaction, Lebanon stated that its future depended a great deal on the United Nations response.
In accordance with the resolution, the Secretary-General submitted on 30 June an interim report(77) on humanitarian assistance to Lebanon (see ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter III). It said that UNIFIL had provided food and medical supplies from its own stocks, and its hygiene and medical teams and engineers had aided civilians. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was providing food, blankets and other household supplies to over 12,000 displaced Palestine refugees in west Beirut, 7,000 in the Bekaa Valley and over 12,000 at Sidon. The United Nations Children's Fund had launched a $5 million relief programme to assist severely affected children and mothers and had delivered four plane-loads of medicines, blankets and other necessities. Other co-operating United Nations organizations were the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Food Programme, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator.
As at 30 June, 25 Governments and one inter-governmental organization had made or pledged contributions to relief agencies. ICRC and a number of national and international non-governmental organizations were also providing relief supplies. To obtain precise estimates on relief and rehabilitation needs, the Secretary-General had appointed on 25 June an inter-agency survey mission.
Security Council consideration (26 June). As fighting extended closer to the centre of Beirut France proposed on 24 June that west Beirut be neutralized under the supervision of United Nations observers and that the Lebanese Army, possibly with the backing of a United Nations force, be allowed to interpose itself between the Israeli and Palestinian combatants. This proposal was initially made in a statement by the President of France, transmitted to the Secretary-General on 24 June.(60) It was then incorporated into a draft resolution, which France revised twice before introducing it at a Security Council meeting on 26 June.(2)
Under the resolution, the Council would demand that all parties observe an immediate cessation of hostilities and that, as a first step towards complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, the Israeli forces around Beirut immediately withdraw to 10 kilometres from the city's periphery, with the Palestinian armed forces simultaneously withdrawing to existing camps. All armed elements in the Beirut area would be called upon to respect the exclusive authority of the Lebanese Government, which would receive the Council's support in its efforts to ensure its sovereignty throughout the territory. Also with Council support, the Government would install its armed forces within Beirut and interpose themselves on its periphery. As an immediate measure, United Nations military observers would supervise the cease-fire and disengagement in and around Beirut. Further, the Secretary-General would be requested to study any request by Lebanon for the installation of a United Nations force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition forces, or for the use of the forces available to the United Nations in the region.
Introducing this draft, France stated that disengagement and neutralization were needed to protect innocent civilians and spare the city from destruction. Neutralization of west Beirut was a prerequisite for the early opening of negotiations and could not be considered as a lasting political solution.
The draft resolution received 14 votes to 1 (United States) and was not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent Council member.
Though expressing support for many elements of the text, including the call for an immediate cease-fire and simultaneous withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces and monitoring of the cease-fire by United Nations observers, the United States said the draft failed to call for the essential requisite for the restoration of the Lebanese Government's authority, namely, the elimination from Beirut and elsewhere of armed Palestinian elements which did not respect the Government's authority.
Lebanon regretted that the draft had not been adopted.
Israel said that, following the completion of its mission, IDF had been instructed to cease-fire on all fronts in Lebanon, and the cease-fire had been holding for the past 13 hours.
General Assembly action (June). The General Assembly, which resumed on 25 June its seventh emergency special session on the Palestine question, adopted on 26 June a resolution(78) by which it fully supported the Security Council resolutions of 5 and 6 June, condemned Israel for non-compliance and demanded that it comply. Calling on the Council to authorize practical steps to implement its resolutions, the Assembly urged the Council, in the event of Israel's continued non-compliance, to consider practical means in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, the Assembly demanded that all Member States and other parties observe strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence. It called for the continuation of humanitarian aid, and requested the Secretary-General to delegate a high-level commission to report on the extent of loss of human life and material damage.
The resolution, sponsored by 64 nations, was adopted by a recorded vote of 127 to 2.
The introducer of the text, Senegal, speaking also as Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights, said the resolution contained all the elements likely to lead to a restoration of peace and tranquillity in Lebanon, and the Assembly must do everything within its means to ensure speedy and full implementation.
Voting against, Israel said the resolution was inimical to the goal of restoring sovereignty to the Lebanese people. For the past decade and more, Lebanese territory had been the launching-pad for hundreds of attacks on Israeli civilians, operation "Peace for Galilee" had been prompted solely by self-preservation and self-defence. Immense quantities of arms and ammunition, placed by various quarters at the terrorists' disposal, had been found in Lebanon in recent weeks. Israel was entitled to demand concrete arrangements that would permanently and reliably preclude hostile action against Israel from Lebanese soil. Contrary to grossly exaggerated casualty figures mentioned in the debate, the number of civilian lives lost in the cities of Tyre, Sidon and Nabatiyeh was 460, and the best estimate of homeless persons was 20,000. The responsibility for the suffering must be borne by PLO, which had placed its camps and depots in civilian areas.
Also explaining its negative vote, the United States said that, though recognizing that the resolution reflected everyone's profound anguish at the continuing loss of life and human suffering, it could not be party to an unbalanced statement which might heighten animosities and increase the danger of a wider conflict; a just and lasting settlement could not be achieved by issuing declarations and ultimatums motivated sometimes by vindictiveness and even by hatred.
Lebanon stated that its support of the resolution did not mean that it was renouncing its right to call for an emergency special session of the Assembly should the Council fail to act. Referring to the suffering undergone by the Lebanese in recent weeks, it expressed confidence in a strengthened ability to meet the challenges, overcome the dangers and confront the threats, and voiced determination to preserve the country's national unity, territorial integrity and independence.
Voting in favour, Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom voiced reservations on the second and eleventh preambular paragraphs (referring to the PLO statement during the debate, and reaffirming that a just and comprehensive Middle East settlement could not be achieved without PLO participation). Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark and France voiced reservations on the latter provision, Canada stating that it implied a status for PLO which Canada had not endorsed. Uruguay pointed out that the role of PLO as a spokesman was provisional.
Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom also reserved their position on the tenth preambular paragraph (reaffirming that the Palestine question was the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict); Canada said there were other central issues, including Israel's existence and its right to secure and recognized boundaries. Ireland stated that its positive vote did not imply a change of its position on issues such as the Palestine question, Palestinian rights and PLO as the representative of the Palestinians.
