YouSaid · the spoken record

Al-Kidwa

lines on the record: 724
first: 1992-01-06
most recent: 2004-10-06
sittings or episodes: 59
sources: un-security-council

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 first field involves Israeli policy and measures with regard to the movement of persons and goods within the Palestinian territory, as well as movement into and out of the territory. These policies and measures in reality represent a siege of the Palestinian territory and the strangulation of the Palestinian people and their economy. The policy has various aspects, including preventing or restricting movement between Palestinian cities and villages within the Palestinian territory itself, including some restrictions in the Gaza Strip. Another aspect is the division of the Palestinian territory as a consequence of Israel's non-compliance with the establishment of safe passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which, according to the 1993 Declaration of Principles, represent a single territorial unit.”
1996-04-15 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3652 (1996) · source
“Further, I should like to express our appreciation to the members of the Security Council for responding to this request, as well as to all other Member States that have shown interest and concern with regard to the situation. I should like also to thank His Excellency the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for the interest he has expressed and for his good offices in this regard, including his transmittal of the letter of His Excellency President Yasser Arafat to the Security Council, contained in document S/1996/233. The Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, have been enduring a very difficult situation. Their daily suffering has increased and become unbearable because of a set of policies and measures adopted by Israel, the occupying Power, in several fields.”
1996-04-15 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3652 (1996) · source
“Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine) (interpretation from Arabic): Allow me to express our congratulations to you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. We are confident that you will lead the Security Council successfully and skilfully. I should like also to express my thanks and appreciation to Ambassador Legwaila of Botswana, President of the Security Council last month. At the outset, I wish to express our appreciation to the members of the fraternal Arab Group and to its Chairman for this month, the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates, for their request to convene this meeting of the Security Council in order to consider the grave situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem.”
1996-04-15 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3652 (1996) · source
“This step, in the view of many, represents a clear backing of the illegal Israeli action and an attempt to legalize it, thus preventing the international community from sending a decisive message to the Israeli Government regarding the dangers of its action and its negative implications for the peace process. At this point I really cannot assess those implications very accurately. Finally, I should like to express our deep thanks to you personally, Sir, for the skilful manner in which you have presided over the Council this month. May I call on you to follow up this matter and to continue to fulfil your obligations as President in order to ensure that the Israeli confiscation orders, which are illegal, are rescinded.”
1995-05-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3538 (1995) · source
“It is our View that in the interest of the continuation of the peace process the United States side should reaffirm to the Palestinian side its commitment to the full contents of this letter and its position, as well as to the tenets of the peace process as a whole. In addition, we believe that a more neutral and balanced United States position towards the parties to the conflict in the Middle East would definitely contribute to the success of the peace process. Any attempt to deviate from that position, as we have seen today, will only complicate the process and lead to its loss of credibility. Indeed, it is unfortunate that Jerusalem, the key to peace, has become the issue upon which the United States side has chosen to exercise its veto power.”
1995-05-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3538 (1995) · source
“This position indeed totally ignores the strong views expressed by these countries en masse and at the highest level, and does not take into account the arguments; nor does it take into account the centrality and sensitivity of Jerusalem to those countries, which consider Jerusalem to be a red line. Tampering with it will surely produce dire consequences sooner or later. We believe that the use by the United States of the right of veto will complicate the peace process in the region and will not help the parties in the negotiation process; on the contrary, it will be counterproductive. We believe also that this veto runs contrary to the foundations of the peace process and to the Palestinian participation in that process. By this we have in mind the United States letter of assurances to the Palestinian side.”
1995-05-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3538 (1995) · source
“With regard to the United States itself, it is very hard indeed to understand how a super-Power, a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention and all relevant Security Council resolutions, could vote against the provisions of the Convention and those of the Council's resolutions. In point of fact, this vote contravenes the supreme law of the land. Then there is the general political meaning of the United States position with regard to the Arab and Islamic countries, in particular those that enjoy a special, friendly relationship with the United States.”
1995-05-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3538 (1995) · source
“As is known, this veto today is the first political veto that has been cast since the end of the cold war and comes at a time when the world had begun to think that the pattern of international relations had gone beyond such a practice, at least in this form, while there exists some international consensus on a position different from the position of the permanent member concerned. At this juncture, I must emphasize that we do not accept the position of the United States of America, which seems to consider that the existence of the peace process would marginalize the role of the Security Council and its responsibilities vis-a-vis the situation in the Middle East.”
