YouSaid · the spoken record

Farouk KADDOUMI

lines on the record: 48
first: 2002-09-24
most recent: 2004-09-24
sittings or episodes: 3
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“The Palestinian people and leadership have demonstrated goodwill and accepted in good faith the provisions of the road map and other proposals leading to the termination of the Israeli occupation of our Palestinian territory, so that we in the Middle East can all live in peace and security and stability. What is needed is for the other party, Israel, to commit itself to respond, in word and in deed.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“I wish to quote from the opinion, as it is of direct relevance to the General Assembly: “All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; 28 “… The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime, taking due account of the present advisory opinion.” In order to restore faith and confidence in the effectiveness of the United Nations and its Charter, I would appeal that the opinion of the Court be heeded and that action-oriented resolutions, including concrete mechanisms for implementation, be adopted and carried out.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“The representatives of the Governments of the United States of America and of Israel were among the six countries that voted against. I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to express our great appreciation for the learned opinion of the judges.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Israel did not heed the request by the Assembly in resolution ES-10/14, which, by necessity, called for an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice on the following question: “What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?” The General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 150 votes, acknowledged the Court’s advisory opinion of 9 July 2004.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“It will tightly seal off Gaza and block the only outlet that allows Palestinians in Gaza to cross into and from neighbouring Egypt. All of this is a source of concern for the international community, as reflected in the number of meetings held by the General Assembly.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
““EU heads of State or Government recently indicated that they would not recognize any change to the pre-1967 borders other than those arrived at by agreement between the parties. A permanent settlement must also include an agreed, just, fair and realistic solution to the refugee issue”. In order further to deviate from the direct route to the targeted destination, Sharon declared that he was absolutely determined to carry out disengagement in Gaza despite the political problems within his own party, the Likud. Indeed, the party believes that disengagement conflicts with the Zionist aim of the creeping annexation of Palestinian territory. Sharon’s plan creates a situation in which Israel will have to leave the settlements but will still control everything that enters and exits Gaza.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“To ensure the success of the road map and the achievement of its goal — a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 2005 — the plan also requires that Israel “freezes all settlement activity” and “withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from 28 September 2000”. Commenting on the meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, Javier Solana, European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, stated on 15 April 2004: “The EU remains firmly committed to a negotiated settlement resulting in two viable, sovereign and independent States … as the only way to achieve a permanent peace and an end to the occupation that began in 1967, in the framework of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Bush and Mr. Sharon do not topographically identify the secure and recognized borders of Israel. In the aforementioned letter of assurance, President Bush stresses that the United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish State. He does not concern himself with the security of the so-called provisional State of Palestine. He seems to be oblivious to the fact that 20 per cent of the citizens of Israel are non-Jewish and that Israel has not as yet defined who is a Jew. This concept will inevitably lead to the creation of a racist society within the Israeli political entity.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“In his letter of assurance dated 14 April 2004 to Prime Minister Sharon, President Bush reiterates that “the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in 27 accordance with … the path set forth in the roadmap”. However, when President Bush addresses the reality on the ground, he assures Israel that “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949”. He admits that as part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). However, Mr.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Acts of State terrorism were Israel’s response to the performance-based road map. To be more specific, a 2,000-pound bomb was dropped after the Palestinians scrupulously observed an unofficial ceasefire. Israel still adheres to the 14 reservations it had regarding the road map. The nebulous ideas and intentions revealed in the exchange of letters between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon on the matter of the commitment to the road map are far from encouraging and keep the road map and Security Council resolution 1515 (2003) in limbo if not completely neglecting and rejecting them.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“We have accepted the road map since, in our opinion, it augured well. The road map envisaged a two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and stated that the solution of the conflict “will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practising democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established”. The Palestinians, through their representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization, embraced the road map and believes it offers another opportunity to end the conflict. We hope that the Quartet will seriously assume the noble task of implementing the objectives of the road map.