Regretting the lack of a direct warning to the armed groups that were using Lebanese territory as a base for warlike activities against other States, Bolivia considered that the imposition of sanctions was within the purview of the Council and not of the Assembly. Chile said that, when interpreting in particular the paragraph urging the Council to consider practical means in accordance with the Charter in the event of Israel's non-compliance, it must be borne in mind that there was a need to uphold the Charter provisions on the powers and functions of every United Nations organ, as well as to preserve the principle of universality of the United Nations; also, the mention of the Council's most recent resolutions did not mean that its earlier resolutions on a Middle East peace had been superseded.
With regard to the reference to Israel's acts of aggression in the third preambular paragraph, Canada noted that it was the sole responsibility of the Council to determine the existence of any threat to or breach of peace or act of aggression. Finland pointed out that it was the Council which had the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Sweden stressed that some formulations with regard to the respective responsibilities of the Assembly and the Council did not fully correspond with its view – a point made also by France.
Ecuador explained that it had voted in favour to reaffirm the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and because Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity had to be respected; it hoped Israeli troops and all other foreign troops would be withdrawn.
Though supporting the resolution, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was convinced that it would accomplish nothing; in its view, Israel must be condemned and expelled because it did not respect the Charter.
At the start of the Assembly debate preceding adoption of the resolution, Cuba said the non-aligned countries had requested the resumption of the session so that the international community could prevent the consummation of genocide against the Palestinians in Lebanon and assure PLO of support.
The PLO observer stated that the aim of Israel's aggression was to eliminate the Palestinians and PLO, which had honoured its commitment under the July 1981 cease-fire while Israel had violated Lebanese territory, airspace and waters almost 4,000 times.
The invasion was denounced by the majority of countries. China voiced strong condemnation and Canada expressed profound sadness and dismay. France said the gravity and urgency of the situation required the immediate expression of the gravest concern by the international community.
Israel's invasion, China, Yugoslavia and others believed, was a premeditated aggression. Indonesia stated that for many months Israel had massed its troops on the border with Lebanon and had threatened punitive actions against Lebanese territory.
By its efforts to annihilate the PLO forces in Lebanon, China said, Israel was attempting to write off the struggle of the Palestinians for their right to self-determination and to perpetuate its armed occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Egypt urged all States to prevent the attainment of Israel's objectives – to eliminate the social and political basis of the Palestinians and their leadership, and to disrupt and fragment Lebanon into weak puppets of Israel. In Malaysia's opinion, one objective of the invasion was to dismember Lebanon.
The elimination of PLO was seen as an objective of the Israeli invasion also by the German Democratic Republic and a number of others. Indonesia and Iraq charged Israel with trying in addition to annihilate the Palestinian people. Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Hungary, Lebanon, Malaysia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Yemen and others spoke of holocaust, genocide and attempts to create a "final solution" to the Palestine question. Qatar characterized Israel's attempt to exterminate an entire people, using internationally prohibited weapons of mass destruction such as cluster and fragmentation bombs, napalm and other weapons in the American arsenal, as an atrocity.
Czechoslovakia and others saw the invasion not as an isolated act but as a link in a long chain of Israel's expansion and aggression against the Arabs.
Canada could not accept Israel's proposition that its military activities in Lebanon were justified or that they would provide long-term security. Israel's arguments that security measures were involved had convinced no one, Egypt said. New Zealand said that whatever provocation Israel might have considered itself to be acting under its response had been frighteningly disproportionate.
Iraq said Israel's aggression against Lebanon had revealed the falseness of its allegations that it was the victim of aggression and acted only in self-defence. Pakistan said the pretext used by Israel for its aggression, as well as the professed aim of creating a buffer zone on the border with Lebanon, was eyewash; Israel's ambition was nothing less than to impose its hegemony over Lebanon's destiny Poland considered the invocation by Israel of its right to self-defence as a cynical affront. Israel's claim to have acted in self-defence was also rejected by others, among them Belgium (for the EC members), Indonesia and Zaire.
Other speakers stressed the severity of the military operation. Finland described the situation as full-scale war waged with the most modern means of destruction and Indonesia characterized it as all-out war; Indonesia cited figures of at least 10,000 civilians dead, 16,000 wounded and over 600,000 homeless as confirming that Israel's strategy was to attack and annihilate civilian as well as military targets. In Egypt's opinion, Israel's aggression against southern Lebanon, Beirut and the Palestinians was unprecedented since the Second World War; the crimes and massacres by the invasion forces placed Israel on an equal footing with nazism. Iraq said the Lebanese and Palestinians were being subjected to the most wide-scale massacre of the century, while the USSR said the mass terror and violence were reminiscent of the fascist period.
Virtually every speaker called for a cessation of hostilities, Israeli withdrawal, and restoration of Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. Those making these points included Belgium (for the EC members), Bulgaria, Canada, China, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, the German Democratic Republic, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Tunisia, Turkey, the USSR, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia and Zaire. Ecuador and Zaire urged the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country.
The Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, Romania, the USSR Viet Nam and others said the situation created by the invasion was a danger not only to peace and stability in the region but to world peace. Cyprus said the sad impotence of the United Nations to enforce its decisions and maintain international peace and security had been further demonstrated. Malaysia viewed Israel's actions as a challenge to the fundamentals of peaceful conduct among States and the resolution of conflict through peaceful means. In Turkey's view, the invasion had brought tension in the Middle East to a new high, and the danger of further escalation was frighteningly imminent. Yugoslavia said the invasion threatened to cause a war of the widest dimensions.
In the view of Turkey, Zaire and others, the events in Lebanon once again proved that the Palestine question remained at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that without a Palestine solution there could be no just and lasting Middle East settlement. A similar position was held by Senegal.
The Palestinian cause could not be defeated by force or violence, Madagascar believed. Repressive acts could only increase Palestinian resistance and provoke new explosions of violence, Romania warned.
Efforts to restore peace and security to Lebanon, Belgium stated on behalf of the EC members, must be accompanied by an attempt to restore Palestinian rights. Turkey, however, felt that the restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity could not be made conditional on a settlement of the Palestine question and vice versa.
In Indonesia's opinion, it was a delusion for Israel to think that by its attempt to decimate PLO it could destroy the aspirations of the Palestinians. Ethiopia believed such action would in the long run contribute only to strengthening the resolve of Palestinians everywhere in their just quest for a homeland in Palestine. Malta said Israel had neither the right nor the authority to impose conditions on Lebanon or to destroy the Palestinians because they engaged in protest against Israeli policies and aggression in the occupied territories.
