General Assembly Session 56 meeting 71

Mr. Fedotov (Russia)

For more than half a century, the General Assembly has devoted continuing and focused attention to the question of the Middle East. Regrettably, however, we have to acknowledge that during this lengthy period, the Middle East has remained in a state of serious crisis. Just as a half century ago, its epicentre remains the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Almost every day the international community is confronted with images of terrorist acts, which are then followed by reprisals. The peace-loving population suffers and acts of destruction proliferate, further destabilizing the Palestinian territories and the region as a whole. Current realities are such that the peaceful dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis has been set back, and the peace process, which has been the subject of extremely intensive efforts since the Madrid Conference, has been brought to a standstill.

These developments are a source of serious concern for Russia. From the onset of the conflict, Russia, as a co-sponsor of the Middle East peace process, has been working actively to stabilize the situation and to breathe new life into the process of working towards a comprehensive regional settlement. That question has been at the centre of the continuing and focused attention of the President of Russia, Mr. Putin, and of its Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ivanov, who maintains contacts with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, the Secretary-General, as well as his counterparts in the United States, the States of the European Union and the Arab countries. A special envoy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in the region on an ongoing basis, and, together with other international mediators from the United States, the European Union and the United Nations, is working intensively and tirelessly with the parties to the conflict.

Important impetus was given to this work by the meeting in New York this month of the Foreign Ministers of Russia and the United States with the European Union and the Secretary-General.

The problem of the Middle East settlement was one of the major issues of concern in the context of the November American-Russian summit. The Presidents of Russia and of the United States, at the conclusion of their talks, issued a joint statement on the Middle East setting forth some general approaches to a settlement of the numerous problems facing the region. Russia believes in this respect that the basic thrust of diplomatic efforts should be to enable the immediate launching of the process of implementing those agreements already reached between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Russia believes also that the settlement should be based on the recommendations of the Mitchell report, whose implementation would make it possible to put an end to the violent confrontation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, to stop the violence, to adopt confidence-building measures and to relaunch the peace process. The Government of the Palestinian National Authority should be decisive in preventing extremist acts, and the Government of Israel should complete its withdrawal of troops from Palestinian cities, remove the blockades, lift the financial embargo and carry out other steps to normalize the situation, including imposing a complete freeze on settlements.

We are convinced that by implementing these steps it will be possible for talks to begin again on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the Madrid principles for the settlement of the Middle East question and the formula of land for peace. A firm settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli question should include ending the occupation, creating a viable Palestinian State and providing genuine security for Israel and Palestine on an equal footing. A just solution to the problems of Jerusalem and the refugees should be sought within an international legal framework.

The events of 11 September this year have had a profound effect on the structure of international relations as a whole. As far as the situation in the Middle East is concerned, they have made more urgent the task of achieving immediately a comprehensive peace settlement. However, the attainment of that goal will not be possible without the development of a comprehensive approach to the resolution of various problems in the area, in particular ensuring a revival of the talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks of the peace process. Genuine peace in the Middle East will be impossible without a constructive dialogue between Israel and Syria, the result of which should be the return to Syria of the Golan Heights and the establishment of normal relations between the two States. For its part, Russia will continue to work actively to overcome the crisis and to reinvigorate the peace process in the Middle East.

Mr. Al-Sameen (Oman)

I should like at the outset to tell you once again, Mr. President, how much my delegation appreciates your wisdom and skills in guiding our discussion during this fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly, which we are sure will achieve the positive results to which we all aspire.

The situation in the Middle East is one of the major challenges that we are facing at the beginning of this new millennium. On the question of Palestine, the international community believes that the peace process that began in 1991 in Madrid is the most important and serious initiative designed to bring to an end a situation that has continued for decades and wasted an enormous amount of human energy. The Madrid outcome was itself the result of relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions aimed at the achievement of peace based on the principle of land for peace. All these measures reflected the commitment of the parties involved, and they must not now call their own efforts into doubt.

My Government has long been keenly concerned about moving peace forward, convinced that peace alone can guarantee progress and prosperity for humankind. My country therefore gave its blessing to the Camp David agreements between the Egyptian Arab Republic and Israel in 1979. Indeed, we supported the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991 for the same reason. We also supported the outcome of that Conference and the resultant agreements. We consider them to be a historic achievement, contributing to the prevention of bloodshed and opening the way to cooperation among the peoples of the region.

