68 Statement in the Security Council by Ambassador Blum on the situation in the territories- 27 February 1980

It must have become evident by now that this debate is essentially a diversionary exercise calculated to frustrate the ongoing peace process. It is also obvious that there is a convergence of interests between the "Rejectionist" states in the Arab camp and the Soviet Union, which seeks to divert attention away from its continuing aggression against, and occupation of, Afghanistan, and all that that aggression signifies.

Moreover, as I already pointed out, the council's debates and resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict in recent years have been generally characterized by a fundamental effect. It is that they have consciously and consistently ignored the threat to Israel's security posed by Arab hostility and belligerency in its various manifestations. Deliberate attempts have been made to fragment the Arab-Israeli conflict and to focus attention exclusively on one or another of its secondary aspects, out of context and with total disregard for broader considerations which, from Israel's point of view, are crucial.

Nothing which we have heard in the course of the debate thus far leads us to alter our basic assessment of it.

THE BOND BETWEEN THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND ITS HOMELAND

The present debate is entitled "The Situation in the Occupied Arab Territories." The very formulation of the agenda item under consideration is intended to imply that the territories in question are nothing but Arab. This in itself already reflects a biased and slanted approach. I feel duty-bound to rectify this fallacious concept. While the final status of the territories in question is to be resolved through negotiations and agreement, it is imperative that it be clearly understood that the Jewish people and the State of Israel have the right in principle, as well as in law and in terms of national security, to a permanent presence in Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district.

The inseparable bond between the Jewish people and its homeland, Eretz Yisrael the Land of Israel - is an integral part of world history, inextricably entwined in the cultural heritage of mankind.

The right of the Jewish people to its land was recognized as a matter of course by the League of Nations and enshrined in its Mandate for Palestine, which stressed "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and.. the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." The mandatory power was also entrusted with the duty of encouraging "close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

NO CHANGE IN FUNDAMENTAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS ISRAEL

Last Monday, I had the opportunity to describe in some detail how Jordan illegally occupied Judaea and Samaria in 1948, and I shall not weary the council by repeating what I said then.

Let me only state that the fact that the Arab states failed in their armed aggression aimed at destroying Israel does not legitimize their violation of international law. On the other hand, that armed aggression precludes them from invoking in any form the benefits of a General Assembly resolution which they themselves both rejected and destroyed by force of arms.

Most of these Arab states have not changed their fundamental attitude towards Israel, and they are now engaged in a determined effort, of which this debate is part, to frustrate the ongoing peace process. The Arab states concerned reject the peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict through negotiations, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations charter. Instead, they strive to impose their own solution, if not in one fell swoop, then in stages.

The solution which they advocate is essentially that of the terrorist PLO. Certain governments and quarters delude themselves and try to present that organization and its leaders as "moderates." However, the latter, even if they sometimes speak in muted tones, do not generally suffer from any inhibitions. Thus, for example, in an interview with El Mundo in Caracas, Venezuela, on 11 February 1980, i.e. just a fortnight ago, Yasser Arafat declared:

This politicidal approach, aimed at the destruction of the nation and of a member state of this organization, did not begin in 1965, as Arafat suggests, or even in 1947/48, when the Arab states at the time vowed to destroy the Jewish state in embryo. Throughout this debate, the council has been treated to discourses in which the massacre of the Jews of Hebron in 1929 was shamelessly justified. It should be remembered that the ancient Jewish community was made up of pious Jews, elderly, religious and defenceless. But in this debate, the bloody pogrom visited upon them half a century ago has been casually brushed off as a necessary and justified act.

Thus the aim is to destroy Israel. It is the aim of those states which created the PLO in the first place as an instrument of warfare against Israel, and of all those states which are maintaining it as such, by financing, equipping it militarily and providing a whole range of other services

A COLOSSAL ARRAY OF MILITARY POWER

This is the goal of the "Rejectionists" and of their stooge - the terrorist PLO. To implement their sinister designs, the "Rejectionists" have created an enormous war machine and, thus, an ominous threat to peace. Their strategy has been to create an "Eastern Front" combining, in the first instance, the armed forces of Syria to the north of Israel, Jordan and Iraq to the east, and Saudi Arabia to the south. The combined military weight of these countries will be supplemented in times of war with sophisticated weapons available in enormous quantities from the arsenals of other "Rejectionist" states. This colossal array of force will be mounted against Israel also from southern Lebanon and, if at all possible, through Judaea and Samaria.