The United States was charged by a number of speakers with having co-operated in or at least known about Israel's plans. China said the United States had actively supported Israel in attaining its strategic objectives in Lebanon and should be condemned by the international community for the Israeli aggression. American assistance and support were also condemned by Albania and Kuwait, the latter adding that there was a gap between United States public opinion and the actions of the Government, as well as a gap between that country's obligations as a permanent member of the Security Council and its actions in support of Israel. In Iraq's opinion, United States support for Israel would intensify the feeling among the Arabs that their principal enemy was the United States and that Israel was nothing but its tool.
The Syrian Arab Republic held the United States responsible, whether through collusion or incitement. Everything was proceeding as though Israel's genocidal operation against the people of Palestine had United States support, said Tunisia. Yemen said history would attest to the participation of the United States in the acts of genocide against Lebanon. The PLO observer asserted that the United States had known about the planned aggression for more than a year; the fact that it was supplying more than $1 billion worth of arms to Israel proved its complicity.
Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland believed that Israel would never have dared undertake its aggression against Lebanon without United States agreement and support. In the opinion of the USSR, Israel's attack on Lebanon was one more in a long chain of criminal anti-Arab actions with the consent and support of Washington, and was a direct consequence of the Camp David deal and the American-Israeli strategic alliance. A similar position was taken by the Byelorussian SSR, the German Democratic Republic and Viet Nam.
A number of countries deplored not only United States military and economic assistance, but also its political and diplomatic support of Israel. Several speakers, among them Indonesia, Iraq, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Qatar, maintained that the United States veto of Security Council measures against Israel encouraged the latter in its aggression. Hungary said the veto placed on the United States an even heavier responsibility than in the past. Without the political, economic and military support of the United States, said Nicaragua, Israel would not act with such impunity and could not rely on the veto in the Council, which licensed its excesses by preventing that body from acting. Pakistan regretted that the Council had failed to adopt the proposal by Spain on 8 June, supported by 14 of its members, to set a time-limit for compliance with its resolutions; that result, it felt, had provided further encouragement to Israel.
Egypt urged the United States to condemn the aggression against Lebanon and the Palestinians, which was also against United States interests and endangering its good relations in the region. Yugoslavia called especially on the big countries to meet their responsibility to check the war and protect its victims.
In the United States opinion, the humanitarian task of aiding the victims of the conflict was no less urgent than the goal of bringing the conflict to an end. France attached highest priority to humanitarian tasks. Above all else, New Zealand stated, there must be concern for the welfare of the people caught up in the fighting.
To alleviate the suffering of the civilian population, many countries, including Austria, Senegal, Tunisia, Turkey and Uruguay, urged the provision of humanitarian assistance and expressed support for the Security Council's call on the parties to facilitate relief work. Australia, Belgium (for the EC members), Cyprus, Finland, India, Malaysia, Malta, Norway, Pakistan and the United States said they were providing such assistance.
Sweden stressed Israel's duty to facilitate humanitarian efforts and to comply with the humanitarian obligations in the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the protection of civilians. By initially refusing access to UNIFIL, ICRC and other organizations, Indonesia charged, Israel had attempted to hide from the world the cost of its indiscriminate attacks. Japan urged that all concerned, especially the Israeli occupying forces in Lebanon, co-operate with relief organizations.
Israel said it was already contributing its share, bringing relief for the civilians under its control to the point where, according to international relief organizations, there no longer existed any problems of food shortages or medical aid in those areas.
Belgium said Israel had not given a satisfactory answer to a request by the EC members for assurances that it would: admit international humanitarian aid organizations into the Israeli-occupied territory and facilitate their work; admit press representatives and give them the usual facilities; comply with the Geneva Conventions, particularly with regard to prisoners; recognize Lebanese sovereignty and the international borders; not seek to annex or occupy any part of Lebanon or intervene in its domestic affairs; co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in all areas; have no hostile intentions towards the Palestinians or any intention of attacking neighbouring countries, including the Syrian Arab Republic; and observe the cease-fire.
A number of States, among them the Byelorussian SSR, Iraq, Ireland, Malaysia and Mexico called for the demands of the Security Council to be implemented. Malta called for an immediate stop to the carnage as a first step, after which all should join efforts to bring about peace in the Middle East. Qatar said that if the international community did not act quickly and firmly, history would judge it an accomplice in the crime. Nothing must be done that would lead to direct or indirect acceptance of the consequences of Israel's latest aggression, said Yugoslavia.
Indonesia believed that the Assembly had been obliged to resume its session, particularly in the light of the Council's inability to enforce its decisions. A similar opinion was held by several other countries, including Ethiopia. India believed the emergency special session should achieve what the Council had failed to do, namely, to bring about a total cessation of hostilities and to force Israel to withdraw.
In the event of Israel's continued disregard of the Council's demands, Austria appealed to the Council to decide on measures under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter (sanctions not involving the use of armed force) and it considered action to impede the flow of military equipment to be of special urgency. Should Israel continue to refuse to implement the Council's resolutions, Belgium stated, EC would consider the possibilities of future action; the signing of a financial protocol with Israel had already been postponed sine die.
Cuba stated that, if Israel did not comply with an order to withdraw its troops from Lebanon without delay and without conditions, United Nations Members would have an inescapable duty to apply sanctions against it. Agreeing, Indonesia declared itself ready to support the strongest possible measures the Assembly might adopt to force Israel to cease its policy of destruction and to withdraw unconditionally from Lebanon.
The USSR called on the Council to take immediate measures to halt the killing and destruction, and to ensure Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, the exercise by the Arabs and Palestinians of their rights and the protection of their interests. In Bulgaria's view, it was the Council's duty to take decisive measures to stop the aggression and prevent further massacres. The call for measures by the Council was supported by several others, including Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic.
Measures to compel Israel to comply with the Council's demands were also called for by a number of other States, among them Iraq and Nicaragua. Kuwait asked what more Israel must do before those who opposed any punishment or restraint on Israel realized the need for such action. If the United Nations could not expel Israel because of United States protection, Yemen said, the Member States should at least, individually or collectively, sever their diplomatic, consular and economic relations with Israel so as to isolate it.
France reiterated its proposal to the Council for a neutralization of the combat zone in Beirut as a pre-condition for the early opening of negotiations; to preserve the city from total destruction, it added, there should be a reciprocal disengagement of forces. Zaire suggested that the permanent Council members be asked to guarantee jointly the security of the Palestinians, Israel and its neighbouring Arab States, and that negotiations for a Middle East solution be resumed.