Furthermore, my country has been involved in ambitious efforts and actions to move the peace process forward and has been actively involved in multilateral negotiations. We organized a regional conference on water resources and exchanged representative offices with the Palestinian National Authority, and we have established trade ties with Israel. We were optimistic in the first half of the 1990s, when a period began that we believed would put an end to all forms of the conflict and would propel the pace of progress towards peace in a significant way. Agreements had been reached and others were on their way, and major progress was also made on the Syrian-Israeli track.

Yet the expectations were not met, because of Israel's unjustified attempt to backtrack. The agreements signed with the Palestinian side were quibbled over, and the result is the situation that we are facing now in the Middle East. It is clear that Mr. Ariel Sharon, the current Prime Minister of Israel, does not want peace to come about in the region. Israel's actions -- the massacres and assassinations it has carried out, the destruction of the economic infrastructure in the occupied Palestinian areas, the expansion of the settlements, the occupation of Orient House and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes -- make it very clear that Israel does not truly want peace.

We understand that the path to peace will not always be easy. There will be many obstacles along the way as the process unfolds, given the many complications and the divergence of views between the parties. The Arab-Israeli conflict has continued for over half a century and has involved a number of different struggles and entrenched many political, mental and psychological barriers. Israel has clearly brought the process to a standstill, which we do not understand and cannot accept. Resolution 181 (II), adopted by the General Assembly in 1947, was designed to put an end to the Palestinian British mandate in two phases, creating both a Jewish and a Palestinian Arab State. Other Security Council and General Assembly resolutions followed. Notwithstanding those resolutions, the Palestinian people continue to be deprived of the chance to exercise even their most basic human rights -- as guaranteed by the United Nations Charter -- including the right to self-determination and to the creation of an independent State on their own territory.

We believe that the United Nations has historical responsibilities with regard to ensuring a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter and relevant legally binding resolutions. These responsibilities include pursuing the peace process in accordance with international resolutions, in particular Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and on the basis of the principle of land for peace, and ending all measures taken by the Israeli Government to change the geographic and demographic character of Al-Quds. Security Council resolution 465 (1980) declares the Israeli settlements to be null and void and calls for dismantling them.

Finally, a just solution must be found to the problem of the Palestinian refugees, based on General Assembly 194 (III), adopted in 1948. We must also ensure respect for the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and support Syria's call for a resumption of negotiations from where they were left off, with the aim of ensuring the return to Syria of the occupied Syrian Golan and a return to 4 June 1967 borders. This, in turn, will require the return to Lebanon of the Shebaa farms.

We consider the declaration of United States President George W. Bush with regard to the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, as well as what United States Secretary of State Colin Powell said concerning the establishment of a Palestinian State and putting an end to Israeli occupation and settlements, to be encouraging steps. We expect a response from Israel to these declarations that aim also at reactivating the peace process. The European Union has made similar statements and efforts designed to promote the peace process and stop the spiral of violence and bloodshed. A well-defined variety of instruments and tools must all be brought to bear, on the basis of a specific timetable.

We support all the efforts of the United Nations to fight acts of international terrorism, such as those that recently struck the United States. This must not be accomplished, however, at the expense of the suffering of the peoples of the Middle East, particularly the Palestinian people.

Mr. De Loecker (Belgium)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU). The Central and Eastern European countries associated with the European Union, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia; the associated countries of Cyprus, Malta and Turkey; and Iceland, the European Free Trade Association country belonging to the European Economic Area, associate themselves with this statement.

The situation in the Middle East remains very grave and, as we are all aware, presents serious risks to regional stability. I do not want to recount here the tragic events continuing to unfold in the occupied Palestinian territories, as the EU has already spoken at length on that subject in the debate on the question of Palestine. At that time, we once again pointed out that negotiation is the only way to achieve a definitive settlement of the Palestinian question.

In the context of the peace process, a certain progress has been achieved that needs to be preserved and built upon. In particular, we have in mind the Madrid Conference principles, especially that of land for peace, and Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as well as the agreements signed by the parties and the progress made in previous negotiations.