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Almost 8,000 Palestinians are being held without trial under merciless conditions, and when they protested against those conditions, an Israeli minister boasted, and I quote, “let them go on a hunger strike until they die”. In addition to all the other methods Israel uses to obstruct peace, it holds our democratically elected President, Yasser Arafat, in confinement and has announced that they can find no partner with whom to negotiate peace. With whom are the negotiations for settlement and peace to be negotiated, if not with the democratically elected President? Israel, and others of the same mind, must wish to see a continuation of the status quo or to deal with an imposed — and not democratically elected — group or person. The performance-based road map was unanimously backed by Security Council resolution 1515 (2003).”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“The daily assaults on peaceful Palestinian towns and villages — the demolition of homes and houses, the bulldozing and uprooting of age-old fruit-bearing olive and citrus trees, the targeted killings and assassinations, the closures, the imposition of a state of siege and curfews and the use of excessively disproportionate firepower, which has resulted, so far, in more than 3,200 deaths and thousands of injuries — are common knowledge. We completely reject the allegation by Israel that this is carried out in self- defence. The Palestinians under occupation, with their meagre means of combat, are the party exercising the right to self-defence.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Israel is the only nuclear Power in the Middle East. It has approximately the fourth most powerful army in the world and is a sophisticated arms developer and dealer with no ethical or moral constraints and no concern for human rights. The Israeli Government can therefore do anything it wishes, and it acts like a high-tech military expert and rogue State. It has become tremendously useful for the United States, since it has strategically placed itself in the centre of the global arms industry. Counting on the support of the United States, Israel breaks moral and international laws with impunity.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“In my statement, I will focus on the turbulent situation in the Middle East and, more specifically, on the core of the conflict in the Middle East. The situation in the region of Western Asia — or the Middle East — is in turmoil. The occupation of Iraq was founded on false pretexts, further damaging the already grave situation resulting from Israel’s policies and practices in occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories. A total absence of law and order is now the general pattern of life in occupied Iraq. This continued occupation is wreaking havoc on the economic and social aspects of life there. We urge the competent institutions, namely the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, to take the necessary and appropriate measures to ensure Iraq’s independence and sovereignty as soon as possible.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Let me begin by congratulating you, Mr. Ping, on your election as President of the General Assembly during its fifty- ninth session. We are confident that you will conduct the proceedings of this session with great competence. I would like to pay tribute to your predecessor, Mr. Julian Robert Hunte, who so ably presided over the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly. I would like to express at this time my deep appreciation for the efforts of the Secretary-General to harmonize international relations and ensure respect for the principles of the Charter and international law, with a view to strengthening international peace and security. His statement before this Assembly marks a 26 landmark in the quest for the rule of law and respect for the role of the United Nations in international conflicts.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“The siege against the Palestinian people and their elected President Yasser Arafat must be lifted. The United States must cooperate positively and effectively to facilitate the task of the Quartet and to warn Israel of the consequences of obstructing its tasks. Deploying international forces into a buffer zone created between the two sides will facilitate implementation of the road map and the Palestinian Authority's task of maintaining security in the area from which the Israeli forces will withdraw. Those forces will receive complete cooperation from the citizens of Palestine.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“That will be true as long as Israel continues to receive all forms of assistance from major Powers trying to maintain their strategic interests in the Middle East region, and opts to settle issues militarily, outside the framework of the United Nations and the resolutions of the Security Council. Israel has laid siege to the Palestinian people. It has paralysed the apparatus of the Palestinian Authority, preventing it from operating. The Israeli army assumed responsibility for security. But how did it do that? By killing, assassination and destruction. What is required first is the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the occupied territories to the borders of 28 September 2002. The Security Council should adopt the road map and work to implement it through the Quartet.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“The Arab side accepted the initiative of His Highness Crown Prince Abdullah Bin Abdul-Aziz for the establishment of comprehensive peace with Israel after its total withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories. The Crown Prince carried that initiative to Washington, D.C., in his historic meeting with President Bush in April 2002. The initiative was based on the agreed terms of reference for the road map, along with the resolutions of international legitimacy, the Madrid terms of reference and the principle of land for peace. In conclusion, peace in itself is not an objective for Israel.