1995-05-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3538 (1995) · source
“That has been demonstrated by the use by the United States of its right of veto. This United States position, which cannot conceal the real position of the international community that I have just outlined, without a doubt will cause harm to the Security Council itself and to the pattern of prevailing international relations. In addition, it will cause harm to the United States itself and to its commitment to international law and its role as a cosponsor of the peace process. Lastly, it will cause severe harm to the peace process itself.”
1995-05-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3538 (1995) · source
“To the Palestinian and Arab party it is a message of support from the international community for the essence of the Palestinian position with regard to the question of Jerusalem. To the Israeli side it should be seen as a total rejection by the international community of the land confiscation measures and the illegal Israeli actions in the Holy City, including the expansion of the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, the annexation of Jerusalem and the declaration of the city as the capital of Israel. Unfortunately, despite the clear stand taken by the international community, the Security Council was intentionally and by coercion prevented from expressing itself and from assuming its duties and implementing its responsibilities - responsibilities that remain in place either within or without the peace process.”
1995-05-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3538 (1995) · source
“caucus, and a sister Arab country - for their cosponsorship of the draft resolution, as well as for their introduction of it before the Council, and their decisive insistence on upholding the principled positions of the Non-Aligned Movement on this crucial and essential question: the question of Jerusalem. We are proud of the position taken by the Arab and Islamic countries on this central issue, which is of great concern to both the Islamic and the Arab countries. All this, in addition to the position expressed by a large number of those who spoke before the Council, should be seen as genuine achievements in the interest of justice, international law and the Charter of the United Nations. It should be understood as a clear message to the parties concerned.”
1995-05-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3538 (1995) · source
“Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine) (interpretation from Arabic): At the outset I should like to express our thanks and appreciation to all the members of the Security Council that voted in favour of the draft resolution that was just voted upon. The overwhelming support for the draft resolution, expressed in the fact that 14 members of the Council voted in favour of it, is a genuine demonstration of the clear and decisive position of the international community against the illegal Israeli action to confiscate land in occupied East Jerusalem. I should like also to express our deep appreciation to the members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that are members of the Council, namely, Botswana, Honduras, Nigeria, Indonesia, Rwanda and Oman - the Coordinator of the NAM.”
1995-05-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3538 (1995) · source
“The rest of the land is Arab We should like to state clearly that the crux of the problem is that East Jerusalem is land occupied by Israel and that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to that land. as has been repeatedly confirmed by the Security Council. The question is not one of private property but of measures the occupying forces are prohibited from taking, whether they involve confiscation or any other measure.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“Thus, Arab citizens deprived of their recourse to justice will now see their land automatically considered as Jewish land. This land, which originally belonged to Arabs. was confiscated two land, in accordance with a situation that has prevailed years ago, and most of it. through this process. has been since the Ottoman era. For our part. it is our belief that regarded as Jewish land. the figures themselves are neither correct nor accurate. The figures set forth in the statement of the Ambassador As ("or the 53 hectares, even il'the figures contained in of Israel, unfortunately, have no basis in tact. the statement of the representative of Israel were correct and accurate, they indicate that the land belonging to Jews does not exceed 11 hectares.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“Peres, the Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs, but they were not taken up in the press or on the radio or on television, nor have they been put forward by military spokesmen or by any other Minister. Now, however, we find them in the statement of the representative of Israel. If we carefully examine the text of his statement we note the clever way in which the figures are formulated. We find an additional 185 hectares, which were confiscated two years ago by the Israeli authorities in the Jabal Abu Ghneim area. To that figure have been added the 53 hectares we are now talking about. These 185 hectares became Jewish land because they were confiscated two years ago, and, on the basis of legal arguments put forward by Israel, most of those hectares were deemed to be Israeli land.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine) (interpretation from Arabic): First of all, I would like to assure the President and members of the Security Council that I do not intend to exercise fully my right of reply to the statement made by the delegate of Israel as this would require a great deal of time which we do not have available at the moment. I will therefore restrain myself. The statement made by a State Member of the United Nations almost led me to believe that the Palestinian side was confiscating Israeli lands, not the other way round. At any rate, I have asked to speak solely to rectify certain figures and percentages mentioned by the representative of Israel in his statement. These figures and percentages are odd. According to him, 63 per cent of the confiscated land is Israeli land. These figures and percentages were once put forward by Mr.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“The Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, will continue their struggle to achieve their legitimate rights, including the right to establish their independent State, with Jerusalem as its capital.