Let me try and give some notion of what we are talking about. The Arab states have today 500,000 more men under arms than has NATO, and three times the artillery of the combined NATO forces. They also have 3,000 more tanks and several hundred more combat aircraft than NATO.

The "Eastern Front" alone (Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) is currently equivalent to NATO in manpower and tanks, and already has twice as much artillery.

In terms of airpower, the Arab armies will this year equal the combined strength of the Warsaw Pact forces. They will be double that of NATO, or three times that of the People's Republic of China.

In terms of ground forces, the Arab states have today almost as many tanks as the United States of America and more artillery than it.

And against whom, one may well ask, is this colossal array of military power to be used?

One does not need to look very far for the answer. The leaders of the Arab "Rejectionist" states within and beyond the "Eastern Front" are only too ready to provide it.

Thus, for example, shortly after seizing total power in Iraq, Saddam Hussein announced on 3 July 1979 (according to the Iraqi News Agency of the same date):

At the beginning of this month, Kuwait conducted military manoeuvres using, for the first time, Soviet-made surface-to-surface missiles. These missiles, which were shown on Kuwaiti television, are of the Luna type, and have a range of 68 kilometres. On 9 February, the Kuwaiti Minister of Defence emphasized on television that the importance of these missiles is that they can be used from a long distance. He went on to stress that his country was preparing for its part in the liberation of what he called the "occupied Arab territories". Members of the council will no doubt recall that Kuwait has persistently refused to accept Security Council Resolution 242 (1967).

Then again, there is Colonel Qaddafi. I need not elaborate on the fact, known to an of us here, that, Libya has in recent years become the major stockpile of Soviet weaponry in North Africa and possibly in the whole of the African continent. How then are we to view the following declaration by Colonel Qaddafi which appeared in the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Qabas on 3 September 1978:

"We will tear into pieces any Arab-Israeli agreement concluded against the will of the Arab nation, whether it be signed in Jerusalem, the 'Black House' or in the Camp David barn.

BRIDGEHEADS FOR A WAR OF ANNIHILATION AGAINST ISRAEL

Perhaps some members of the council can take lightly these hard military facts and declared military intentions when considering the developments in Judaea and Samaria. Israel cannot. Not surprisingly, some of the Arab "Rejectionists", notably Syria and the PLO, were among the first to applaud the Soviet aggression against Afghanistan, for they saw in it a precedent and a model for their intended aggression against Israel.

The "Rejectionists" regard Judaea and Samaria, as well as the Gaza district and southern Lebanon, as the most important bridgeheads through which they might realize their dream of a war of annihilation against Israel. A glance at the map will show why. Before 1967, Israel at its narrowest point was less than nine miles wide, i.e., less than the length of Manhattan Island. Half of Israel's population is concentrated in the narrow coastal plain between Netanya and Tel Aviv. Before 1967, all this population was within easy reach of Jordan's long guns. The residents of Israel's capital, Jerusalem, were even worse off. The city was divided by barbed wire, and handgrenades could be lobbed across by the men of Jordan's Arab Legion. Snipers on the battlements of the walled city had no difficulty in picking off their targets, and Legionnaires with machine-guns could - and did - wreak havoc at will.

Ever since Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district have been under Israeli control, the Arab "Rejectionists" have tried to reconvert them into forward bases. In this, they have allocated the PLO a special role and set it the task of using the territories as bridgeheads for acts of hostility, terror, sabotage and subversion against Israel and its civilian population.

While the "Rejectionist" states build up their war machine as they wait for An opportune moment to launch what they call the "next round", the PLO continues to act. Since 1967, there have been approximately 10,000 such acts of indiscriminate violence and terror in Israel and the territories; 643 people have been murdered and 3,425 others have been wounded in Israel by the PLO. It has also terrorized and intimidated Arabs prepared to negotiate peace with Israel, killing more than 350 Arabs and injuring almost 2,000 others.

As part of the "grand design", the "Rejectionists" would obviously like the territories, leading to the outskirts of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and every other town and city in Israel, to be cleared of any Israeli presence that may stand in the way of their armies' aims. Israel sees no reason to oblige them.

Perhaps countries thousands of miles away, unfamiliar with the perils of protracted conflict and hostile neighbours, can turn a blind eye to these harsh facts. Israel, I repeat, cannot. Other states enjoy considerable security and strategic depth. Israel does not. Other states have not been subjected to the impact of four wars of aggression launched by hostile neighbours in the span of three decades. Israel has. Other nations do not know what it is like to be ringed by countries which consider themselves to be in a state of war and which are arming for yet another war of annihilation. Israel does.