The quest for peace is primarily a matter for the parties themselves to pursue through negotiations on all components of final status, including the prospect of a just and viable solution to the issues of Jerusalem and refugees, as well as economic support for the Palestinian population. In order to find a way out of the sad current situation, we once more call on the Israeli and Palestinian sides to ensure full, immediate and unqualified implementation, without conditions, of the recommendations contained in the Mitchell report and the Tenet plan. No one can win using this logic of confrontation and violence. The parties must return without delay to the path of dialogue and negotiation.

In Lebanon, a major development emerged last year with Israel's withdrawal from the south of the country. At that time, the EU noted with satisfaction the Israeli Government's decision, which was in accordance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978). The Union commended the successive steps that helped restore stability in the area, a necessary condition for reconstruction and development. The EU remains ready to contribute to the reconstruction effort in the area, as it has done constantly for Lebanon as a whole.

To realize these objectives, it is essential that the Lebanese Government, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1365 (2001), take further measures to re-establish its authority effectively throughout the south, particularly by deploying Lebanese armed forces. In addition, the parties must continue to honour their commitment to respect scrupulously the withdrawal line mapped out by the United Nations, and must show the utmost restraint and cooperate fully with the United Nations and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). In this connection, UNIFIL can count on the European Union's full support in carrying out its task of restoring international peace and security.

The progress made in Lebanon does not in itself, however, resolve the broader problem of the peace process in the region. The European Union would like to reiterate that the quest for a comprehensive, lasting peace in the region requires that due account be taken of the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese tracks in the conflict, resolution of which has to be based on the Madrid Conference principles, particularly that of land for peace, and Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). We call on the parties to resume negotiations on that basis as soon as circumstances permit.

The European Union reaffirms its commitment to respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States in the region. It also reiterates that it regards the establishment of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights as illegal and contrary to international law.

The Union is determined to work for the reactivation of the multilateral track of the peace process as soon as conditions are favourable. It attaches particular importance to the Regional Economic Development Working Group, for which it acts as coordinator. Regional cooperation will enable the economic, ecological and demographic challenges of the coming years best to be addressed. It was in that spirit that the Union adopted, at Santa Maria da Feira, its common strategy with regard to the Mediterranean region. This included, inter alia, a statement of its conviction that the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process on all its tracks, and the resolution of other conflicts in the region, are important prerequisites for peace and stability in the Mediterranean region. Given its interests in the region and its close and long-standing relations with the region's constituent countries, the EU aspires to play its full part in bringing about stability and development in the Middle East. The cooperation already initiated within the framework of Barcelona process is a determining factor in laying the foundations for the post-peace era in the region.

The Euro-Mediterranean Conference recently held in Brussels on 5 and 6 November 2001 showed once again the commitment of all partners to the Barcelona process as the essential and favoured framework for dialogue and cooperation between the European Union and the countries on the southern and eastern sides of the Mediterranean. The Barcelona vision remains as topical as ever.

In conclusion, the European Union would like to reaffirm its strong commitment to a just, durable and comprehensive peace based on the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and the principles of the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference. The EU remains prepared to do its utmost to achieve a peaceful, prosperous future in the Middle East.

Mr. Ahmad (Pakistan)

Yesterday, we commemorated the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people. It is only befitting that we started our debate to coincide with this occasion. It was a day of reflection and resolve -- reflection, because it has been 54 years that the Palestinian people have remained deprived of their inalienable rights, to which they are entitled under the Charter of the United Nations and other international conventions; resolve, because the Palestinian people, in spite of the tremendous odds against them, continue to persist in their just and courageous struggle for self-determination. I reaffirm today before this Assembly the unswerving and unflinching support of the Government and people of Pakistan for the Palestinian cause.

I remember standing here at this very rostrum exactly one year ago, expressing my hopes and my fears on the situation in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it is what I feared, rather than what I hoped for, that has now come to pass. Instead of beginning a new century with the promise of peace in the Middle East, we have witnessed the alarming slide of the region into a vicious cycle of spiralling violence, which has claimed hundreds of innocent lives. Today, the glimmer of hope for some progress in the peace process that we saw last year, unfortunately, is beset by the haze and uncertainty of the current situation in Palestine.

