State of Palestine, 2000

At the outset allow me to convey to

Mr. Holkeri our congratulations on his election as

President of this session of the General Assembly,

expressing our full confidence in him and wishing him

every possible success. This session has special

importance for Palestine and we hope that during its

proceedings and under his leadership historic steps will

be taken in our favour. I should also like to thank His

Excellency Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, President of the

fifty-fourth session, a fighter for freedom and a fighter

for peace, for his excellent leadership during the course

of the past year. I would be remiss if I failed to seize

the opportunity to express our special thanks to

Mr. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United

Nations, for his effective leadership and for his special

interest in the situation in the Middle East and the

peace process there.

As we meet in the wake of the Millennium

Summit, it is incumbent upon us to seek to build upon

22

its outcome beginning with implementing the

Millennium Declaration and adopting it as a guide for

our work in the next era. This should be the case not

only with regard to globalization and future social and

economic issues, but also with regard to one of the

main tasks not fully achieved during the past era

namely, the achievement of self-determination by

peoples under colonial domination and foreign

occupation. That task will not be fully achieved until

Israeli occupation comes to an end and the Palestinian

State has been established in accordance with

international legitimacy. For us this is the step

necessary to place ourselves side by side with other

member States on the road to development, democracy

and prosperity and so that we may be allowed to carry

our small share of responsibility towards the

international community and its future tasks.

As President Yasser Arafat mentioned in his

address to the Millennium Summit, the Palestine

Central Council met to consider the situation as the

agreed date between the Palestinian and Israeli sides

for reaching a final status agreement, 13 September

2000, approached; that date was also the deadline of

the agreed-upon extension of the five-year interim

period that originally ended on 4 May 1999. The

Palestine Central Council addressed this situation with

a high level of responsibility towards our people and

towards the peace process and took a difficult decision

seeking a balance between the natural and historic

rights of the Palestinian people to their State, based on

the partition resolution 181 (II) and in accordance with

the Declaration of Independence of 1988 and our right

to establish this State at the end of the interim period,

on the one hand, and preserving what some have called

the last chance for the peace process and for reaching

an agreement between the two sides through an

additional extension and the decision to continue the

negotiations for the next five or six weeks on the other.

The Council thus decided to delay the establishment of

the State and at the same time mandated the Executive

Committee and the presidency of the Palestine National

Council and the Legislative Council to take the

necessary steps in this regard, including completion of

the constitutional declaration and laws for presidential

and parliamentary elections, as well as the submission

of an application for membership for the State of

Palestine in the United Nations, followed by a report

on these steps to the Central Council no later than 15

November 2000, the anniversary of the Declaration of

Independence.

That decision means first and foremost our desire

and commitment to reach an agreement with the Israeli

side if that side is truly ready for that. Secondly, it also

means the agreement by the Palestinian side to

postpone the establishment of the State, not only until

the end of the transitional period and its extension, but

until the end of the realistic opportunity for achieving a

possible final agreement at the present time. We

believe that no one can expect us to go beyond that and

accept the continuation of the present transitional

situation that is impossible to endure. We further

believe that all States, including those that have

advised us to postpone, will understand this and will

thus be ready to provide the necessary support for our

steps, including support for the application of Palestine

for membership in the United Nations.

The assumption of power by the current Israeli

Government was coupled with a chorus of positive

voices that led to increased hope for rapid and honest

implementation of the agreements signed by the two

sides aimed at achieving a final agreement in the

agreed time. We honestly wanted to believe this and

dealt with that Government positively and with full

commitment to the agreements. But the stubborn

realities began to impose themselves on the ground,

regardless of the wishes and the artificial positive

voices. The current Government did not implement any

of the provisions of these agreements except those

provisions that the former Government had explicitly

committed itself to in implementation of the Wye River

Memorandum of October 1998. This Government has

not carried out one centimetre of redeployment more

than Mr. Netanyahu had committed himself to, and it

has also failed to carry out the third redeployment.

Illegal settlements, which are destructive to the peace

process, have continued, even in Jabal Abu Ghneim,

which was the reason the General Assembly convened

its tenth emergency special session. A number of other

illegal measures and practices have also continued,

creating a negative and tense climate. Amidst all of

that, final status negotiations started and we witnessed

Israeli foot-dragging and procrastination that we could

not understand and that has led to more doubts and

tension.

Then came the Camp David Summit, for which

thorough preparation was needed before being

convened, something that was not accepted by the

Israeli side. Despite everything, the Summit

represented a very important opportunity to move into

23

a new, serious phase of negotiations through the

personal involvement of President Bill Clinton and his

Secretary of State and the rest of his team. We highly

appreciate all the efforts made for the success of the

Summit. For our part, we spared no effort in the same

direction. However, we believe that Israel's lack of

readiness to comply with the terms of reference of the

peace process prevented the success of such efforts.