In the light of past experience and present realities, Israel has no grounds for underestimating the intentions and belligerent activities of the Arab "Rejectionists", or what would be more foolhardy, of ignoring them. Despite this, other states, which sit on the sidelines, ask Israel to adopt an ostrich-like posture and to do what no responsible state would do - namely to expose itself in its entirely to the immediate military threat of an implacable foe; in brief, to put its very existence at risk.

LAND OWNERSHIP AND WATER SUPPLIES - PREDETERMINED CONCLUSIONS AND FALSEHOODS

Any discussion of the situation in Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district which does not take Israel's fundamental right to self-preservation and its legitimate concern for its security and defence into account, is meaningless. Similarly, any UN commissions which are established without regard for the background of persistent Arab aggression against Israel or over 30 years are detached from reality and lack coherence. This is all the more so, when - as in the case of the mandate of the commission established under Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) -their conclusions are determined in advance by the resolutions which establish them.

The mandate of the commission requiring it to produce a second report, as laid down in Security Council Resolution 452 (1979), was even more biased than the first one. Resolution 452 blindly embraced the recommendations contained in the commission's first report. Then, having reiterated in its preambular part all the elements which predetermined the first report's conclusions, and having added, for good measure, that "Israel's settlement policy is bound to have grave consequences on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East," the resolution requested the commission to prepare another report.

In short, the shape of the commission's reports and the nature of its conclusions were once again determined in advance.

Predictably, the commission's second report suffers from all the deficiencies of the first, both on the factual level and in terms of the conclusions drawn therefrom. It is permeated with a wholly uncritical approach, heavily slanted in favour of Israel's enemies. And once again no consideration whatsoever has been given to the highly detailed information published by the Government of Israel, including the information presented by me in the course of the Security Council's debates last March and July.

For example, there is the sheer ignorance evidenced in sub-paragraph 41(d) where the settlement of Elon Moreh is equated with Qaddum, while anyone who bother to read a daily newspaper knows that these are not the same. But let us overlook such a minor point. Instead, let us look at the substance of the matter. In that sub-paragraph note it taken of the decision of the Government of Israel to move the settlement of Elon Moreh to a new site, in the fight of the ruling given by Israel's Supreme Court, sitting as a High Court of Justice. Then, in paragraph 49, the report "deplores the efforts of the Israeli government to side-step that decision." Members of the council should be aware that the Government of Israel has not side-stepped that decision, and that it has been implemented.

In sub-paragraph 41(a), the report alleges that, in recent months, large tracts of private Arab land, totalling 40,000 dunams, have been "confiscated" for the purpose of expanding Jewish settlements. This is a falsehood. No such land has been requisitioned at all.

Some land has been "closed" by the military authorities of the area for the purpose of training, without the use of live ammunition. A closure order of this kind is temporary. It does not affect ownership. Moreover, even while the order is in effect, the owners are able use their land and cultivate it. If the military activities cause any damage, the owners are entitled to receive compensation.

Sub-paragraph 41(b) mentions the decision by the Government of Israel of 16 September 1979 to permit Israeli citizens to purchase land in Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district; it goes on to state that the decision rescinds a previous one which, according, to the commission, had hitherto prohibited Israeli citizens and organizations from purchasing land in those areas. This too is false.

In accordance with Order No. 25, given by the military governor in 1967, and in conformity with international law, land purchases were permitted, subject to authorization by the administering authorities. The cabinet's decision of 16 September 1979 was thus purely of an administrative nature, without in any way affecting the provisions of the order of 1967.

Sub-paragraph 41(c) draws attention to a decision adopted by the Government of Israel on 14 October 1979, to expand seven existing settlements. The authors of the report were unable to conceal their bias, since, when referring to the land to be used for this purpose, they found it necessary to insert the words "allegedly not privately owned by Arab inhabitants." The fact is, that the land in question was not - I repeat, not - privately owned in any of the cases covered by the government's decision. All of the land used was either legally owned by Jewish individuals or was state-owned land. The relevant decision taken by the government began explicitly with these words:

"There will be no confiscation or requisitioning of any private land whatsoever. Any expansion of the settlements or allocation of land to them will be done from stateowned land, after strict and detailed scrutiny by the attorney-general."