We share the deep concern of the international community over Israel's policy of the use of excessive force, indiscriminate attacks against unarmed Palestinian civilians and targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders and activists. Israeli incursions into territories controlled by the Palestinian National Authority, the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, the unwarranted seizure of Orient House and Palestinian offices in Jerusalem last August and the unabated violence committed by Israeli security forces in key Palestinian cities have gravely undermined the Oslo peace process.

The Israeli policy of economic blockade has debilitated the Palestinian economy. The situation has been further compounded by the large-scale destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and other repressive measures, leaving large numbers of Palestinians without jobs or even shelter.

It is the responsibility of the international community, and especially of the United Nations, to attain a fair, just and comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian question in all its aspects. Regrettably, it is the international community's inability to tackle the problem at its roots, either in Palestine or elsewhere, that is the main reason for the perpetuation of such conflicts. The horrific results, which include the deaths of innocent people, including women and children, are clear for all to see. The remedy is also clear. The international community must remove the injustice that perpetuates the conflict and restore to the Palestinian people their inalienable right to self-determination. The United Nations must implement its own resolutions.

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, a long time ago, President Woodrow Wilson of the United States of America said that

"National aspirations must be respected; peoples may now be ... governed only by their consent. 'Self-determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action."

This pronouncement still holds true today and patterns of repression cannot be justified simply because they are familiar. We cannot use the plea that there is no alternative. If we are earnest and sincere in our intentions, then peace, stability and the settlement of disputes are the real alternatives. The repression of an occupied people, just like terrorism, needs to be condemned and tackled in all its forms and manifestation. These fundamentals must always be stated and often repeated.

Offers of dialogue and peace should not be left to the generosity of the occupying Power. They must be made a matter of law and right. The international community must play its due role to ensure the just and durable settlement of long-standing disputes involving the destiny of a people. If the question of East Timor could be so successfully resolved, why can the international community not be adroit enough to take similar action in other parts of the world where peoples continue to be denied their inalienable right to self-determination, in violation of universally acknowledged principles and the decisions of the Security Council?

The situation in Palestine warrants urgent remedial actions necessitating immediate steps by the international community, the first of which must be to address the problem of the security of the Palestinian people. This is indispensable to halting the unending cycle of violence. Efforts must also be made to bring an end to coercive measures, which constitute serious breaches of the Oslo peace accords and run contrary to the assurances given to the brokers of the Middle East peace in 1993 that the activities of the Palestinian institutions would not be hampered.

Peace cannot be achieved by binding a weaker party to agreements while allowing the stronger one a free hand. The deteriorating situation in Palestine demands active intervention by the international community to end the violence and oversee the implementation of commitments made and agreements signed. The international community, particularly the guarantors of the peace process, must also use their influence and good offices to ensure full Israeli compliance with the peace agreements and with its legal obligations and responsibilities as an occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949.

Pakistan has steadfastly and unequivocally supported the just struggle for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, as it supports those of all other peoples who remain subjugated by similar alien occupation and foreign domination. We have consistently stated that Security Council resolutions must be implemented without discrimination between regions and peoples. Those States which are in violation of such resolutions and are using State terrorism to trample upon the inalienable right to self-determination of the people under their occupation must be held accountable.

There can be no lasting peace in the Middle East without the attainment of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. These include the return of all occupied territories to the control of the Palestinian Authority, the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, and the exercise of their full sovereignty over Al-Haram Al-Sharif.

Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) continue to provide a viable and just framework for a durable and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. A settlement of the Middle East question must, by definition, also include the restoration of the Syrian Golan and full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. A durable peace in the Middle East is simply not possible in the absence of justice. We therefore agree with the Secretary-General that there can be no lasting security without lasting peace and lasting peace can be ensured only by adhering to the principles of justice and international law.

Pakistan unequivocally supports the international calls for restraining Israel from aggravating an already tense situation in the Middle East and urges the resumption of negotiations leading to a just, durable and comprehensive peace settlement consistent with United Nations resolutions and the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people. This is the key to a permanent peace in the Middle East.