In the wake of the Summit a campaign was

launched by some parties and some biased media

organizations to absolve the Israeli side of its

responsibility and to place undue pressure on the

Palestinian side. For example, some say that the Israeli

side progressed from its original positions during the

negotiations more than the Palestinian side. That is

factually incorrect, in addition to being the wrong

yardstick to apply. It is incorrect because the

Palestinian side has progressed from its original

position more than the Israeli side, but that happened

with the start of the peace process and the acceptance

of the bases of such a process. The Palestinian side has

accepted, despite the historic injustice, establishing its

State in accordance with the partition plan, which gave

us less than half of mandated Palestine, and has

accepted as the basis for settlement Security Council

resolution 242 (1967), which gives us less than a

quarter of mandated Palestine. Is there a more

momentous concession than this? Is it possible to

forget that and only look at positions taken during the

Camp David negotiations, regardless of the past?

It is also the wrong yardstick to apply because the

appropriate yardstick should be the closeness of the

sides to the agreed basis of the peace process and their

commitment to Security Council resolution 242 (1967),

the implementation of which is the goal of the peace

process, and not the extent of their movement from

original positions, especially if such positions were

illegal and irrational. Needless to say, the Palestinian

side has fully adhered to this resolution and has never

attempted to circumvent it, whereas the Israeli side has

never stopped pursuing positions violating that

resolution and aiming to usurp more and more

Palestinian land and rights.

Let us have another look at the positions of the

parties on some specific issues, so that all may be

aware of the details of the situation. With regard to

Jerusalem, the first kiblah and the third of the holy

sanctuaries and the cradle of Jesus Christ, the other

side claims that it made substantial concessions while

the Palestinians did not. It also claims that we have not

shown enough sensitivity towards the holy sites

pertaining to Judaism. All of this is incorrect. The

signed agreements state that Jerusalem will be an issue

for negotiation, which means the whole of

Jerusalem — occupied East Jerusalem and West

Jerusalem, which is under de facto Israeli control. For

our part, we have accepted that West Jerusalem shall be

under Israeli sovereignty and become the capital of

Israel. We have demanded the end of the occupation of

East Jerusalem so that it may come under Palestinian

sovereignty and be the capital of Palestine. We have

accepted that the city shall be open, and have accepted

all kinds of guarantees for freedom of conscience,

worship and access to all holy places under Palestinian

sovereignty. In return for such flexibility, Israel is not

satisfied with recognized sovereignty over West

Jerusalem, but seeks also to usurp parts of occupied

East Jerusalem.

With regard to the Jewish holy places, we fully

respect their sacredness, and Islam recognizes the three

monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and

Islam — and all their prophets. Thus, we have shown

every possible flexibility, even with regard to those

places on lands in occupied East Jerusalem, to which

resolution 242 (1967) is applicable. We have accepted

that the Western Wall of Al-Haram Al-Sharif, which is

known to the Arabs and Muslims as Al-Buraq Wall and

to the Israelis and Jews as the Wailing Wall, shall be

placed under Israeli control, bearing in mind its

sacredness to Judaism and consistent with the situation

since the British mandate on Palestine. In return for our

flexibility Israel not only seeks sovereignty over the

Western Wall, but further challenges our sovereignty

over Al-Haram Al-Sharif and seeks to maintain some

form of sovereignty over it, something that will not be

accepted by any Palestinian, Arab or Muslim leader,

not now and not in the future.

We have recently taken a major additional step in

this regard by indicating our readiness to accept a

certain mechanism for ensuring that no excavations are

conducted under Al-Haram Al-Sharif, or even our

readiness to accept Muslim sovereignty over Al-Haram

Al-Sharif through the Al-Quds Committee of the

Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). This

represents the utmost that can be done in terms of

dealing with an Arab and Muslim trust over Palestinian

land.

24

With regard to another important issue, namely,

Palestinian refugees and their rights, the Palestinian

side has upheld their rights in accordance with

international law, like any other refugees in the world,

and in accordance with relevant United Nations

resolutions, in particular resolution 194 (III), including

their right to return and to compensation. At the same

time, we have shown our readiness to accept specific

implementation mechanisms to be agreed upon. In

return for our flexibility, Israel refuses to recognize its

responsibility for this human tragedy and refuses to

recognize the rights of the refugees, including their

right to return, and wants only to compensate them, and

even that at the expense of others and not in its

capacity as the party that seized their lands and

properties. Yesterday the Assembly heard Israel's

spokesman repeat what has been said, attempting not

only to deny Israel's responsibility but also denying the

individual property of the refugees, more than 5.5

million dunams of land, legal and full property of

individuals. The Acting Foreign Minister attempted to

put an end to that in an address to the Assembly.

The third important issue is that of settlements

and borders. We have affirmed that settlements are

illegal and must not be built on Palestinian lands.

Furthermore, Israel must withdraw to the armistice

lines of 1949, which are commonly known as the lines

of 4 June 1967. At the same time, and in order to

resolve some of the demographic problems illegally

created by Israel, we have shown our readiness to

accept changes in the border lines on the basis of full

reciprocity. In return for such flexibility, Israel still

attempts to appropriate more land and to annex other

parts of occupied Palestinian territory. However, we

generally feel, or at least hope, that the differences on

this and the remaining issues are less sharp than the

differences I indicated regarding the two previous ones,

and it is hoped this might signify a real change in the

Israeli position regarding all issues.