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“Jerusalem, the Holy City for the three monotheistic religions, was and will remain the key to war and peace. It is the first kiblah for Muslims, the home of the third of Islam's sacred mosques, the destination of the Prophet's divine journey and the burial place of Jesus Christ. Throughout history it has been a setting for both conflict and peace. It is unlike any other city. It has always maintained an Islamic and Arab identity, and it will continue to do so. All Israeli attempts to change its character, falsify its history and deny the rights of the Palestinians in it is extremely dangerous and touch the dignity and the convictions of the Islamic and Arab worlds.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“What is also required is that the Council make the Israelis understand the importance of not repeating such acts in the future. This, of course, falls within the framework of what is required in general from the Council: guaranteeing respect for international law and providing the necessary support for the peace process. It is truly our hope that the Council will succeed this time in assuming its responsibilities, in contrast with what happened recently, when the Council did not shoulder its task again after the debate on 28 February. Had we succeeded then, we probably would not have had to come before the Council today. We hope to succeed this time, so that we will not have to come before the Council again in the future on the same issue.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“But, at the same time we want to warn of the possible catastrophic consequences of these attempts if they are successful. If such attempts actually materialize, we will work to build an Arab-Islamic position on the issue and will be obliged to fight the move, despite our limited capabilities. In part, our response will be within the framework of the United Nations system, including the Security Council - under Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter - and the International Court of Justice, to which we will turn for an advisory opinion or some other form of involvement. What is now required from the Council with regard to this issue? What is required is that the Council assume its duty to guarantee the rescinding of the Israeli confiscation orders through the adoption of a clear resolution.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“We are now witnessing precisely such actions, and we hope that the United States will take a clear position in keeping with its assurances in this regard. We would like to say a word here regarding attempts currently under way in the United States Congress to move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, which constitutes an attempt to cancel the United States policy that has prevailed over 40 years. Under normal circumstances, we would not be taking up proceedings of the parliaments of Member States, but this case has gone beyond the merely hypothetical, touching the vital interests of our people and representing a violation of international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions. We appreciate the current Administration's position with regard to these new attempts, as well as the positions of previous Administrations.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“The American co-sponsors carry a larger responsibility in this regard because of their special relationship with Israel and because of the letters of assurance they provided to the parties participating in the process, including the letter of assurance to the Palestinian side, which was an integral component of the basis for Palestinian participation in the whole process. That letter of assurance, dated 24 October 1991, states the following about the issue of Jerusalem: "The United States is opposed to the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and the extension of Israeli law on it and the extension of Jerusalem's municipal boundaries. We encourage all sides to avoid unilateral acts that would exacerbate local tensions or make negotiations more difficult or pre-empt their outcome".”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“Finally, Israel must choose: either there is agreement with the Palestinian side or there is no agreement, because the status of half-agreement is unacceptable and absolutely untenable. We on our side are committed to the agreement and the peace process, and we are ready to go forward on the basis of implementing what was agreed upon, with complete respect for international law. What about the co-sponsors of the peace process and their respective roles in this regard? We believe that the co-sponsors have to intensify their efforts to rescue the process and to guarantee its progress by persuading Israel not to continue to pursue these policies and practices and by pushing for the parties' implementation of their contractual obligations.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“If we look at the whole picture, we can see the dangers of the situation before us and the destructive impact of Israeli practices on the peace process, particularly those related to Jerusalem, including - and foremost - the confiscation orders. Israel must understand that it cannot continue to go on with its occupation mentality and it must understand that the Declaration of Principles was reached between two parties representing two equal peoples and therefore the rights and aspirations of both of them should be respected, not only those of one side at the expense of the other. Israel must also understand that it cannot achieve peace while continuing to hold the land, that it is not possible to maintain its grip on Jerusalem while demanding normal relations with its neighbours and their friends.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“We can add to that list many other practices, some of which relate to it as an occupying Power, such as the continuation of its plans of colonial settlement in other areas of the occupied territory, and others which relate to it as a partner in the peace process, such as delaying the implementation of the second phase of the Declaration of Principles, which calls for the redeployment of the Israeli forces in the rest of the West Bank and the holding of the general Palestinian election, and also the breaching of the economic agreement and the adoption of specific steps that have led to the choking of the Palestinian economy and an increase in the suffering of our people in the occupied territory and in the territory of the Palestinian National Authority.