Finally, let me state that the twenty-first century did not begin on 1 January this year. It began in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down and the Iron Curtain fell, letting the people of Eastern Europe enjoy the right of freedom. Unfortunately, some of the chapters of the last century, written in the blood of innocent people, are yet to be closed. It is time now for the international community to uphold its moral and legal obligations under the Charter. Those who have the power and the responsibility to maintain international peace and enforce international law must now act to complete the unfinished agenda of the previous century. Let those who remain deprived of freedom and inalienable rights enjoy them. Let those who have long cherished the desire for freedom taste it. Let those who are still denied their right to self-determination, whether in Palestine or in Kashmir, be finally given the opportunity to exercise and realize it.

Mr. Lancry (Israel)

One year ago, I addressed this Assembly and described how history was giving birth to a new epoch in the Middle East. Today, we are experiencing the labour pains of that new era.

We are in the throes of a revolution in the ways that the peoples, nations and religions of the Middle East relate to one another. And revolutions are painful, traumatic experiences. To reap the fruits of these new modes of interaction and the manifold possibilities of our brave new age, we must labour against the rejectionism that emerges from the depths of the violent extremist ideologies that have caused us all immeasurable suffering. Beyond the present grief and pain for which they are responsible, we retain our hope and our vision for a more peaceful and prosperous future.

Indeed, we cannot permit ourselves to forget the enormous progress we have made over the past generation in ending long-standing conflicts and opening the door to greater tolerance and coexistence in the Middle East. Israel has concluded peace treaties with two of our neighbours, Egypt and Jordan; we have strengthened our relations with other States in the region; and the Oslo peace process initiated an historic process of reconciliation with our Palestinian neighbours.

And though the past year has been a tremendous and heart-wrenching setback, the path forward remains open to us and to all the peoples of the region. Our history has repeatedly shown us the futility of war and conflict. The only way to achieve a future of peace, stability and opportunity is through dialogue conducted in an atmosphere free from terrorism, hatred, demonization and incitement.

While we have made progress in certain areas and with certain countries, others remain fixated on fighting wars that have long since ended and on stoking prejudices that have no place in the civilized world. It is most unfortunate that, more than 50 years after Israel's establishment and despite the great strides we have made towards peace and integration with our neighbours in the region, certain regimes continue to cultivate those dark forces of rejection so as to perpetuate a useless and futile conflict with us.

Along our northern border, the Government of Lebanon clings to its position that continuing aggression against Israel and its failure to comply with the will of the international community are somehow legitimate. In May 2000, Israel unilaterally withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon, in full compliance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978). Israel's fulfilment of its responsibilities under resolution 425 (1978) was confirmed by the Secretary-General and subsequently endorsed by the Security Council and has been repeatedly referred to, for example, in Security Council resolutions 1310 (2000) and 1337 (2001). The responsibility now falls to the Government of Lebanon to fulfil its remaining responsibilities under resolution 425 (1978), namely, the deployment of its armed forces up to the Blue Line so as to reinstate its effective authority in the southern region and to restore peace and security in the area.

Although Israel had hoped that its withdrawal from Lebanon would motivate the Lebanese Government to ensure peace and security on the border, as is its obligation under international law, this has not been the case. The terrorist organization Hezbollah continues its aggression against Israel through cross-border attacks with mortars, missiles and rockets; the abduction and murder of Israeli soldiers and civilians; border incursions; and road-side bombs.

Last October, Hezbollah abducted and murdered three Israeli soldiers patrolling the Israeli side of the Blue Line. This October, Hezbollah twice launched major unprovoked assaults on Israel, using mortars and anti-tank shells. Both the Secretary-General and the Security Council have clearly rejected any suggestion that the use of force by Hezbollah, or any terrorist organization, is a legitimate substitute for the peaceful resolution of disputes. If there is any need for further evidence of this principle, resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1377 (2001) reaffirm that no State can allow its territory to be used as a base for cross-border terrorist attacks.