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“The United States Administration overlooks the Israeli leader's terroristic practices and Israel's failure to implement its commitments in accordance with the road map. The shortcomings of the United States role reflect negatively on the peace process. They obstruct the process and make success very difficult, such as by refusing to deal with President Arafat, the legitimate, elected President of the Palestinians. Mr. Arafat is the only leader who has shown conviction and flexibility with respect to the peace process. As a result of that, Mr. Arafat shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by dirty hands in Israel in order to prevent the continuation of the peace process, spreading anxiety and doubts among Palestinian and Israeli citizens alike.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“The United States Administration expressed its keen interest in implementing the road map and establishing an independent Palestinian State. Regrettably, it did not, as a sponsor of peace, address the crisis with the required effort and effectiveness. It is not enough to stress the vision of President Bush or the commitment of his Administration to such a vision, while continuing to employ a policy of double standards. That Administration continues to blame and warn the Palestinian Authority. It continues to urge the Authority to combat the resistance, which they can see only as terrorism against the Israeli occupation, despite the fact that all international norms stress the right of occupied and colonized people to self-determination by whatever means.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“In the search for the culprits, Arabs and the resistance are held to be the cause of the crisis. 31 There was a real chance for the United States to embrace all the peoples of the world, not only through the compassion of those peoples for the people of the United States but also through the unified effort to fight terrorism. The United Nations should have seized that opportunity through a programme objectively and reasonably implemented, not by using cannons or fighter jets or by mobilizing huge forces to destroy a hated regime. The real reason for that was well known political and economic ambitions. The world was outraged at the military action, but it stood idly by, observing the consequences of the misuse of force.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“It is not strange, then, that the Palestinians persevere through international assistance. However, this generosity on the part of the international community ultimately profited the Israeli enemy. International support provided a protective network through which Israel was able to afford an expensive occupation of the West Bank. Israel controls the areas militarily for free, without assuming any responsibility for the lives of the citizens there. Fighting terrorism is an arduous task. However, we do not see anyone keenly seeking the root causes of or motivations for terrorism, nor even concerned about the international isolation that Israel is suffering because of its practice of State terrorism. It is as if the stifling Israeli economic crisis were a predestined, divinely ordained phenomenon.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“International reports state that the majority of Palestinians in the occupied territories now depend to some extent on food rations. In May of this year, the World Bank reported that the volume of international contributions to the Palestinian territories had grown: since the beginning of the Palestinian intifada, external contributions accounted for more than $1 billion of the budget of the Palestinian Authority. They have therefore provided sustenance to more than half a million people the families of the employees of the Palestinian Authority. Those contributions staved off an enormous, acute humanitarian crisis. Donors who hoped for reconciliation had no choice but to make contributions because the Palestinian Authority's network of services collapsed and the living conditions of Palestinian citizens deteriorated.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Sharon did not accept the immediate cessation of all acts of violence against the Palestinians. All that Mr. Sharon said were a few words regarding a Palestinian State without any mention of an independent, viable and sovereign State of Palestine. Nor did he declare an immediate cessation of Israel's acts of violence. Despite that, the Palestinian Authority, together with all other resistance factions, declared a ceasefire on 26 June. That ceasefire was to remain in place for three months. Regrettably, Israel continued its terrorist practices, and the Israeli army of occupation assassinated 86 Palestinians. To sabotage the declared ceasefire, Israel assassinated the political leaders of the resistance factions. The situation then slipped into tension and confrontation, one month after the ceasefire had been announced.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“At the Sharm al-Shaikh Summit and at the Aqaba Summit of 6 June, the representative of the Palestinian Authority who at that time was Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas committed himself to implementing the road map, pledging to meet its requirements before President Bush of the United States, King Abdullah of Jordan, the King of Bahrain, and President Mubarak of Egypt. He announced the Palestinian Authority's commitment to a ceasefire and its readiness to recognize Israel within secure borders. However, in his statement Mr. Sharon refused to mention Israel's commitment under the road map to the vision of two States the establishment of an independent Palestinian State that is viable and sovereign, living side by side with Israel in peace and security, as expressed by President Bush. Mr.