Canada said Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and unity could only be ensured in the framework of a comprehensive Middle East settlement which guaranteed peace and security for all States in the region, including Israel, and the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.
Other communications (June). During June, a number of communications were addressed to the Secretary-General and to the Presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council with regard to the situation between Israel and Lebanon. Several of them conveyed the views of regional and other intergovernmental organizations, and others the positions of individual States.
On 7 June,(70) Saudi Arabia transmitted to the Secretary-General a letter from King Khaled Bin Abdul Aziz as President of the Third Islamic Summit Conference of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, appealing for all measures stipulated in the United Nations Charter to guarantee immediate cessation of the genocidal war against the Lebanese and Palestinians and to effect immediate Israeli withdrawal. By a note verbale of 14 June,(62) Iraq transmitted a communiqué issued on 11 June after an emergency meeting in New York of the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the United Nations, condemning Israel's non-compliance with the Council demands of 5 and 6 June and urging the Council to take measures to halt Israeli aggression and to ensure the cessation of hostilities and unconditional Israeli withdrawal beyond Lebanon's borders.
On 10 June,(6) Belgium transmitted a statement by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the EC members (Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany, 9 June) vigorously condemning Israel's invasion and reaffirming that Lebanon's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity were indispensable for Middle East peace, they urgently called on the parties, in particular Israel, to act in accordance with the Security Council demands, and stated that in the event of Israel's non-compliance they would examine the possibilities for future action. On 30 June,(7) Belgium transmitted a statement by a meeting of heads of State and Government of EC members (Brussels, Belgium, 28 and 29 June) calling for Israeli withdrawal from positions around Beirut simultaneously with withdrawal of Palestinian forces in west Beirut, the separation of forces during a short transitional period to be controlled by Lebanese forces and United Nations observers or forces; negotiations on a Middle East peace should follow, based on security and justice for all States and peoples.
On 11 June,(12) Cuba transmitted to the Secretary-General a communiqué issued on that date in New York by the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries, urging Council action to ensure the cessation of hostilities and immediate, total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. On 18 June, Cuba transmitted messages from its President, in his capacity as Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, to the Secretary-General(14) and the Presidents of the Assembly(15) and of the Security Council,(13) urging them to ensure that the United Nations took firm, decisive and immediate action to secure Israel's withdrawal.
Also on 11 June,(73) Singapore transmitted a statement of the same date by the Foreign Ministers of the States members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations strongly condemning Israel's aggression and declaring full support of the Council's call for a cease-fire and unconditional Israeli withdrawal.
On 7 June,(57) Egypt transmitted a statement by its Presidency calling on Israel to cease all military operations and withdraw from Lebanese territory, and calling on all peace-loving peoples to ensure the security of all peoples against the military occupation by Israel and to adopt resolutions that would ensure respect for legality and the rule of law.
By a letter of 8 June,(51) Viet Nam transmitted to the Secretary-General a statement of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemning Israel's aggressive acts against Palestinians and Lebanese. On 17 June,(52) it transmitted a message of 11 June from its President to the PLO Chairman, reiterating Viet Nam's support for the Palestinians under PLO leadership.
Israel's aggression was also condemned by the German Democratic Republic and the USSR. The former transmitted on 8 June a statement of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, the Council of State and the Council of Ministers, declaring full solidarity with the steps taken by the Lebanese and Palestinians.(22) On 25 June,(23) it conveyed a telegram from its Foreign Minister declaring his support for the Security Council demands for an immediate cease-fire and unconditional Israeli withdrawal, and announcing humanitarian assistance. By a letter of 9 June,(48) the USSR transmitted a TASS statement of 7 June calling for immediate steps by the Council to halt the aggression and force Israel to comply with the Charter and decisions of the United Nations. On 15 June,(49) the USSR transmitted a government statement of 14 June warning Israel that events in the Middle East were bound to affect USSR interests, and demanding that Israel withdraw and that its aggression be stopped.
By a letter of 8 June,(4) the Chairman of the Committee on Palestinian rights appealed to the Secretary-General to request that decisive steps be taken by the Council to ensure that the explosive situation brought about by Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon was brought to an immediate end. On 15 June,(5) the Chairman stated that the Committee was gravely concerned at the loss of Lebanese, Palestinian and other lives and at Israel's declared aim of eliminating PLO, and felt strongly that Israel should withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally in accordance with the Council resolutions of 5 and 6 June.
On 10 June, Fiji(59) and Sierra Leone(72) conveyed statements of 8 June by their respective Governments calling for complete and unconditional Israeli withdrawal. Also on 10 June,(69) the Niger transmitted to the Secretary-General a press communiqué of 8 June expressing the support of its Supreme Military Council and its Government for Lebanon's sovereignty, and reaffirming its conviction that any lasting Middle East settlement must involve recognition of the right of the Palestinians to establish their own State under PLO leadership.
On 10 June,(67) Mongolia conveyed a statement of 9 June by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, condemning Israel's actions and calling for their immediate cessation and Israeli withdrawal, and declaring that the responsibility for the crimes must be shared by the United States, under whose protection Israel's hostile actions were being perpetrated.
By a letter of 11 June,(56) Czechoslovakia conveyed a statement of its Foreign Ministry demanding that Israel halt its aggression and withdraw its troops from Lebanon immediately, and expressing the expectation that the Security Council would adopt effective measures to safeguard Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity and to restore Palestinian rights.
On 15 June,(46) Pakistan forwarded a statement of 8 June from its Foreign Office spokesman declaring full support of the Council demand for an immediate cease-fire and unconditional Israeli withdrawal, and urging all countries to condemn the brutal use of force by Israel and to take all possible measures to frustrate its aggressive and expansionist designs.
By a letter of 15 June,(18) Cyprus forwarded a resolution adopted on 10 June by its House of Representatives condemning Israel's aggression, declaring its support of all resolutions on the Middle East problem adopted by the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations, and inviting the Government to consider interrupting diplomatic relations with Israel.
Also on 15 June,(8) China transmitted a government statement of the same date declaring its firm support for the Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian armed forces and peoples in their struggle to resist Israeli aggression, condemning the United States veto in the Security Council, and calling for Israel's compliance with the Council's calls for a halt to hostilities and its unconditional withdrawal.