Last Friday we were treated to a turgid and confusing lecture by Ambassador Nuseibeh concerning different categories of land. Anyone who is at all familiar. with land law is aware of the elementary distinction existing between privately-owned lands and stateowned lands. The laws which apply in Judaea and Samaria are based on the Ottoman legislation which has been in effect in the region since 1858. Minor changes were made in that law during the time of the British mandate, and under the Jordanian occupation of Judaea and Samaria. There have been no changes whatsoever in the law since 1967, when Judaea and Samaria came under Israeli control.

Sub-paragraph 41(f) and paragraph 42 regurgitate the false allegations that Israel is siphoning off the water supplies of Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district. This is another striking example of the commission's refusal to consider the official information readily available to it, including information which I offered at considerable length on this topic in the debates last March and July.

If Israel was indeed siphoning off the water, then how does the commission account for the fact that the area of irrigated land cultivated by the Arabs in the areas in question has increased since 1967 by 160 percent? How does it explain that the number of agricultural tractors in use has gone up over ten times, from 130 in 1967 to 1,750 in 1976? How does it explain that agricultural output has shown a growth rate of eleven percent a year since 1967? How does it explain that, in real terms, income from agriculture has grown more than two and a half times? All this information was laid before the council in detail in my statements of 13 March 1979 and 18 July 1979. The commission, in its partiality, has chosen to ignore it.

To compound the demonstratively false nature of their charge, the authors of the report describe the conditions prevailing in the village of AI-Auja as a "case in point". According to the report, the villagers protested last August that their economy was being ruined because Israeli wells and the water network supplying the nearby settlements had drastically depleted the village's water resources.

As the authors of the report think that this is a "case in point", let me address myself to it in some detail.

There are two villages situated in the Auja basin: Auja Fawka and Auja Takhta. The inhabitants earn their livelihood from agriculture, working their own plots of land or those of several land-owners who live elsewhere. Most of the water they consume comes from the Auja Springs and from several shallow wells in the area.

The Auja Springs flow from the ground at an elevation of 20 metres above sea level, at an annual rate of about 10 million cubic metres, which fluctuates radically in direct relation to the amount of rainfall in the region. In a year of plentiful rain, the flow can reach as much as 25 million cubic metres, whereas, in a year of drought, it can drop as low as 1 million cubic metres or less. In the drought year of 1962/63, under the Jordanian occupation, the springs produced only 1.1 million cubic metres of water.

The wells sunk in the area of the Mekorot Water Company of Israel reach a depth of 190 metres below sea level, fully 210 metres below the level of the Auja Springs, and there is no interflow or physical connection whatsoever between the two. Therefore, the claim that the Mekorot wells affect the flow of the spring waters is entirely unfounded.

The drastic reduction of the flow of the Auja spring waters between July and November of 1979 resulted from (a) a drastically curtailed flow of spring water, resulting from the cumulative effect of sparse rainfall in the three years from 1976 to 1978; and (b) the severe drought of 1978/79, when annual rainfall levels were 70 to 80 percent below average. Given the overall tenor of the commission's report, it comes somewhat as a surprise that those drought years were not blamed on Israel.

The heavy rainfalls of December 1979 brought about a renewed flow from the Auja Springs. If the abundant rainfall which has fallen this winter continues, the spring water will undoubtedly prove adequate to permit the irrigation of crops as in the past. The flow has already been renewed and that in itself is ample proof that its recent cessation cannot in any way be attributed to the Jewish villages in the vicinity.

THE UNCRITICAL NATURE OF THE REPORT

I could go on quoting chapter and verse to refute the so-called "findings" of the report, but to what purpose? Not only are the so-called "findings" wrong, but the whole report is permeated with an uncritical approach. That uncritical approach in turn was predetermined by the commission's mandate. For instances of the uncritical nature of the report, one need only look at its paragraphs 33 and 77.

In the first of those paragraphs, one of Yasser Arafat's henchmen is quoted as saying that there is "no religious freedom in Jerusalem for Christians and Moslems", and that access to the Holy Places is "still restricted". This so-called "information" given by someone who represents an organization committed to the destruction of Israel, is offered without comment or reserve by the authors of the report.

Surely the commission must know the truth. Millions of Moslem and Christian tourists and pilgrims, in addition to Jewish visitors, have visited Jerusalem since 1967 and have prayed and worshipped freely at its mosques and churches. An these visitors can attest to the complete freedom of access to and worship at the holy shrines to the adherents of all faiths, which is unprecedented in the history of the city.

Similarly, in the second of these paragraphs, the representative of the Palestinian Arab State of Jordan is recorded as having presented the commission with a series of documents, including one which purports to be an Israeli plan for the seizure of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Nothing could be more fantastic. The authors of the report were apparently prepared to accept this wild fantasy without demur or reserve.