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Before the road map was announced, the Palestinian Authority had been called upon to undertake certain reforms, such as drafting a constitution, creating the post of premier and transferring certain powers from the President of the Palestinian State and the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority to the Prime Minister. Chairman Arafat made many concessions to assist the Palestinian Government in carrying out its duties. The Government of Israel made several attempts, under various pretexts, to delay the declaration of the road map: first, it was holding the Israeli elections at the beginning of the year; then it was establishing the Cabinet; then it was waiting for the Iraq war. Finally, when Israel hesitantly accepted the road map, it rejected 14 of its provisions.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“According to Haaretz, there is a Palestinian ceasefire proposal, but the Israeli Government has refused thus far to respond positively to the offer. It continues to repeat its hackneyed position that an agreement is not possible while Arafat is in power and as long as the Authority fails to dismantle the terrorist organizations. Israel imposes those conditions without making any change in the general conditions surrounding the conflict. Haaretz continues to say that the world has despaired and wrung its hands in frustration. The Israelis do not express condolences when our sons are killed; they do not denounce such killings, nor do they even establish any contacts.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Israel's diplomatic defeat at the United Nations is the inordinate price that Israel paid as a result of a stupid decision by its Government a decision that was no more than a declaration of its intentions. Its hope to eliminate Mr. Arafat is a stark embodiment of Israel's inclination to shirk responsibility and then to blame fictitious developments on the Palestinian side for the problem. Instead of taking the necessary action to calm the situation, Israel uses the working plans of its adversary as a pretext and then, should it fall short of meeting its goals, complains that there is no party to negotiate with on the other side.' 30 First of all, Israel must contribute its share to settling the dispute that is, it should make every possible effort to defuse the tension.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“An article in the 10 August 2003 edition of Haaretz reads: The Palestinian children who will be the next generation are being raised under extremely difficult circumstances in comparison with those who preceded them. They see only the ugly face of Israel; therefore, they will be consumed by blind hatred and a desperate desire for revenge.' Another article in the same newspaper this month notes: Israel lays the blame on Arafat, after it forced him to win the chairmanship of the Palestinian Authority by democratic means in accordance with the Oslo Agreement, ignoring the fact that it must, first and foremost, do its part to alleviate the tension by giving up the occupied territories.' The article continues: Can Israel ignore the regrettable fact that the European Union was among the majority that supported the General Assembly resolution?”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Therefore, Israel has taken the first steps in implementing a plan aimed at establishing cantons, which, Mr. Sharon had planned long ago to isolate Palestinian cities and villages by building settlements and bypass roads to prevent any geographic contiguity among population centres in Palestinian areas. The building of the wall is part of the Israeli policy of imposing a fait accompli, of exploiting security conditions to attain certain objectives by creating bantustans and enclaves and by isolating Palestinian villages from their surroundings, including separating such villages from Jerusalem. Thus the separation wall has isolated the cities of Eizariya and Abu Dis on all sides. All entry and exit into and out of these two cities is through Israeli military checkpoints. We condemn you, Israel, for such actions.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“The plan involves building Israeli settlements along the Green Line the line of the old armistice in order to obliterate the Line, which separates the territories occupied in 1967. Israel has used agreements as an opportunity to build more settlements, which now total 187 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The holy city, Jerusalem, has been subjected to an extensive Judaization campaign with a view to implementing the Greater Jerusalem plan to increase the number of settlers within Palestinian areas. Under that plan, land has been confiscated and a wall isolating Jerusalem from neighbouring areas is being built. Israeli settlers have occupied Palestinian homes in many Palestinian neighbourhoods. In Jerusalem, Israel has confiscated 70 kilometres of land in order to build bypass roads in the West Bank under the pretext of redeployment.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“It is my pleasure to congratulate you, Sir, on your election as President of the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session. We trust that you will guide the deliberations of this session with great efficiency, skill and wisdom. I also pay tribute to your predecessor, Mr. Jan Kavan, President of the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session, for having successfully led the deliberations of that session. In addition, we should like to express our appreciation for the tireless efforts of the Secretary- General, Mr. Kofi Annan, and for his commitment to the Charter of the United Nations with a view to enhancing international peace and security. After the 1980s, Israel began unilaterally to delineate borders through the Seven Star Settlement Plan, initiated by Mr. Sharon when he was Housing Minister.