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“Then there are the illegal excavations in the vicinity of Al Haram Al Sharif, which recently reached to areas very close to Al Masjid Al Aqsa Al Mubarak, threatening the integrity and foundation of the mosque, something which could cause a real upheaval in the Arab and Islamic worlds. All of the above issues concern only Israeli policies and practices in Jerusalem.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“In addition, many Israeli officials reiterated the intention of the government to confiscate more lands for the establishment of more new settlements. We cannot speak about Israeli policies and practices in Jerusalem without speaking about their horrible practices with regard to the closure of the city in the face of the Palestinian people, preventing them from entering it despite the importance of Jerusalem as a religious, cultural, economic centre for the whole population. So the whole thing did not stop at the expansion of the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and the confiscation of its land, as now the city is also closed in the face of its people and its real owners, with all the consequential harm to them.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“The minimum level of compliance with the contractual obligations of the parties, and negotiation in good faith, requires that the parties do not make changes on the ground that prejudge the results of the negotiations or influence it. Neither one of the parties should undertake hostile actions which cause extreme damage to the other side: that is considered one of the basic symptoms of occupation. Such acts violate the Hague Regulations of 1907 and its Annexed Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. This is exactly what Israel has recently done with its announcement of new confiscation orders of 53 hectares of East Jerusalem land and the announcement of plans for the construction of residential units for settlers and another unit for police use.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“In the Declaration, the two parties agreed on a transitional period and they also agreed to postpone the negotiations on several difficult and complex issues, including Jerusalem, until the second phase, which is to commence as soon as possible but not later than the beginning of the third year. As such, the two parties agreed to negotiate the issue of Jerusalem and they agreed on a specific time frame within which to conduct these negotiations. Also, the Israeli side made a commitment with regard to the Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, recognizing their great importance and stating that they would be preserved during the transitional period.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“Nevertheless, and in spite of what has been previously mentioned, Israel persists with such plans, policies and practices, imposing their power in a show of force above and beyond the law, totally ignoring Security Council resolutions. Recently, we became convinced that a new era had dawned in the Middle East and in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship as a result of the important and fundamental development of the signing of the Declaration of Principles between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Government of Israel.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“They further called upon Member States to abide by that position; all of this in addition to a large number of Security Council resolutions which repeatedly affirm the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, as well as those demanding that Israel, the occupying Power, cease its settlement activities and comply with the provisions of the Convention. Once again the position of the Member States of the United Nations was clear and in line with international law and the Council's resolutions. Not one single country recognized the annexation or the sovereignty of Israel over East Jerusalem and, with the unfortunate exception of two countries, no country moved its embassy to Jerusalem.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“All of this has been done in spite of the clear positions taken by the international community, in total defiance of the United Nations and in violation of a series of Security Council resolutions regarding the situation in Jerusalem, such as resolutions 250 (1968), 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969), 298 (1971), 476 (1980), 478 (1980) and 672 (1990). Those resolutions declared, inter alia, that all of the measures and arrangements taken by Israel, including the legislative and administrative ones, aimed at changing the legal status of the city, are null and void and without any legal validity. Those resolutions also condemned Israel's attempts to change the character of the city and its demographic composition and pronounced that the basic law of Jerusalem constituted a violation of international law and should be rescinded.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“With regard to the illegal settlers, the first settlers to inhabit occupied East Jerusalem arrived in 1969, and their numbers continued to grow over the years, reaching 50,000 by 1979 and totalling approximately 150,000 in 1993, a figure almost equivalent to the total Arab population of the city. In addition to all of the above, Israel, the occupying Power, alongside the armed settlers, has many times attacked the sanctity of Islamic holy places. The most dangerous of those actions was the attempt to burn Al Masjid Al Aqsa Al Mubarak in 1969.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“These units have all been allocated to Jewish settlers. Also, Israel has confiscated other land, totalling 3,100 hectares and referred to as a "green area", upon which there has been no construction. The net result of such measures is that the Palestinians have been left with a minimal area of land, equal to only about 14 per cent of East Jerusalem in its expanded municipal boundaries. On 30 July 1980, the Israeli Knesset adopted the basic law of Jerusalem, reaffirming the de facto annexation of 1967 and declaring "the complete and united Jerusalem" as the capital of Israel. It is also worth mentioning that all this colonial expansion differs from what some Israeli circles refer to as "Greater Jerusalem", a goal for which many more annexations and confiscations are projected.