The Secretary-General himself made the following observations in his report of 22 January 2001:

"The greatest cause of concern ... were the attacks across the Blue Line in the Shebaa farms area, which were deliberate acts in ... breach of the decisions of the Security Council." (S/2001/66, para. 18)

"The simplest and most direct way to ensure calm in the area is for the parties to act in accordance with the decisions of the Security Council ... This implies that the Government of Lebanon asserts its effective authority and maintains law and order throughout its territory up to the line identified by the United Nations. That is its right and duty, consistently upheld by the Security Council and paid for with the lives of United Nations soldiers." (ibid., para. 19)

Israel has repeatedly called upon the Government of Lebanon to fulfil its obligations under international law, as required in resolution 425 (1978) and subsequent resolutions. Despite those pleas, the Government of Lebanon has failed to restrain Hezbollah. To the contrary, Lebanon has effectively granted control of southern Lebanon to Hezbollah, a situation that gives that organization free rein to train terrorists and to organize and perpetrate lethal terrorist attacks at will.

A continuation of the present situation carries with it a danger of escalation that could further imperil the safety and security of civilians on both sides of the Blue Line. The only way to avoid such a situation is for Lebanon to act immediately to fulfil its responsibilities under resolutions 425 (1978) and 1310 (2000), and adhere to the stipulations of resolution 1373 (2001) regarding the suppression of terrorism and terrorist organizations, thereby bringing its policies into accord with the directives of the United Nations and the will of the international community. For a country that speaks so loudly and so often about the importance of international legitimacy, Lebanon would be well served to heed not only the calls of the international community, but those of its own high-minded rhetoric as well.

When addressing the threat to peace and stability posed by terrorism, one cannot ignore the fact that terrorist organizations are capable of acting as they do only because they are supported, encouraged, financed and harboured by States. In the case of Hezbollah, that support comes from other regimes in the Middle East, namely the Governments of Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Government of Syria plays a crucial role in facilitating Hezbollah's continuing aggression against Israel. Syria allows Hezbollah to maintain training facilities in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley, and grants its terrorists safe harbour on Syrian territory. Damascus remains the primary transit point for arms transfers to Hezbollah's operatives in the field.

Syria also permits numerous other terrorist organizations to maintain their headquarters in Damascus, including Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine -- General Command, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas was allowed to open a new main office in Damascus in March. These organizations have proudly claimed responsibility for scores of terrorist attacks against Israel over the years, including yesterday's suicide bus bombing near Pardes Hannah and Tuesday's shooting rampage in Afula. Many of those organizations also maintain training facilities in the Bekaa Valley and receive aid and logistical support from the Syrian Government.

It is particularly distressing that Syrian support for anti-Israel terror has continued even as the world has united to combat the common threat of terrorism, even as Syria has participated in peace negotiations aimed at ending the long-standing state of war between our two countries, and even as Syria was elected a non-permanent member of the Security Council.

The most recent attempts to conclude a comprehensive peace on the basis of the framework established at the Madrid Peace Conference were the meetings between former Prime Minister Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Shara' held in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in January 2000. The Syrian side broke off those talks after Israel presented an extensive offer for territorial compromise.

Nevertheless, only days ago Foreign Minister Shimon Peres publicly stated Israel's readiness to resume negotiations with Syria, immediately and without preconditions, on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

The Islamic Republic of Iran has long been the primary supporter of Hezbollah, and has had a supporting role in that organization's attacks not only on northern Israel, but also on Jewish and Israeli targets around the world, including the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires.

As is widely known, Iran also actively supports, finances, arms and trains terrorists sent to attack Israel by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas organizations. Iran is also actively pursuing the acquisition and construction of a non-conventional weapon strike capability, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Estimates give Iran several years until it fields nuclear weapons, but chemical weapons have already been used by Iran in retaliation for similar use by Iraq.

With the Shihab-3 long-range missile, a weapon with a 1,300-kilometre range, Iran has the capacity to reach Israeli cities. When it was paraded through the streets of Tehran in September of 1998, the inscription on the missile carrier declared "Israel should be wiped off the map". Given Iran's naked hostility towards a sovereign State, its weapons build-up must be a matter of concern to the international community as a whole.

Relations between Israel and Iran have not always been like this. However, since the overthrow of the Shah and the branding of Israel as the "Small Satan", Iranian officials have continually called for jihad and the destruction of the State of Israel. The language of Iran's leaders reflects a total negation of Israel that transcends any difference there may be over our respective foreign policies. The Iranian press has also praised terrorist attacks against Israel, including the attack on the Dolphinarium nightclub in Tel Aviv, where 23 young people were massacred.