By a letter dated 21 June,(64) the Lao People's Democratic Republic conveyed a statement of 10 June by its Foreign Ministry strongly condemning Israel's aggression and demanding its immediate and unconditional withdrawal.
Also on 21 June,(68) Mozambique transmitted a declaration by its Foreign Ministry condemning the invasion and its imperialist accomplices, demanding Israel's withdrawal, and appealing for intensified international efforts to stop Israel's massacre of Palestinians and Lebanese.
On 22 June,(29) Jordan transmitted a message of 13 June from King Hussein to the five permanent Security Council members, appealing to them to take the strongest possible action to prevent further bloodshed and to dissociate themselves from any tolerance or acquiescence of the blood-bath created by Israel.
By a letter of 23 June,(61) Hungary transmitted a government statement of 18 June demanding an end to Israel's genocidal war, and calling for Israel's withdrawal, restoration of Lebanese sovereignty, and reimbursement by Israel for the loss of life and property; Hungary expected action by the United States and the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization maintaining good relations with Israel to halt Israeli aggression.
On 25 June (65) Madagascar conveyed a telegram of 8 June from its President calling on the Secretary-General to draw the attention of United Nations Members to the necessity of taking specific measures against Israel and its accomplices to prevent the recurrence of Israeli acts of aggression.
Mauritania, by a letter of 28 June,(66) transmitted a telegram of that date by its President calling on the Secretary-General to use all his influence to demand an end to the massacre of Palestinians and Lebanese and total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal.
On the same date,(38) Lebanon conveyed an appeal of 27 June by its President to all heads of State seeking their assistance in saving Beirut from certain and imminent disaster as a result of the Israeli invasion. On 2 July,(55) Brazil transmitted a letter of 28 June from its President to the Lebanese President, stating his repudiation of Israel's aggression and offering humanitarian aid.
In a letter of 2 July to the Security Council President,(63) Israel stated that the communications addressed to the Secretary-General and the Council President during June contained insinuations, distortions and sheer fabrications its operation in Lebanon was directed solely against PLO, which had deliberately used the civilian population as a shield, while the Israeli forces had attempted to minimize civilian casualties.
Security Council action (4 July). By a letter of 4 July,(30) Jordan requested an immediate Security Council meeting to examine what it called the grave and deteriorating situation in Lebanon resulting from Israel's genocidal campaign against Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, including its decision to strangulate the civilians in west Beirut and prohibit the transfer of medical supplies.
Meeting that day, the Council unanimously adopted a resolution,(83) prepared in the course of consultations, calling for respect for the rights of the civilian populations and repudiating all acts of violence against them. Expressing alarm at the continued sufferings of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians in southern Lebanon and west Beirut, the Council called for the restoration of the normal supply of vital facilities such as water, electricity, food and medical provisions, particularly in Beirut. It commended and requested the continuation of efforts by the Secretary-General and international agencies to alleviate civilian suffering.
Addressing the Council, the PLO observer stated that the Israeli forces had displayed vindictiveness and malice, and expressed concern about the fate of some 6,000 Palestinians detained by the occupation force.
Lebanon said that, while the resolution had been adopted on humanitarian grounds, it hoped that Israel would listen to the message it contained and would facilitate the negotiations that should lead to full implementation of previous Council resolutions.
Communications (July). On 5 July(16) and 29 July,(17) Cuba transmitted messages from its President, in his capacity as Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. In the first message, dated 3 July and addressed to the other heads of State or Government of the Movement, he cited the appeal of 27 June from the Lebanese President concerning the plight of Beirut (see above) and called on them to support the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples and to condemn the Israeli aggressor. In the second message, dated 28 July and addressed to the Security Council President, the Chairman called for quick Council action to order the termination of the siege and bombardment of Beirut; enclosed was a message to him from the PLO Chairman asking support for efforts to have the Council discuss the situation despite efforts by certain permanent members to postpone its meetings.
By a letter of 8 July,(71) Seychelles conveyed a message of 10 June from its President to the Lebanese President, condemning Israel's aggression and expressing solidarity with the people and Government of Lebanon.
On 10 July,(9) China transmitted a letter of 8 July from the Premier of its State Council to the PLO Chairman condemning Israel's aggression and expressing support for the struggle of the Palestinians. and Arabs. By a letter of 15 July,(10) China transmitted a message of 12 July from its Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries at Nicosia, Cyprus, appealing for urgent action to stop Israeli aggression, support the just cause of the Palestinians and Arabs, and maintain peace in the Middle East.
On 12 July,(47) Pakistan transmitted a letter from its President to the heads of State or Government of the permanent Security Council members, calling on them to use their power and influence to stop Israel from pursuing its genocidal war to the bitter end.
By a letter of 20 July,(58) Ethiopia transmitted a statement of 10 July by its Foreign Ministry condemning Israel's aggression and demanding its prompt and unconditional withdrawal and full respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
On 23 July,(50) the USSR transmitted replies, published in the Soviet press on 21 July, by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet to questions on the Israeli invasion, he stated that, to end the Israeli siege of Beirut, the USSR would not oppose the use of a United Nations force to separate the forces defending west Beirut and the Israeli forces, but it would firmly oppose the stationing of (United States troops in Lebanon.
Viet Nam, by a letter of 30 July,(53) transmitted a government statement of 26 July condemning the actions of Israel and the United States in Lebanon and demanding a halt to the invasion and the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops.
By a letter of 27 July,(54) Afghanistan forwarded a statement by the Presidium of the Peace, Solidarity and Friendship Organization of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, expressing support for the establishment of an international commission to access Israeli crimes in Lebanon.
On 29 July,(19) Cyprus transmitted the final communiqué of the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries on the question of Palestine (Nicosia, 15-17 July). The Ministers demanded that Israel lift the blockade of Beirut, observe a cease-fire and withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Lebanon. They called on the Security Council to establish a United Nations interim peace-keeping force in Lebanon, and requested the resumption by the end of August of the General Assembly's seventh emergency special session on the Palestine question.
On 30 July,(34) Jordan conveyed an urgent appeal of 29 July by six international non-governmental organizations, asking Security Council members to condemn the war in Lebanon and demand its immediate cessation.