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“The Israeli Government then began fervently implementing a comprehensive and integrated policy aimed at achieving the highest degree of settler colonization in the occupied city through the confiscation of land and the intensification of construction for settlers on this confiscated land and, in turn, at decreasing the size of the population of the Palestinians of the city by making life harsher for them by all means and in all areas. In summary, it was a policy which aimed at the judaization of the city and the achievement of a Jewish majority in it. Through the years - and to this day - the area of land confiscated by Israel in the expanded East Jerusalem adds up to 2,400 hectares, which represents 33 per cent of the area of East Jerusalem, upon which 35,000 units for settlements have been built.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“No nation recognized Israeli sovereignty over the part of Jerusalem under its control at the time, which is known as Western Jerusalem. Further, no countries established their embassies in Western Jerusalem or transferred them there. With the outbreak of the 1967 war, Israel occupied the other part of Jerusalem, including the walled city, with its religious sites, along with its occupation of the rest of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Syrian Golan and the Egyptian Sinai. The Israeli Government immediately annexed East Jerusalem and, with the authorization of the Knesset, it expanded the municipal border of the city to approximately 7,005 hectares, which is equivalent to almost 10 times the original area of the city, and imposed Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration upon it.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“At the time during which Israel was applying for membership in the United Nations, and in the course of the tense discussions which occurred regarding this request, Israel gave assurances with regard to its commitment to implementing General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) and 194 (III). These assurances were actually referred to in General Assembly resolution 273 (III), of 11 May 1949, which granted membership to Israel. However, despite the commitment made, Israel almost immediately violated these assurances when the Israeli Parliament - the Knesset - declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel on 23 January 1950; and in 1951 the Israeli ministries moved to the city. The reaction of Member States to this illegal and unfortunate action was, correctly, in line with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“The following year the General Assembly reaffirmed this principle with regard to Jerusalem in its well-known resolution 194 (III), of 11 December 1948. As a result of the 1948 war, the city, as is known, was the subject of a de facto division. Nevertheless, by 1950 the General Assembly reaffirmed the principle of a corpus separatum, a principle which was repeated in its later resolutions despite the de facto division. In implementation of resolution 181 (II), the Trusteeship Council effectively adopted the statute of Jerusalem on 4 April 1950, but, unfortunately, it was not implemented.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“We are pressing forward at the United Nations because this international Organization has been dealing with the issue of Jerusalem from the very beginning and has been giving it special attention since it first took up the question of Palestine. Allow me now quickly to review the stages through which this central issue has gone, both within the United Nations and outside. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly, in the exercise of its authority towards Palestine as one of the areas under the Mandate System of the League of Nations, adopted resolution 181 (II), commonly referred to as the "partition resolution". This resolution partitioned mandated Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, and designated a demilitarized Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under the aegis of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“This is an action which constitutes a flagrant violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, as well as of the Declaration of Principles of 13 September 1993. Moreover, this action was taken in the city of Al-Quds AI-Sharif, which is of central importance to the Arab and Islamic worlds and lies at the heart of the Palestinian cause, which is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Arab and Islamic anger in response to the action has taken shape clearly in the reaction by the general public and in the official Arab position taken in the emergency meeting of the Arab Foreign Ministers and in the common Arab stance here within the United Nations, as well as in the action taken by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Al-Quds Committee.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine) (interpretation from Arabic ): Allow me at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of May and to express our full confidence in your ability to guide the Council's work. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank His Excellency Ambassador Kovanda, the Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to the United Nations, for his successful leadership of the Council last month. The Security Council is meeting today to address a dangerous Israeli action: the recent ordering by the Israeli authorities of the confiscation of 53 hectares of land located in the area of occupied East Jerusalem.”
1995-05-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3536 (1995) · source
“We hope that this progress will occur: specifically, that there will be an end to settlements and, that there will be implementation of the agreements between the two sides. In that event, we would be extremely happy and would certainly not have further recourse to the Security Council. But, if the current situation continues, and if the ongoing efforts do not yield tangible results, we cannot but turn to the Council once more in the hope of an outcome different from today's. I reiterate our thanks to all concerned.”
1995-02-28 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3505Resumption1 (1995) · source
“We were supported by the Arab Group in the United Nations and by the Movement of Non- Aligned Countries in the Council, along with other Council members. We extend our appreciation to them all. Unfortunately, that outcome was not achieved, for reasons to do with the situation in the Council and, probably, I should say, with the position of one of its permanent members. The outcome we did achieve seems to have to do with a fear of repercussions on the ongoing contacts aimed at achieving the desired progress in the peace process. It is our understanding also that the sponsors of the peace process - particularly the United States of America - plan to intensify their efforts to achieve the desired results.”