Meanwhile, on Iran's doorstep sits Iraq, a country that not only nurtures terrorism in order to conduct a war by proxy, but also feels perfectly comfortable perpetrating atrocities on its own. Iraq's regional aspirations and its motivation to acquire weapons of mass destruction are as strong as ever. Iraq has persisted in its attempts to develop non-conventional weapons and their means of delivery, much of this below the radar of international arms inspectors, who have been denied access to monitor Iraq's weapons programme for more than three years.

This is particularly troubling in the light of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's repeated hostile declarations against Israel and other nations and his proven enthusiasm for firing missiles at civilian populations in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and even against his own citizens. Even today, Iraq continues to level unprovoked threats against the State of Israel.

Iraq's continuing rejection of Israel's right to exist, its history of aggression and non-compliance with United Nations resolutions, its capabilities in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and its lack of compunction in attacking civilian targets underscore the continuing threat it poses to the people of the region. The international community must continue to strenuously pressure Iraq in order to guarantee its compliance with international law and to ensure that it does not possess the capability to threaten regional security.

The desire for peace with our neighbours represents the supreme goal of the State of Israel and its citizens. Since 1948, Israel has demonstrated a willingness to make compromises in pursuit of peace and to constantly search for new peacemaking initiatives.

As our Foreign Minister eloquently described in his statement before the general debate just a few weeks ago, the world is changing before our eyes. New opportunities await all nations with the courage to embrace them. The territorial conflicts of the past are meaningless in a world where we are so tightly connected, so intimately interdependent and where we are quickly becoming, in a very real sense, united nations.

Israel's vision of peace is one of clearly defined borders that would eliminate territorial disputes, of a regional security framework that would curb the threat posed by extremists and reduce the need for States to expend copious amounts of resources to ensure their defence. We envision a future in which all peoples are free to determine their own destiny in mutual dignity and security. We envision a peace that would improve the lives of all the peoples of the Middle East and that could open the door to economic growth and foreign investment.

But as tantalizingly close as this bold new cooperative world may appear, a vast ocean still divides us. The primary threat that separates the Middle East from the incredible opportunities of our age is the threat of terrorism bred by violent fundamentalist ideologies, many of them breeding just beyond Israel's border. Only by denouncing these ideologies and eradicating the terrorist organizations that espouse them can we hope to engage in meaningful and productive dialogue that will open the Middle East to the possibilities that await it and provide a better future for the peoples of the region.

On 11 September, the world awoke to a reality that has plagued Israel for decades, the reality of State-sponsored terrorist aggression. In the aftermath of those horrific attacks, the world discovered things that Israel has long understood: that terrorism poses a threat to all free peoples, that terror knows no borders, nationality, race or religion, that terror can exist only with the support and complicity of States and that fighting terror means waging an unrelenting and uncompromising campaign.

Israel has been on the front lines of this campaign since its very inception. Indeed, in our region terrorists continue to arm themselves, clerics continue to inspire them, and certain regimes continue to encourage them, all with aim of preventing peace and coexistence from taking root in the Middle East.

Terrorism is the primary threat of the new millennium. The attempts by the United Nations and certain concerned nations to facilitate the resolution of long-standing conflicts and animosities in the Middle East will be hamstrung if they do not address terror. And if we do not resolutely address terror, the Middle East peace process will not be the only victim.

Peace in the Middle East need not be a dream, and endless confrontation need not be our only reality. But in order to reach peace, there must be an unshakeable commitment -- both ethical and political -- to non-violence, to ending terror and to embracing dialogue and negotiations. This is a commitment that must be assumed by the regional leadership for the sake of future generations. Surely, if this commitment is made, the triumph of peace, a true peace, will be the triumph for all people in the Middle East and for all generations to come.

Mr. Listre (Argentina)

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xfa' in position 2232: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg010-bk01-pa01">Ten years ago, in Octo...lternative for all inhabitants of the region.</p>', 2232, 2233, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 2233
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg010-bk01-pa01">Ten years ago, in Octo...lternative for all inhabitants of the region.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 2232