PRESS CONFERENCE BY OBSERVER FOR PALESTINE
Press Briefing
PRESS CONFERENCE BY OBSERVER FOR PALESTINE
19970425
FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY
The adoption by the General Assembly of its draft resolution A/ES-10/L.1 on the illegal actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory would help achieve the requirements for peace in the Middle East, Nasser Al-Kidwa, Permanent Observer for Palestine told a Headquarters press conference this afternoon.
The cessation of all Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine -- especially the proposed settlement at Jabal Abu Ghneim to the south of occupied East Jerusalem -- was essential to the peace process and to the achievement of common goals, he said. The peace process required Israeli compliance with the resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, respect for international law, and compliance with the obligations of the parties to the 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government and the 1994 Interim Agreement.
What would happen if the Government of Israel did not comply with the demands of the Assembly resolution? a correspondent asked. Mr. Al-Kidwa said that the international community had today sent a powerful message. Today's meeting had been the first emergency special session of the Assembly in 15 years. The Assembly had rejected both Israeli policies and attempts to prevent the Security Council from protecting international peace and security.
The resolution had also created a mechanism for follow-up, he said. The Secretary-General was asked to report on implementation of the resolution within two months. If need arose, the international community could again take the matter to the Security Council with the expectation that it would act. If it failed to do so, the emergency special session could be resumed. Today's resolution had provided both a message and a mechanism. The Assembly resolution had also called, for the first time, for the cessation of all forms of assistance to illegal Israeli actions, especially with regard to settlements. Further, it recommended that States that were high contracting parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War take measures to guarantee respect for that Convention.
Several Assembly resolutions on the occupied territories had been adopted over the years, a correspondent said. Why did Mr. Al-Kidwa think that the current one would be implemented? The present resolution was unlike any other, he replied. It was unique both in its legal nature, and in its political meaning. The resolution had been adopted under a rare procedure -- an emergency special session of the General Assembly. When the international community sent that type of message, the Israeli Government should be expected
to heed. If it did not, the resolution had established a mechanism for follow-up, in case of Israeli defiance.
In response to a correspondent's comment on the pattern of voting for the resolution, Mr. Al-Kidwa said that the present resolution actually obtained more positive votes than had the previous resolution. Also, the resolution this time was quite strong. It had "demanded" -- not requested -- the immediate cessation of construction at Jabal Abu Ghneim, the development of other settlements, and other illegal measures in East Jerusalem. The Assembly had also recommended that the permanent status talks on Jerusalem should provide for international guarantees of religious freedom and of unimpeded access to the religious sites of all faiths. Despite those heightened terms, the resolution had received more votes, though certain delegations had abstained. Also, he believed that "high pressure" had been used by those who had sought to defeat the resolution.
Was the peace process effectively in suspension? a correspondent asked. Mr. Al-Kidwa responded that the Palestine National Authority remained committed to the peace process and to the importance of the agreements thus far reached. Israel simply could not go on with the peace process while building settlements. They had to choose. If the Israeli Government decided to continue its settlements policy, Palestinians would have no option but to confront them at all levels, including at the United Nations. Palestine was ready to proceed with the process and to give Israel a chance to prove itself. But, it could not watch the Israelis violate their agreements, violate international law and create new facts on the ground while pretending that the peace process was in good shape, he said.
Asked how he defined terrorism, which had been rejected in all its forms and manifestations in the resolution, Mr. Al-Kidwa said that his Government concurred completely with the text as drafted. Asked about Palestinian resistance to the settlements, he said that absent justice, the Palestinian people had a right to shout and to use their bare hands to confront Israeli guns and tanks. Those who would call such resistance "Palestinian violence" either did not understand or had bad intentions bordering on racism and hatred.
The whole international community was awaiting the Israeli response to today's resolution, he continued. The Secretary-General had to report on implementation of the resolution within two months. The deadline was clear. Palestine would react if they saw reason to -- whether an acceleration of settlements or other signals that the Israeli Government was defying international law and international peace and security.
Asked what tools the United Nations might use to follow up on implementation of the resolution, Mr. Al-Kidwa said that the United Nations had both the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization
Palestine Briefing - 3 - 25 April 1997
(UNTSO) in place. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was also present in the region. Alternatively, the Secretary-General could send high-level officials or observers. The resolution would let him decide how best to accumulate information.
The United States had voted against the resolution, a correspondent noted. How did he see current United States attitudes? He responded that he was sorry to say that he saw inconsistencies in the United States' attitude? The United States had expressed opposition to the construction of a settlement at Jabal Abu Ghneim, but at the same time they stated that they were powerless to stop it. When the matter had come to the Security Council, they vetoed the attempt of the international community to stop it.
The United Nations had a permanent responsibility for the question of Palestine, he continued. It was the General Assembly that had partitioned Palestine in 1947. Its legal and moral responsibility in the region continued and would end only with the successful conclusion of the peace process. The notion that the peace process could be used as a pretext to refuse compliance with international law was "pure nonsense".
To a question on provisions in the resolution calling for international guarantees of freedom of religion and unhindered access to the holy places of Jerusalem, he said that the final status of that city would be determined at the final status talks. The parties should take into consideration the interests of all the people of the world.
The new idea was that both parties should be involved, together with the international community, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, he added. A preambular paragraph of the resolution had established that the international community, through the United Nations, had a legitimate interest in the question of the city of Jerusalem. Bearing that in mind, the idea that the General Assembly could play a role in guaranteeing access to Jerusalem was a reasonable possibility.
* *** *