Security Council action (29 July). In the two weeks prior to its 29 July meeting on the Israel-Lebanon situation – when it demanded that Israel lift the blockade of Beirut to let civilian supplies through – the Security Council received several letters on developments in the area from Lebanon and Jordan, the latter transmitting communications from PLO. Most of the letters concerned the effects of the fighting in and around Beirut, which had been encircled by Israeli forces. In addition, the Council received and briefly discussed a proposal by Egypt and France to put a stop to the fighting through a disengagement of forces and also to lay down principles for a future negotiated settlement of the Middle East problem.
By a letter of 16 July,(31) Jordan transmitted a 14 July letter from PLO reporting a bombing on 13 July outside the Palestine Research Centre in Beirut after a cease-fire and cessation of hostilities had been declared effective 11 July; it said the Centre had been severely damaged and a number of civilians injured.
Also by a letter of 16 July,(39) Lebanon conveyed a communiqué of 14 July by its Council of Ministers indicating that negotiations were under way to obtain the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon and to seek the assistance of a multinational force to make possible the Palestinian withdrawal from Beirut; the communiqué added that the Council supported principles adopted to secure the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese armed forces from Lebanese territory.
On 26 July(40) Lebanon protested that Israel was violating international law in its occupation of southern Lebanon by establishing parallel local administrations and ignoring the legitimate Lebanese local authorities; Lebanon requested the Secretary-General to help redress the situation and suggested that UNIFIL be instructed to assist the Lebanese authorities in discharging their duties.
By a letter of the same date,(41) Lebanon charged that Israel had been using the intermittent cease-fires to conduct a war of attrition; since 22 July it had launched incessant air, sea and land attacks on west Beirut and its suburbs, killing at least 100 civilians, and had conducted air raids in the Bekaa Valley, causing 182 casualties.
On 26 July,(32) Jordan transmitted letters to the Council President of 22 and 23 July from the PLO observer, reporting shelling and air raids by Israeli forces in the Bekaa Valley on 22 July and air raids against west Beirut on both days, causing hundreds of civilian casualties and violating the cease-fire. Continued daily attacks until 26 July were reported in a further letter of that date from the PLO observer, transmitted by Jordan on 28 July.(33)
On 29 July,(42) Lebanon conveyed an appeal by its Ministers of National Economy and of Industry and Petroleum, on behalf of the Government, stating that the siege of west Beirut imposed by Israel had created hardship for the population; they appealed to all those in a position to help urgently to exert their utmost influence to lift the blockade and allow food supplies and basic necessities to enter west Beirut.
By letters of 2 July(20) and 28 July,(21) Egypt and France requested a Council meeting to take up a draft resolution they were submitting.(1)
This draft would have had the Council demand an immediate cease-fire throughout Lebanon and simultaneous withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from west Beirut – the Israelis to an agreed distance as a first step towards their complete withdrawal from Lebanon, and the Palestinians, with their light weapons, to camps, preferably outside Beirut, through modalities to be agreed, thus putting an end to their military activities. The Palestinian forces and the Lebanese Government were to conclude an agreement on the destination and destiny of their other weapons. The Council would have called for the departure of all non-Lebanese forces, except those authorized by the legitimate and representative authorities of Lebanon. It would have supported the Government in its efforts to regain exclusive control of Beirut and to ensure Lebanese sovereignty throughout the territory. Lebanese armed forces were to take up positions in Beirut and interpose themselves on its periphery.
The Secretary-General would have been requested to station United Nations military observers to supervise the disengagement in and around Beirut. He would also have been asked to prepare a report on the prospects for having a United Nations peace-keeping force take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition forces.
The draft would have had the Council state that the settlement of the Lebanese problem should contribute to the initiation of a durable restoration of peace and security in the region within the framework of negotiations based on the principles of security for all States and justice for all peoples. Such a settlement was to reaffirm the right of all States in the region to existence and security; reaffirm the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination with all its implications, on the understanding that the Palestinians would be represented in the negotiations and PLO would be associated therein; and call for the mutual and simultaneous recognition of the parties.
The Council discussed the draft resolution at two meetings on 29 July but did not act on it, after its sponsors indicated that they were not pressing for an immediate vote and that the text was open to amendment. Introducing the draft, France said that, with the threat of an attack continuing to hang over west Beirut, Council members must be aware of the essential relationship between the search for a solution to the immediate problem of Beirut and the search for direction on the fundamental problems that had led to the current crisis; it was the Council's task to define the principles of a settlement.
In Egypt's view, the situation in Lebanon had arisen from the continued Israeli denial of Palestinian rights and Israeli aggression against Lebanese sovereignty; on 25 July the PLO position towards Israel had taken a new turn when the PLO Chairman signed a document accepting United Nations resolutions on the Palestine question, and in the light of that positive initiative the simultaneous mutual recognition of the rights of both Israel and the Palestinians should be energetically promoted.
Jordan said it supported the basic spirit and thrust of the proposal and would be ready to endorse it with such peripheral amendments as Council members might propose. Lebanon expressed support for the initiative and stated that it was nothing less than a charter for mutual recognition of every nation's and people's right to exist; peace in Lebanon could not wait for a comprehensive Middle East settlement. The Franco-Egyptian proposal was also welcomed by Pakistan which added that the primary responsibility for stopping Israel from pursuing its genocidal war rested with the permanent Council members.
Support in principle for the draft was also expressed by Ireland and Spain. Ireland stressed the need to open a political dialogue and then negotiations, which, in addition to the principles enunciated by the Council in 1967(85) and 1973,(86) would have to be based on recognition of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination within the framework of a peace settlement. The United Kingdom emphasized the direct connection between the events in Lebanon and the Palestine problem, and considered that the Egyptian-French proposal set out constructive and equitable principles for a comprehensive solution.
The Egyptian-French initiative was welcomed by the PLO observer, who hoped that constructive elements mentioned by Egypt, including statehood for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and PLO participation in the future negotiations, would find their way into the draft resolution.
Israel reiterated that the 1967 Council resolution on principles for a Middle East peace was the only agreed basis for a settlement and that the terrorist PLO would not be a partner to any negotiations, let alone to any international arrangement concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Also on 29 July, the Council adopted, by 14 votes to none, with the United States not participating in the vote, a resolution(84) demanding that Israel lift immediately the blockade of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies and the distribution of aid. The Secretary-General was requested to keep the Council informed of the implementation of this demand. Introducing the draft, Spain stated that it was merely humanitarian and requested that it be given priority to put an end to the siege of Beirut.
Before adoption of the resolution, the Council invited Pakistan, at its request, to participate without vote in the discussion.