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“The Israeli forces must be called upon to revise their strategy and the Israeli side must end its assassinations and attacks against citizens and refrain from using collective economic sanctions, occupation and terrorism as a tool. Israel must halt its ongoing assault, lift the siege that has been imposed upon the Palestinian people and withdraw completely from the occupied territories so that the Palestinian Authority can implement the promised reforms and hold elections in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as in Al-Quds, under international auspices. There should be an international presence to guarantee the protection of the Palestinian people. This is a matter of urgency; the siege that is impeding the daily life of our citizens must be lifted.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“We reaffirm, however, that the borders of that State should be based on the demarcation line of 4 June 1967, in accordance with Council resolutions. Its sovereignty must be assured, and Israeli forces must be withdrawn from all the territory. We cannot agree to any temporary borders. 33 We want a lasting settlement in keeping with the Arab initiative put forward by Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia an initiative that is in keeping with relevant Security Council resolutions and with the principles of the peace process. We appreciate the role that the Quartet is playing in the peace process. No party should call upon the Palestinians alone to meet their demands.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Israel must end the acts of aggression that it continues to perpetrate against Palestinians and their towns. The Israeli army is continuing to assassinate civilians and police and security officers. Sharon has been described as a man of peace, and it has been said that Israel has a right to self-defence, even as it continues to occupy Arab territories and commit massacres. The situation on the ground defies the imagination; it is very difficult to find a way to justify the American policy. If the threat of terrorism is allowed to rule our lives, the world will become a battlefield. In conclusion, we and the other Arab countries welcomed the American statement on the establishment of a Palestinian State.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“The Arab initiative includes all the essential principles necessary for a settlement, in accordance with the provisions of the Madrid Agreement and the principle of land for peace. Security Council resolution 1397 (2002) went even further in supporting the establishment of a Palestinian State that would be recognized by Israel. This was accompanied by an American proposal. If Israel rejects this comprehensive and fair proposal, how much longer can it expect to continue in this climate of animosity towards Arabs and constant threats to their security? How long can Israel continue to occupy Arab territory and prevent Palestinian refugees from returning home? The question of Palestine cannot be separated from the situation of the Arab States, given all that the issue represents for them and for their future.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“The Arabs put forward a political initiative at the Arab Summit in March, in the hope that they would be able to make an effective contribution to ending the Arab-Israeli conflict with a view to ratifying a peace agreement with Israel. This Arab initiative, which provided for a withdrawal by Israel from lands occupied since 1967 and the establishment of a Palestinian State with Al- Quds as its capital, was endorsed and welcomed by the United States and the European States. It is not enough, however, to merely welcome the initiative. We believe that implementing it would make a political settlement possible. Expressions of compassion and sympathy are welcome but they must be supported by concrete actions if a settlement is to be achieved.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Israel was to keep 10 per cent of the territory along the Jordanian border, with three early-warning systems in the West Bank and the establishment of a mutilated Palestinian State with no sovereignty. The events of 11 September 2001 led to a humanitarian catastrophe that shook the conscience of the world. All countries of the world, including Arab and Muslim countries, stood in solidarity with the American people and expressed their intention to combat terrorism in all its forms. We were surprised, however, that the United States Administration refused to acknowledge that the Sharon Government was perpetrating acts of State terrorism.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Israeli Prime Ministers Rabin and Peres visited certain Arab States and an attempt was made to normalize Israeli-Arab relations. When Yitzhak Rabin was killed in 1995 and authority was handed over to Mr. Netanyahu, progress towards peace was impeded. The Arab countries halted the process of normalizing relations with Israel. Nevertheless, at the 1996 Arab Summit they said that peace was an Arab strategy that would not be abandoned. Despite five years of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, however, expectations were not fulfilled. Great sacrifices were made on our part. During the Camp David summit, an aide to President Clinton denied that Barak wanted to give the Palestinians a large part of Palestinian territory.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“32 Thus we are justified in asking ourselves whether these humanitarian and political responsibilities are incumbent on the United States in this era of globalization. We might ask ourselves why the United States is threatening to use force against Iraq, when sanctions have been imposed on that country for more than 10 years. Why does the United States not speak of the elimination of the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Israel, which threaten the Arab States, as was noted previously? Israel could destroy the Egyptian high dam, even though a peace agreement was signed between Israel and Egypt more than 24 years ago. Mr. Hans Blix has stated that he had no evidence that Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction. When the political negotiations began, the Arab countries took a neutral position.