We have not lost hope yet. We are still committed

to the peace process and to serious and continuous

negotiations in the coming weeks. Yet this morning we

were surprised to hear the spokesman of the Israeli

Government announce that the negotiations are

suspended. We hope that the Israeli positions are

tactical and that the Israeli side will in the final

analysis respect its commitment to the bases of the

peace process. We want an agreement, an agreement

that will remove us from the cycle of confrontation and

that will carry forward both sides, and the entire region

and its future generations, to a new era. Such an

agreement must be balanced, reasonable and based on

international law, the basis of the peace process. This

requires a continuation of the necessary efforts and

unbiased support of the two cosponsors of the peace

process, particularly the United States of America,

other concerned parties in the region, the European

Union and interested parties throughout the world. We

are ready and look forward to such a historic agreement

between the two States, Palestine and Israel.

During the Millennium Summit much was said

about the United Nations and its past and future role.

We wish to add that the United Nations is

indispensable when it comes to the question of

Palestine and the situation in the Middle East. We have

always emphasized the permanent responsibility of the

United Nations for the question of Palestine until it is

effectively resolved in all its aspects, and while we

always called for more United Nations involvement in

the Middle East peace process, others have attempted

to exclude and neutralize it. We are convinced that in

the coming decisive period the role of the United

Nations will become more important, no matter what

the circumstances. If we were, God forbid, to arrive at

a dead end despite all our strenuous efforts for the

success of the peace process, then we would come to

the United Nations and expect to receive its protection

and support. We will work to obtain membership and to

contribute to the resolutions of the United Nations, the

established committees and the relevant programmes so

that all might provide an additional boost for the

achievement of our people's legitimate rights,

including their right to the establishment of their

independent State with Jerusalem as its capital, after

such a long period of trial and tribulation.

If our hope is fulfilled and we are successful in

reaching a final agreement with our neighbours, then

we expect that the need for the United Nations and its

organs will be greater. The United Nations

responsibility in all its forms will continue until the

end of the implementation period and there will be a

need to legitimize some aspects of the agreement and

perhaps to complement them. There will also be a need

for United Nations assistance during the

implementation period with regard to many aspects, in

particular with regard to Palestinian refugees, including

the continuation of the work of the United Nations

Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the

25

Near East. We will then propose the specific

reactivation of the United Nations Conciliation

Commission for Palestine, which was established by

resolution 194 (III) and is composed of the United

States, France and Turkey, and the use of the records of

the Commission related to land ownership in Palestine.

These records were updated by the United Nations

Secretariat, in cooperation with the Committee on the

Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian

People, and can now be used. In any case, the need for

the United Nations will increase, and we call for

preparedness for that eventuality.

There are other aspects of the Arab-Israeli

conflict that must be resolved in order for a

comprehensive peace to be achieved in the region. In

this context, we reaffirm the necessity of reactivating

the Syrian-Israeli track of the peace process as well as

the need for Israel to accept the principle of full

withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Arab Golan to the

lines of 4 June 1967. We declare our solidarity with our

sister country, Syria, and support its just demands,

including Israeli adherence to the terms of reference of

the peace process. We also express our great happiness

at the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. We

congratulate the brotherly Lebanese people on the

liberation of their territories and support their other

demands regarding the achievement of peace between

Lebanon and Israel. In this context, we affirm our

agreement with regard to rejecting the resettlement of

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and the need for them

to return to their homes, and, until then, we expect

them to benefit from normal living conditions.

With regard to Arab national security and the

principle of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, we

reaffirm the need for Israel to accede to the Treaty on

the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and to put

all its nuclear facilities under the supervision of the

International Atomic Energy Agency. We also support

attempts aimed at establishing a region free from

weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and

believe this to be an essential condition for establishing

a new reality in the region, which we all seek to

achieve.

In the context of the wider Arab region, the

suffering of the brotherly Iraqi people is still a source

of real concern for us all. We call for a speedy end to

their suffering. We also call for the total lifting of

sanctions imposed on sisterly Libya and brotherly

Sudan. We also call for the peaceful settlement of the

issue of the three islands between the United Arab

Emirates and Iran in a way that preserves the rights of

the United Arab Emirates in these islands. We also

express our happiness for the recent steps taken in

Somalia and express our hope that the stability and

reconciliation process will continue. We reaffirm the

need for efforts to be made to resolve problems

everywhere, including, inter alia, those of Cyprus, of

the great African continent, particularly the Horn of

Africa, of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and

of some of the surrounding countries. The resolution of

such problems will represent an important contribution

towards placing that continent on the road to

development and progress.

Before concluding I must once again express our

deep thanks to our brothers and friends everywhere,

particularly to fraternal Arab countries, Islamic

countries and non-aligned countries, as well as to all

other friends for their principled and continuous

support. Let this year be the year that will bring to an

end the historical injustice that has befallen our people,

and let it be the beginning of a new life in the Middle

East for all States, peoples and future generations.