The United States remarked that the resolution called only on Israel and did not ask that PLO abandon its occupation of Beirut or desist from military activities, yet everyone understood that Israel sought to affect supplies to the PLO forces and not to the civilians; such a one-sided appeal suggested purposes that were political as well as humanitarian.
A United States motion to adjourn the meeting for two hours to allow for consultations with Governments was rejected by 6 votes to 6, with 3 abstentions, after Jordan and Panama spoke in opposition to adjournment.
Lebanon expressed its gratitude for the adoption of the resolution.
Supporting the Council's demand that Israel lift its blockade, the USSR said Israel's action in cutting off food and electricity supplies to Beirut was anti-humanitarian, and the yardstick used by the United States must be monstrous and strange if it failed to support an elementary humanitarian resolution. Poland stated that when people were suffering and dying it could not be argued that some political balancing should take place at the expense of a humanitarian proposal.
Israel said its forces had strict instructions to facilitate the passage of ICRC convoys to west Beirut and it fully supported any genuine humanitarian concern designed to alleviate human suffering. However, it rejected any attempt to abuse such concern for political objectives. Israel read out a United Nations press release containing a 27 July dispatch from UNRWA headquarters at Vienna, Austria, stating that the movement of UNRWA supplies to 30,000 displaced Palestine refugees in west Beirut and to homeless families in south Lebanon had been stopped by PLO since 19 July.
The PLO observer replied that the Beirut inhabitants refused to have food and supplies taken out of the city, he wondered what city under siege would permit the contents of its warehouses to leave the city, especially in a case where there was no guarantee that the Palestine refugees who were supposed to receive the UNRWA rations would eventually get them.
Ireland, observing that the siege of Beirut had been under way for 40 days and that the Council's tall for a cease-fire and immediate Israeli withdrawal had gone unimplemented for nearly two months, said the negotiations to end the fighting conducted by United States Ambassador Philip Habib and others, deserved encouragement and support. The United Kingdom, noting that efforts had been under way outside the Council to prevent an all-out assault on west Beirut, said its Government wished to leave Israel in no doubt of the total unacceptability of such an assault.
Jordan said that massive Israeli bombardments by air, sea and land had spared hardly a single building, and civilian losses were staggering; but the few thousand heroic Lebanese and Palestinian resistance fighters were determined to turn an invaded Beirut into a vast cemetery for the invaders. Pakistan, stating that the Council's failure to act firmly in the face of Israeli defiance of its resolutions had resulted in ever-widening Israeli aggression, remarked that the destruction and siege of Beirut would be remembered as a most tragic chapter in the history of the Middle East.
The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States informed the Council of an announcement by the League on 29 July that PLO had decided to move its armed forces from Beirut, and that safeguards and guarantees for the move, as well as for the safety of refugee camps, would be determined in an agreement between the Lebanese Government and PLO. The text of this announcement, in the form of a declaration by the Committee of Six of the League Council (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 28 and 29 July), was annexed to a letter of 30 July from the observer of the League to the Security Council President, transmitted by Jordan on the same date.(35)
By a letter of 30 July,(43) Lebanon transmitted an appeal by the Deputy Speaker of its Parliament to the speakers of Parliament of nine European countries, Canada and the United States, asking them to demand that Israel lift its genocidal siege of west Beirut, which was causing increasing suffering to the 700,000 inhabitants.
Draft resolutions. (1) Egypt, France, S/15317 (not pressed); (2) France, S/15255/Rev.2 (not adopted), (3) Spain, S/15185 (not adopted).
Letters and notes verbales (nv).
Committee on Palestinian rights Chairman: (4) 8 June, A/37/274-S/15188; (5) 15 June, A/37/288-S/15222.
Belgium, transmitting EC statements: (6) 10 June, A/37/277-S/15195; (7) 30 June, A/37/320-S/15265.
China: (8) 15 June, A/37/293-S/15224; (9) 10 July A/37/336-S/15284; (10) 15 July, A/37/343-S/15297.
Cuba: (11) 5 June, transmitting non-aligned countries message, S/15165; (12) 11 June, A/37/281-S/15200; (13) 18 June, S/15233; (14) 18 June, A/37/299-S/15243; (15) 18 June, A/37/300; (16) 5 July, A/37/332 (S/15274); (17) 29 July.
Cyprus: (18) 15 June, A/37/294-S/15225; (19) 29 July, A/37/366-S/15327.
Egypt, France: (20) 2 July, S/15315; (21) 28 July, S/15316.
German Democratic Republic: (22) 8 June, A/37/272- S/15186; (23) 25 June, A/37/313-S/15262.
Jordan: (24) 4 June, S/15164; (25) 5 June, S/15166; (26) 5 June, S/15167; ( 7) 18 June, S/15238; (28) 18 June, S/15239; (29) 22 June, A/37/304-S/15248; (30) 4 July, S/15272; (31) 16 July, A/37/345-S/15299; (32) 26 July, S/15308; (33) 28 July, S/15318; (34) 30 July, S/15328; (35) 30 July, transmitting League of Arab States declaration, S/15329.
Lebanon: (36) 4 June, S/15161; (37) 4 June, S/15162; (38) 28 June, A/37/316 (S/15261); (39)16 July, A/37/346- S/15300; (40) 26 July, A/37/360 (S/15309); (41) 26 July, S/15310; (42) 29 July, S/15324; (43) 30 July, S/15326.
Oman: (44) 6 June, for Arab States, S/15170; (45) 16 June, A/37/295-S/15226.
Pakistan: (46) 15 June, A/37/287-S/15221; (47) 12 July, S/15288.
USSR: (48) 9 June, S/15187; (49) 15 June, A/37/289-S/15223; (50) 23 July A/37/361-S/15312.
Viet Nam: (51) 8 June, A/37/273; (52) 17 June, A/37/298; (53) 30 July, A/37/369.
