In 1976 the General Assembly created, under Arab and third world nations pressure, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, known as the Palestine Committee. In order to obtain the Security Council's endorsement of a number of recommendations it drew up, the Committee initiated a debate which started in June 1979. Previous attempts to win such an endorsement failed because of consistent U.S. opposition. This time, the supporters of the motion, chiefly Senegal, who tabled the following draft resolution, felt there was little chance of their motion being carried, but used the opportunity to lash out against Israel in a debate that was permitted to drag on for two months. Eventually the resolution was not even put to a vote. Following are the draft resolution and the statement by Ambassador Blum in the Council:
SENEGAL: DRAFT RESOLUTION
The Security Council,
Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,
Having heard the representatives of the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization,
Convinced that the question of Palestine is the core of the conflict in the Middle East,
Reaffirming the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just and lasting peace through a comprehensive settlement based on full respect for the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as for its resolutions concerning the problem of the Middle East and the question of Palestine,
Expressing its concern over the continuing deterioration of the situation in the Middle East, and deeply deploring Israel's persistence in its occupation of the Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its refusal to implement the relevant United Nations resolutions,
Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territories by the threat or use of force,
Reaffirming also its resolutions on the Middle East and the question of Palestine, particularly 237 (1967), 242 (1967), 252 (1968), 338 (1973) and other relevant resolutions,
1. Affirms:
(a) That the Palestinian people should be enabled to exercise its inalienable rights of self-determination national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;
(b) The right of Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours to do so and the right of those choosing not to return to receive compensation for their property, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and General Assembly resolutions, in particular resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.
2. Decides that the provisions contained in paragraph 1 should be taken fully into account in all international efforts and conferences organized within the framework of the United Nations for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR BLUM, 23 AUGUST 1979
The naivete and wishful thinking, the illusions and delusions which have come to surround this debate in recent weeks make it necessary for me to intervene again in the Council's deliberations.
Since the signing of the Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty in Washington last March, persistent attempts have been made by those who reject peace in the Middle East to manipulate the Security Council in order to subvert the peace process.
The first shots in this concerted campaign were fired in the Council by Jordan the very moment the President of the United States went to the Middle East personally to negotiate the last delicate stages of the peace treaty.
The present mischievous debate was consciously begun on the last working day of the Soviet presidency of the Council, in June, and has been deliberately staggered throughout the summer in an attempt to maximize the possible damage to the peace process.
The sponsors of this debate are the so-called Palestine Committee - a committee which, perhaps not by coincidence, was established on the very same day as the numerical majority in the General Assembly saw fit to push through its infamous resolution on Zionism. The Committee has turned out to be nothing but a pliant tool in the hands of the terrorist PLO. Its recommendations, first formulated in 1976, are nothing but a translation of the PLO's criminal aims into the legalistic jargon of the United Nations. They remain, therefore, a prescription for the destruction of Israel in stages.
These recommendations reflect the true character of the PLO, expressed in its so-called Covenant, grotesquely proclaiming as a national duty "the purging of the Zionist presence from Palestine". The same so-called Covenant denies the existence of the Jewish people and their unbroken historical ties with the land of Israel. It alleges that the establishment of the State of Israel is null and void, and rejects any plans to settle the Middle East conflict by peaceful means. The terrorist PLO reaffirmed that so-called Covenant less than two weeks ago in Damascus.
The PLO has not hesitated to translate its vicious doctrine into deeds. It has conducted a relentless campaign of indiscriminate terror aimed at the mass murder of innocent civilians in Israel. Between June 1967 and July 1979, it murdered 640 people in Israel and wounded 3,300 others. It has also terrorized and intimidated any Arabs prepared to negotiate peace with Israel, killing more than 350 Arabs and injuring almost 2,000 others in Judaea, Samaria and Gaza. Most recently it assassinated the Imam of Gaza, a prominent religious leader who was prepared to work for peace within the Camp David framework.
This, then, is the true face and the true character of this group [of international criminals of the worst kind] which masquerades under the banner of a national liberation movement.
Given the PLO's true character and aims, it was recognized by all parties at Camp David that it could not be a partner to the peace process. On the other hand, careful provision was made to involve the Palestinian Arab residents of Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza District in the on-going peace process.
The Camp David accords are squarely grounded on Security Council resolution 242 (1967). The Palestine Committee, at the inspiration of the PLO, has consistently tried to bypass resolution 242 (1967) and to destroy it.
Resolution 242 (1967) was and is a carefully balanced whole. It cannot be supplemented without damage to its delicate balance. It remains the only agreed basis for peace negotiations in the Middle East. Any tampering with it can only gravely jeopardize the current peace process, and this is precisely what the initiators of this debate want.
The Camp David accords refer positively and constructively to Palestinian Arab aspirations and rights, as well as to the rights and security interests of the other parties. They see the solution of the question of the Palestinian Arabs oncerned in terms of granting them full autonomy. For that reason, a proposal is now enshrined in the Second Camp David framework accord of last September regarding a self-governing authority for the Arab inhabitants in the areas in question.
This proposal offers these Arab residents of the territories concerned greater opportunities for autonomy than anything they have ever experienced in their entire history. It offers them the prospect of governing themselves, and of enjoying peaceful coexistence and prosperity alongside their neighbours. It offers them a secure future, free from terror.
The representatives of the Palestinian Arab inhabitants of Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza District have been invited o join the current negotiations, but so far they have riot done so, mainly as a result of the campaign of intimidation and assassination by the terrorist PLO directed against those disposed to participate. However, these negotiations will continue, despite the efforts to disrupt them, and we are confident that they will reach a successful conclusion.
The peoples of the Middle East have had enough of war. We have taken a major step forward towards peace, and we owe it to our children and our children's children to carry this endeavour through to the end.
The Security Council's choice is clear. The Council, whose function is to support the cause of international peace and security, must not submit to the designs of warmongers.
Let the Council give peace a chance.