1 Adoptionoftheagenda
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
i” ‘, CONTENTS Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/l968) , . , , . , , . , . , . , . 1 Adoptionoftheagenda . ..II.....II.I.. 1 The situation in the occupied Arab territories: Letter dated 20 October 1976 from the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/12218) , , . , . , . , . * . , . * . , . + . , . * . 1 S/PV, 1968 and Corr. 1 NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters com- bined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. Documents of the Security Council (symbol S/ . .) are normally published in quarterly Supplements of the Offficirrl Records of the Secloity Council. The date of the document indicates the supplement in which it appears or in which infor- mation about it is given. The resolutions of the Security Council, numbered in accordance with a system adopted in 1964, are published in yearly volumes of Reso/utio/?s 0/7tl Decisions of the Security Council. The new system, which has been applied retroactively to resolutions adopted before 1 January 1965, became fully operative on that date. 1968th MEETING Held in New York on Tuesday, 9 November 1976, at 4 p.m. President: Mr. Jorge Enrique ILLUECA (Panama). and Nigeria in which they request that, under rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure, they be invited Present: The representatives of the following States: to participate in the debate. In accordance with the Benin, China, France, Guyana, Italy, Japan, Libyan Council’s practice, the relevant provisions of the Arab Republic, Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Sweden, Charter and the provisional rules of procedure, if Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom I hear no objection I propose to invite those repre- of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Repub- sentatives to participate in the debate without the right lic of Tanzania and United States of America. to vote. Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/l968) 3. I invite the representatives of Indonesia, Morocco and Nigeria to take the places reserved for them at 1, Adoption of the agenda the side of the Council chamber, on the usual under- standing that they will be invited to take a place at 2. The situation in the occupied Arab territories: the Council table when it is their turn to address the Letter dated 20 October 1976 from the Permanent Council. Representative of Egypt to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/12218) The meting MWS called to order nt 4.20 pm. Adoption of the agenda 4. Mr. OVINNIKOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (integmttrtion .fi*o~ Rllssian): The situa- The c~gendcr MWS adopted. tion in the Arab territories occupied by Israel, which once again, for the third time this year, is being The situation in the occupied Arab territories: considered by the Security Council, is intolerable. Letter dated 20 October 1976 from the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations 5. First of all, it is characterized by barbarous addressed to the President of the Security Coun- repression of the Arab population by the Israeli cil (S/12218) authorities. This is absolutely inadmissible both from the standpoint of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Sprr!rish): 1949’ and because it constitutes a violation of ele- In accordance with the decisions adopted at past mentary human rights. Furthermore, an intrinsic meetings [1966th rind 1967th meetirlgs], I invite the feature of the situation in the territories is the open representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the Syrian plundering by Israel of the natural resources of the Arab Republic, Bangladesh and Mauritania, as well as occupied lands. This is also a flagrant violation both the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organi- of universally acknowledged norms of international zation, to participate in the debate without the right to law and of the numerous decisions of the United vote. Nations on sovereignty over natural resources. The situation in Ihe territories has led to the trampling underfoot of the religious feelings of the Moslem population. This likewise is inadmissible. 6. But for ail the importance of those aspects, none of them is the most important. The political problem is pre-eminent, the problem, now in its ninth year, of Israeli occupation of the lands qf others, lands seized by force of arms. Furthermore, in the present circumstances, the occupation has become virtually an-annexation of Arab territory. That is the essence of the matter. 4 7. As was correctly pointed out by the representative occupied by Israel created in anyone’s mind an of Syria, Mr. Allaf, in his statement to the Council illusion of pacification in the Middle East, at least of 1 November [1966tk meeting], it is no longer simply now everyone can see that those deals, which left a question of even creeping annexation by Israel; it aside the key issues of a Middle East settlement, is a question of galloping annexation. All the signs not only have not brought more order into the indicate that Israel intends to detach and directly situation, but have served to complicate it even appropriate at least a considerable portion of the further.” occupied Arab territories. 12. Accordingly, the Soviet Union has always 8. Striking proof confirming the annexationist plans considered that substituting something else for a of Israel with regard to the occupied Arab lands is comprehensive settlement cannot but do real harm contained in the recent article by the Foreign Minister to the interests of the Arab States and peoples. of Israel, Mr. Allon, published in the October issue of the American magazine Foreign Affairs. It cannot 13. Recently, some extremely convincing evidence be disregarded. That article openly states that Israel of the justice and correctness of these warnings issued intends to annex the following territories which belong by the Soviet Union has emerged, and we wish to to the Arabs: first, a considerable portion of the West dwell on that particularly. Bank of Jordan; secondly, the Arab part of Jerusalem; thirdly, the Golan Heights in Syria; fourthly, a 14. It has now become known exactly what was said considerable portion of the territory in Sinai along the to Israel by the initiators of this diplomacy and how Egyptian-Israeli truce line of 1949, and also the so- they explained the real aims of the step-by-step tactics. called corridor along the south-eastern part of the In a book published just a few months ago, an Sinai Peninsula as far as Sharm El-Sheikh. Israeli journalist, Matti Galan, makes it clear that on 16 December 1974 Israeli ministers were told “that the 9. These are not just theoretical ambitions on the aim of the disengagement talks was to circumvent the part of Israel, but clear-cut annexationist designs. This need to talk now about borders and final arrange- is demonstrated primarily by the continued establish- ments”.* They were also told: “that the failure of the ment of new Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab disengagement talks would break open the dam holding territories. As is apparent from the public statements back the pressures on Israel, this time not for a partial of Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and Israeli Foreign retreat but a complete retreat to the June 4, 1967 Minister Allon-statements already mentioned in the borders.“* In this case we are dealing not with a Council-those settlements are not being created only quotation from some talks but with a report of such to be eliminated subsequently; on the contrary, talks. according to Israel’s plans they are meant to stay there for ever. In 1976-1977 alone, another 29 such settle- 15. However, in a recently published book by the ments are planned in the Arab territories. This is American journalist Edward Sheehan, there appears a striking evidence of the transformation of occupation direct quotation of the following explanation given to into annexation, and this is precisely the issue upon the Foreign Minister of Israel, Mr. Allon, on 22 March which the Council should primarily focus its attention. 1975, when he was being persuaded to consent to a 10. How has such a situation become possible? Why new disengagement agreement: is Israel not only making open claims to considerable areas of Arab territory but also virtually now annexing “Our strategy was to save you from dealing with them? The answer is clear: it has occurred only all those pressures at once. If that was salami because the goal of a comprehensive settlement in the tactics-if we wanted the 1967 borders-we could Middle East has been replaced by so-called step- do it with all the world opinion and considerable by-step diplomacy. That is precisely why Israel and domestic opinion behind us. The strategy was its friends have been able initially to avoid answering designed to protect you from this. We have avoided the question :‘Would Israel withdraw its troops from drawing up an overall plan for a global settlement.“” all Arab terri ories occupied in 1967?” It is precisely that kind of diplomacy, moreover, which has enabled It was typical that the authenticity of those statements Israel, without let or hindrance, to prepare for the sub- was not challenged, either in Israel or in the United sequent annexation of considerable areas of Arab States. So that is almost documentary confirmation, territory. of the correctness of the warnings of the Soviet Union. 1 f. The position of principle of the Soviet Union against replacing a comprehensive settlement by 16. There is further proof that step-by-step diplomacy separate agreements is very well known. Suffice it is not only the antithesis of a comprehensive settle- to recall the Soviet Government’s statement of 28 April ment but actually undermines it.