Â
Statement by Dr.
Nasser Al-Kidwa, Ambassador, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United
Nations, 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly,
Agenda Item 38: Question of Palestine, 6 May 2004:
Â
Â
Mr.
President,
Â
          Â
The issue before the General Assembly today represents an important
matter, legally and politically.Â
In light of recent developments, it represents a necessary and basic
affirmation by the international community of the right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination and to sovereignty over the Palestinian territory
occupied by
Israel since
1967, including East Jerusalem, and a rejection of any
claims of Israeli sovereignty over this territory. In accordance with the rules and
principles of international law – and this must be the fundamental basis upon
which the international community addresses all issues and matters before it -
these rights are constant and cannot be altered or voided with the passage of
time or because of changes on the ground.
Â
Such a
clear affirmation by the Assembly has always been needed, but it has become
more urgent in light of recent attempts to confer legitimacy on and to
entrench
Israel’s
illegal Israeli expansionist designs and measures, including on some of its
illegal settlements, in the Occupied
Palestinian
Territory, including
East Jerusalem.Â
Moreover, as the text of the draft resolution before delegations
states, the Assembly’s action today is intended as a contribution to the
attainment of a just and comprehensive negotiated peace settlement in the
Middle East, resulting in two viable, sovereign and independent States, Israel
and Palestine, based on the Armistice Line of 1949 and living side by side in
peace and security.
Â
Clearly,
adherence to the basic rule and principles of international law as well as to
the Charter and to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations are
imperative for the ultimate attainment of such a peace settlement. The Middle East
peace process is founded on such principles and resolutions and this must
serve as the context within which a solution to this tragic conflict is found
– it cannot be achieved in a vacuum, absent international law and determined
only by the grave imbalance of power.
Â
Mr.
President,
Â
          Â
The Palestinian side long ago took the historic decision necessary for
the achievement of peace by accepting the existence of
Israel and
accepting a solution to the conflict based on two States along the Armistice
Line of 1949, known also as the 1967 borders. Since then, the only reason for the
continuation of the conflict and of bloodshed and suffering has been
Israel’s
effective rejection of that solution and its continuing occupation of, and
expansionist designs on, the Palestinian territory it occupied in 1967,
including East Jerusalem. Israel, the occupying Power, has
relentlessly colonized our land, continuously building and expanding its
illegal colonial settlements on confiscated Palestinian land and attempting to
unlawfully acquire by force even more and more of that land, including by the
ongoing construction of its expansionist Wall, which far from being intended
for security is aimed at protecting and entrenching those illegal settlements
as part and parcel of Israel’s decades-long colonial campaign. All of this has been carried out by
Israel with impunity and blatant contempt and disregard for international law
and relevant U.N. resolutions as a result of the protection and encouragement
accorded to it by a great power and appeasement by some others, allowing it to
persist with and even escalate its unlawful policies and practices.
Â
The
occupying Power’s pursuit of such illegal policies and practices has ensured
the continued denial and violation of our national rights, including our right
to self-determination and to the achievement of our independent State,
Palestine. Even after the current Israeli
government agreed on the so-called “vision” of two States, it did so while
still intending to illegally acquire mores of our land and while still
refusing to accept the existence of a truly sovereign and viable State of
Palestine.
Â
That is why
the Sharon government continues to
pursue settlement activities and why it continues to construct the
expansionist Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian
Territory, including
East Jerusalem, and to attempt the de facto
annexation of more of our land.Â
And, that is why it continues with its measures to destroy the
Palestinian Authority and continues to imprison and threaten the safety of the
President of the Palestinian Authority and leader of the Palestinian
people. That is why it has
continued with its reign of terror over the Palestinian people - war crimes
and innumerable other violations of international law are being committed
daily by the occupying Power as it continues to kill and wound civilians,
including women and children, and to wantonly destroy Palestinian homes,
properties and land. That is why
it has undermined and preempted all initiatives to end the disastrous
situation that has prevailed over the past three years and why it has now come
up with the so-called “unilateral disengagement” plan.
Â
Mr.
President,
Â
          Â
The issue is the land and the military occupation of that land for
nearly thirty-seven years. The issue is the land and the illegal expansionist
designs of
Israel at the
expense of the Palestinian people and their rights. It is about Israel’s refusal to end
this occupation and refusal to adhere to international law, seeking all the
while instead to acquire more land by force and to eliminate more of the
indigenous people as it carries out its unlawful and unjust policies and
practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
without constraint.
Â
Israel
is doing this, while it has not even resolved the issue of the ownership of
land and properties in
Israel
itself. There are 5.5 million
dunums
of land privately owned by the
Palestine refugees, all of which
has been identified and registered by the U.N. Conciliation Commission for
Palestine. This ownership needs to be recognized
by Israel and,
in accordance with international refugee law, its restitution must be an
essential element of any settlement of the
Palestine refugee problem. Those 5.5 million dunums represent
almost half of the land of
Israel, if we exclude the
Negev desert.Â
Indeed, the situation before us is starkly clear - not only has
Israel taken
over this privately-owned land instead of restituting it to its rightful
Palestinian owners, but it proceeds with the colonization of the
Occupied
Palestinian
Territory, including
East Jerusalem, and with its attempts to annex large
parts of that territory.Â
Â
Mr.