Others: (54) Afghanistan: 27 July, A/37/364; (55) Brazil: 2 July, A/37/331-S/15276; (56) Czechoslovakia: 11 June, A/37/284-S/15211; (57) Egypt: 7 June, A/37/270-S/15183 (nv); (58) Ethiopia: 20 July, S/15302; (59) Fiji: 10 June, A/37/276-S/15190 (nv); (60) France: 24 June, A/37/309 (S/15254); (61) Hungary: 23 June, A/37/306-S/15251; (62) Iraq: 14 June, annexing communiqué of Organization of Islamic Conference, A/37/286-S/15220 (nv); (63) Israel: 2 July, A/37/327 (S/15271); (64) Lao People's Democratic Republic: 21 June, A/37/303; (65) Madagascar: 25 June, A/37/312-S/15259; (66) Mauritania: 28 June, A/37/314-S/15263; (67) Mongolia: 10 June, A/37/280-S/15197; (68) Mozambique: 21 June, A/37/302; (69) Niger: 10 June, A/37/282-S/15209; (70) Saudi Arabia: 7 June, A/37/269-S/15180; (71) Seychelles: 8 July, A/37/341- S/15294; (72) Sierra Leone: 10 June, A/37/278; (73) Singapore: 11 June, transmitting ASEAN statement, A/37/283-S/15210.
Reports. S-G, (74) S/15174, (75) S/15178, (76) S/15194 & Add.1,2, (77) S/15267 & Corr. 1.
Resolutions (1982). (75) GA: ES-7/5, 26 June, text following. SC, texts following: (79) 508 (1982), 5 June; (80) 509 (1982), 6 June; (81) 511 (1982), 18 June; (82) 512 (1982), 19 June; (83) 513 (1982), 4 July; (84) 515 (1982), 29 July.
Resolutions (prior). SC: (85) 242 (1967), 22 Nov. 1967 (YUN 1967, p. 257); (86) 338 (1973), 22 Oct. 1973 (YUN 1973, p. 213); (87) 490 (1981), 21 July 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 292); (88) 498 (1981), 18 Dec. 1981 (ibid.).
Statement. (89) SC President, S/15163.
Meeting records. GA: A/ES-7/PV.12-19, 22-24 (20-26 Apr. & 25, 26 June). SC: S/PV.2374-2377, 2379, 2380, 2381 & Corr.1, 2382, 2384, 2385 (5 June-29 July).
Security Council resolution 508 (1982)
5 June 1982 Meeting 2374 Adopted unanimously
Draft by Japan (S/15168).
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978) and its ensuing resolutions and, more particularly, resolution 501 (1982),
Taking note of the letters of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon dated 4 June 1982,
Deeply concerned at the deterioration of the present situation in Lebanon and in the Lebanese-Israeli border area, and its consequences for peace and security in the region,
Gravely concerned at the violation of the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of Lebanon,
Reaffirming and supporting the statement made by the President and the members of the Security Council on 4 June 1982, as well as the urgent appeal issued by the Secretary-General on 4 June 1982,
Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General,
1. Calls upon all the parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border and not later than 0600 hours, local time, on Sunday, 6 June 1982;
2. Requests all Member States which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear upon those concerned so that the cessation of hostilities declared by Security Council resolution 490 (1981) can be respected;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to undertake all possible efforts to ensure the implementation of and compliance with the present resolution and to report to the Security Council as early as possible and not later than forty-eight hours after the adoption of the present resolution.
Security Council resolution 509 (1982)
6 June 1982 Meeting 2375 Adopted unanimously
Draft by Ireland (S/15171).
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978) and 508 (1982),
Gravely concerned at the situation as described by the Secretary-General in his report to the Council,
Reaffirming the need for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries,
1. Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon;
2. Demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 (1982) which called on them to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border;
3. Calls on all parties to communicate to the Secretary-General their acceptance of the present resolution within twenty-four hours;
4. Decides to remain seized of the question.
Security Council resolution 511 (1982)
18 June 1982 Meeting 2379 13-0-2
Draft prepared in consultations among Council members (S/15235).
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 427 (1978), 434 (1978), 444 (1979), 450 (1979), 459 (1979), 467 (1980), 483 (1980), 488 (1981), 490 (1981), 498 (1981) and 501 (1982),
Reaffirming its resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982),
Having studied the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and taking note of the conclusions and recommendations expressed therein,
Bearing in mind the need to avoid any developments which could further aggravate the situation and the need, pending an examination of the situation by the Security Council in all its aspects, to preserve in place the capacity of the United Nations to assist in the restoration of the peace,
1. Decides, as an interim measure, to extend the present mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon for a period of two months, that is, until 19 August 1982;
2. Authorizes the Force during that period to carry out, in addition, the interim tasks referred to in paragraph 17 of the report of the Secretary-General on the Force;
3. Calls on all concerned to extend full co-operation to the Force in the discharge of its tasks;
4. Requests the Secretary General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982) and the present resolution.
Vote in Council as follows:
In favour: China, France, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Panama, Spain, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire.
Against: None.
Abstaining: Poland, USSR.
Security Council resolution 512 (1982)
19 June 1982 Meeting 2380 Adopted unanimously
Draft by France (S/15240)
The Security Council,
Deeply concerned at the sufferings of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations,
Referring to the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and to the obligations arising from the regulations annexed to The Hague Convention of 1907,
Reaffirming its resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982),
1. Calls upon all the panics to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the suffering caused by the conflict, in particular, by facilitating the dispatch and distribution of aid provided by United Nations agencies and by non-governmental organizations, in particular, the International Committee of the Red Cross;
2. Appeals to Member States to continue to provide the most extensive humanitarian aid possible;
3. Stresses the particular humanitarian responsibilities of the United Nations and its agencies, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, towards civilian populations and calls upon all the parties to the conflict not to hamper the exercise of those responsibilities and to assist in humanitarian efforts;
4. Takes note of the measures taken by the Secretary-General to co-ordinate the activities of the international agencies in this field and requests him to make every effort to ensure the implementation of and compliance with the present resolution and to report on these efforts to the Security Council as soon as possible;
General Assembly resolution ES-7/5
26 June 1982 Meeting 24 127-2 (recorded vote)
64-nation draft (A/ES-7/L.4 and Add.1): agenda item 5.
Sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bulgaria, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.
Question of Palestine
…
[See second YB 1982 document]
emspecsess7.82
emspecsess9.82
Document symbol: E.85.I.1
Document Type: Yearbook
Document Sources: General Assembly 7th Emergency Special Session, United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI)
Subject: History, Human rights and international humanitarian law, Jerusalem, Palestine question, Refugees and displaced persons
Publication Date: 31/12/1982
Document Type: Yearbook
Document Sources: General Assembly 7th Emergency Special Session, United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI)
Subject: History, Human rights and international humanitarian law, Jerusalem, Palestine question, Refugees and displaced persons
Publication Date: 31/12/1982