In the light of the above, what can be expected of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report? If they were placed before any court of law, they would be disqualified as evidence and thrown out unceremoniously.

JERUSALEM SHALL REMAIN THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL

Several speakers have seen fit to exploit this debate to play on religious sentiments in order to fan the flames of incitement, both religious and political, against Israel. They have focused not only on Hebron but also on Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel and of the Jewish people.

Jerusalem has known many foreign rulers during the course of its long history, but none of them ever regarded it as their capital. Only the Jewish people has always maintained it as the centre and sole focus of its national and spiritual life.

The Jews of Jerusalem have the longest unbroken historical association with the Holy City. The city of Jerusalem has been the heart and soul of the Jewish people since King David, three thousand years ago, transferred his capital from Hebron to Jerusalem, and established it as the capital of Israel. As the centre of Jewish life, hope and yearning, Jews for thousands of years have prayed daily for their return to Jerusalem. For the past century and a half, Jerusalem has had a continuous and uninterrupted Jewish majority.

As the representative of Israel, let me therefore state here again that Jerusalem - one, undivided and indivisible - shall remain forever, as it is now, the capital of Israel and of the Jewish people.

At the same time, the Government of Israel has always been conscious of the fact that Jerusalem is of deep concern also to other faiths. Its religious and cultural sites are precious to Christians and Moslems, as well as to Jews. Israel is mindful of the historical treasures and manifold spiritual heritage of Jerusalem.

Israel's policy with regard to Jerusalem's holy places is governed by the Law on the Protection of Holy Places of June 1967. Under this law, unrestricted access to holy places is guaranteed to all members of all faiths. Respect for and preservation of the holy places is also assured.

In this regard, it is relevant to recall again the dismal record of the Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967. From the outset, the Jordanian government began to eliminate systematically every trace of Jerusalem's Jewish past. Fifty-eight synagogues, some of great antiquity, like the 700 year-old Hurva Synagogue, were wantonly destroyed and desecrated. In the process, hundreds of holy Torah scrolls and books reverently preserved for generations were plundered and burned to ashes.

In flagrant violation of the 1949 Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement, Jordan barred access by Jews to their holy places and cultural institutions. Moreover, Israeli Moslems were barred by Jordan from praying in the mosques in the Old City of Jerusalem. They gained access to them only in 1967, when the city was reunited.

THE ONLY PRACTICAL SOLUTION

Let us be candid with ourselves and see this debate for what it really is. Let us also have the honesty to admit that debates such as this will not advance the cause of peace one iota.

For thirty years there was no progress in the numerous attempts made to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. For the past two years we have been engaged in a peace process which has already shown its potential and produced the first historic breakthrough in the conflict. That breakthrough came, of course, in the form of the peace the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, which has already led to the establishment of full diplomatic relations between our two countries, with our ambassadors presenting their credentials yesterday.

The fact is that the only practical solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the question of the Palestinian Arabs in all its aspects, is the one outlined in the Camp David "Framework for Peace in the Middle East". That Framework is squarely based on Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), which remains to this day the only agreed basis for peace negotiations in the Middle East.

The Camp David Framework sees the solution to the question of the Palestinian Arab residents of Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district in terms of granting them full autonomy for a transitional period of five years, before reaching an agreement on the final status of the areas concerned.

To that end, it was agreed to negotiate on a principle of self-government, to be exercised through an administrative council - for the Arab inhabitants of the areas in question.

Moreover, in that Framework the Palestinian Arab residents of Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza district were invited to play an active role in shaping their future by participating in all aspects of the negotiations. They have been invited to participate not only in current negotiations to set up a self-governing administrative council, but also in the negotiations which will determine the final status of the areas in which they live and in the eventual negotiations on a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, in which the determination of boundaries between the two countries will be agreed.

The Camp David Framework also envisages a withdrawal of the Israeli military government and its civilian administration, accompanied by a redeployment of Israeli forces into specified security locations.

This solution provided for in the Camp David Framework offers the Palestinian Arabs concerned greater opportunities than they have ever before experienced in their history. It offers them a secure future, free from terror.

As the President of Israel, Yitzhak Navon, remarked yesterday on receiving the credentials of the Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt:

"We are still confronted with problems that we shall have to solve, but, when we look back on the ground we have already covered, we are filled with hope that those problems which still face us will be solved in mutual understanding and peace."