1995-02-28 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3505Resumption1 (1995) · source
“Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine) (interpretation from Arabic): It is obvious that we are now moving towards the end of this part of the Security Council's work without the Council's adopting any specific measure. In view of this, I should like to make the following remarks. At the outset, we would like to extend our thanks to you, Mr. President, and to the other members of the Security Council. We extend our thanks also to all the members of the Council and observers who have made statements at this meeting today. This meeting and those statements clearly demonstrate that the international community is concerned at the dangerous situation in the occupied Palestinian territories and throughout the region. We have made serious efforts to ensure that the outcome of this meeting would be the adoption of clear and specific measures.”
1995-02-28 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3505Resumption1 (1995) · source
“We are confident that the sponsors of the peace process will indeed fulfil the duties that they have shouldered in this regard, and we are also confident that the other important and active parties and partners, such as the European Union and Egypt, will spare no effort in assisting the peace process. To achieve the ultimate goal of peace, it is imperative to take the first, important step, one that could open the way and demonstrate good intentions, namely, the total cessation of all settlement activities. It is obvious that, in this respect, we need the backing and support of the Security Council. We are confident that the Council will take the necessary actions in this regard.”
1995-02-28 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3505 (1995) · source
“The process must be salvaged, and this can be achieved only through the complete fulfilment of the parties' contractual obligations emanating from the agreements we have reached, including also the time framework, which is an integral part of the agreements. We also need to put an end to policies and practices that Violate these agreements and are contrary to their letter and spirit. It is also necessary to negotiate in good faith in order to implement them. For our part, we reaffirm our strategic commitment to the achievement of peace and to the ongoing peace process, and we should like to believe that this applies also to the Israeli side.”
1995-02-28 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3505 (1995) · source
“We remain convinced that the fundamental solution to this phenomenon is a political one and that it is directly linked to socio-economic and political aspects. Therefore, we are speaking here about positions and practices, some of which have been interpreted differently but that nevertheless represent what we believe is a policy aimed at delaying the implementation of the agreements reached. The most striking thing here is that such positions and practices continue despite several important meetings, such as the recent Cairo summit and the Foreign Ministers' meeting at Blair House in Washington, and despite all the other efforts made by parties concerned with the preservation of the peace process. The peace process is walking a tight rope. It is no exaggeration to say that it is experiencing a real crisis.”
1995-02-28 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3505 (1995) · source
“In addition, there have been delays and procrastination in the implementation of the second phase of the Declaration of Principles, which was due to begin over seven months ago, especially in relation to the redeployment of the Israeli army away from populated areas and to convening Palestinian elections. We are not talking here about mistakes or shortcomings. Mistakes do happen. Neither are we are speaking of reactions - for example, reactions to the attacks perpetrated by radical elements against Israeli targets. We have firmly condemned these attacks and have tried, within our limited resources, to deal with such acts as well as with their underlying causes in order to put an end to them, thereby maintaining law and order and achieving peace and security for both sides.”
1995-02-28 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3505 (1995) · source
“It constitutes an act of revenge and punishment against the Palestinian people and it violates many provisions of the agreement reached between the two sides. This could be said also about the isolation of East Jerusalem from the Palestinian people and from the rest of the West Bank, in spite of the clear fact that it is the religious, cultural and economic centre of the Palestinian people. The other outstanding issue is that of Israeli delays in completing implementation of all the provisions of the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, including that providing for safe passage and those relating to commercial activities and Palestinian financial rights.”
1995-02-28 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3505 (1995) · source
“If that were all it was, we would have accepted it on the basis of our national pride and dignity, despite Israel's full responsibility for the situation that has resulted from its policies, which destroyed the Palestinian economy during the prolonged occupation. But the matter is much worse than that. The closure also divides the Palestinian land by isolating some parts from others - Gaza from the West Bank, the West Bank from Jerusalem and even parts of the West Bank from each other - and by isolating the entire Palestinian territory from the outside world. How can this be connected in any way to Israeli security concerns? Further, how can Israel, unilaterally and without warning, close the border crossings agreed upon in the Declaration of Principles? The closure is a matter completely different from that of separation.”
1995-02-28 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3505 (1995) · source