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“On the contrary; it only gives rise to fear and doubt among the States Members of the United Nations, especially developing countries, which have always turned to the Organization to protect them. The peoples of the world are looking to the United States in the hope that that major Power will play a positive and neutral role in international relations and in the hope that it will always be a source of technological and economic assistance. It goes without saying that the commitment of the United States to the strict implementation of United Nations resolutions in particular those of the Security Council without the use of a double standard strengthens our trust in the United Nations and reinforces its credibility as a forum for the resolution of international problems.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Moreover, the United States has committed itself to working with the former Soviet Union, through the United Nations, to resolve conflicts by peaceful means and to eliminate their arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. This is a very important approach that enables the United Nations to enhance fruitful international cooperation among States. Should that approach be abandoned, the United Nations will fail to develop international cooperation and to maintain international peace and security. The use of force in the context of intra-State relations to resolve problems does not help us in any way to uphold the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“These arbitrary measures have prompted the Palestinian people to pursue their heroic resistance, in the face of Israel's various lethal weapons, which are used to enforce the separation between the cantons. In Bethlehem, in Gaza and in other cities, residential areas have been bombed. Moreover, many Palestinians have been thrown into jail. The fact-finding team set up by the Security Council was prevented from going into the field to witness firsthand the suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Nazi Israeli occupation. The United States is a great Power and bears an important responsibility vis-‡-vis the maintenance of international peace and security and the prevention of regional conflict.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“More than 1,350 houses have been torn down, and more than 3,000 businesses and industrial concerns in the occupied territories and in Gaza have been demolished, an area of 5,800 square kilometres. The taxes that Israel collects, about $850 million, which should have been paid to the Palestinian Authority, have been kept by the Israelis. A total of 90,000 olive trees, out of 300,000, have been uprooted, and the Palestinian infrastructure has been demolished. The occupied territories were divided into 227 separate cantons. Trade was halted, measures were taken to curtail the freedom of movement of people and of goods, and borders with Arab countries were closed. In addition, the Israeli authorities have placed President Arafat under house arrest.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“This intransigence on the part of Israel highlights its goal: the continued occupation of Palestinian territories. During the course of those negotiations, new settlements were built, 187 altogether, inhabited by some 370,000 settlers, most of them armed. Recently, Israel began building a wall along the line of the 1967 truce. Israel is continuing its cruel and barbaric acts and carrying out its scorched-earth policy, with a view to depriving the Palestinian people of their income and means of subsistence. During the past two years of conflict, agricultural production has dropped by 80 per cent and industrial production by 60 per cent. Unemployment has reached 65 per cent, and 63 per cent of the population is living in poverty. Israel has destroyed public institutions, police stations, ports and airports.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“At the Madrid Conference, several agreements were entered into by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), representing the Palestinian people, and Israel. The aim of those agreements was the commencement of negotiations between the two parties with a view to the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). They also called on Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories occupied since 1967. A deadline of five years was set for those negotiations. The clock began to run after the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 in Washington, under the auspices of the previous United States President President Clinton. However, successive Israeli Governments have refused to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories and have continued to deploy Israeli forces there.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“I congratulate you, Mr. President, on your election to the presidency of the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. We are confident that you will conduct the proceedings of this session with great competence, thanks to your outstanding skills and qualities. I should like to pay tribute also to your predecessor, Mr. Han Seung-soo, who presided ably over the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly. Let me also express my deep appreciation for the efforts of the Secretary-General to harmonize international relations and to ensure respect for the principles of the Charter with a view to strengthening international peace and security. I wish also to welcome Switzerland and Timor- Leste to the United Nations. 31 We have agreed to the American political initiative that was put forward in 1991.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)