President,
Â
          Â
On the 14th of April, a disturbing and negative development
took place in the form of an exchange of letters and assurances between Prime
Minister Sharon of
Israel and
President Bush of the United
States. The content of those letters violates
international law, as reaffirmed in numerous Security Council resolutions, and
violates the rights of the Palestinian people. It represents an attempt to confer
legitimacy on some of
Israel’s
illegal settlements in the Occupied
Territory, to negate the rights of
the Palestine refugees and to
weaken international opposition to the catastrophic and unlawful expansionist
Wall. The content is also in
departure from the terms of reference of the Middle
East peace process and the United Nations resolutions and
principles of international law within which the process is rooted. It is also in complete departure from
the Road Map and its substance as well as the principle of achieving a
peaceful settlement through negotiations between the two parties and
refraining from any actions that preempt final status issues.
Â
          Â
Even with regard to Gaza,
the Israeli proposal, as reflected in the letters exchanged, falls far short
of any real withdrawal, keeping control of international borders, airspace and
water in the hands of the occupier and maintaining the so-called “right” to
military intervention or attacks against
Gaza. In sum, rather than actually being a
real and complete withdrawal from
Gaza, it is an attempt to seal
Gaza off from the rest of the
Occupied
Palestinian
Territory and the rest of the world
and finalize its transformation into a densely-packed prison for the more than
1.2 million Palestinians living there.
Â
          Â
In light of all of this, it seemed that the Road Map could not be
implemented and that the work of the Quartet would be extremely difficult to
continue. Some, however, say that
we might still have a chance to save the Road Map and that a real and complete
withdrawal from Gaza might be an
opportunity towards actually reviving it.
Â
          Â
We would more than welcome the success of such an optimistic view. But for this to happen, several
elements are required, including: First, the unqualified reaffirmation by the
Quartet of commitment to the Road Map, including its terms of reference. Â Second, that any Israeli withdrawal,
including from the Gaza Strip and the northern West
Bank, be real, complete and non-reversible and that an
international presence or monitoring mechanism be established as
proposed. A third essential
element must be a reaffirmation of the necessity for a complete cessation of
settlement activities and the cessation of the construction of the Wall. This is, of course, a central
requirement, without which positions will remain theoretical and might even
represent a cover for Mr. Sharon’s plans to illegally acquire large areas of
the West Bank.Â
With the Wall there can be no Road Map and with the Wall there can be
no hope for any peace. The Wall
makes the two-State solution both practically and physically impossible to
attain and that is why the issue is now before the International Court of
Justice, the most important development thus far in terms of a response by the
international community to this grave violation and breach.
Â
Mr.
President,
Â
          Â
The outcome of the meeting of the Quartet, two days ago on 4 May, is
welcome although inconclusive. It
was indeed significant that the Quartet reaffirmed its commitment to the Road
Map and to the terms of reference for a negotiated peace settlement, including
“Security Council resolutions 242, 338, 1397 and 1515, the terms of reference
of the Madrid peace process, the principle of land for peace, previous
agreements and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah endorsed by the
Beirut Arab League Summit”.
Â
          Â
With regard to Gaza, the
Quartet affirmed the necessity of a full Israeli withdrawal and a complete end
to the occupation in Gaza. This is also welcome, although this is
not Sharon’s intention in
accordance with his “unilateral disengagement plan”, and it remains to be seen
how this will be actualized in terms of the clear position taken by the
Quartet.
Â
Unfortunately,
at this stage, we cannot speak as positively about the third required element
when it comes to the position taken by the Quartet. In this regard, we reiterate that the
need for the complete cessation of all settlement activities as well as the
complete cessation of the Wall must be clearly affirmed by the Quartet for
such cessation is essential for salvaging the Road Map and the two-State
solution.
Â
In sum, the
outcome of the Quartet’s meeting could serve as a good point for restarting
the work of the Quartet. More
work, however, is obviously needed to bring further clarity and to overcome
the damage incurred. From our
side, I wish to reiterate our commitment to implementing our obligations under
the Road Map and to resuming negotiations at any time. At the same time, we also believe that
it would be a good thing for the Quartet to involve the Security Council,
considering its Charter authority and its responsibilities for the maintenance
of international peace and security.
Â
Mr.
President,Â
Â
          Â
The choice now is between the rule of international law or attempts to
impose a de facto illegal situation. It is between a real two-State
solution, a real State of Palestine in the Palestinian territory occupied
since 1967, including East Jerusalem, or the imprisonment of the Palestinian
people in walled Bantustans on half of their land and then try to call it a
State. It is between a solution
that achieves justice, albeit relatively, or a charade that can only lead to
the continuation of violence and suffering. We choose – and we believe the
international community chooses the same – the rule of international law and a
genuine and viable two-State solution.Â
We choose justice and peace.