Security Council meeting 4478

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Cuba, Egypt, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

In accordance with the decision taken at the 4474th meeting, I invite the representative of Israel to take a seat at the Council table.

The President

In accordance with the decision taken at the 4474th meeting, I invite the representative of Yemen to take the seat reserved for him at the side of the Council Chamber.

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 21 February 2002 from the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which reads as follows:

"In my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, I have the honour to request that I be invited to participate in the debate on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, under rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council."

On previous occasions, the Security Council has extended invitations to representatives of other United Nations bodies in connection with the consideration of matters on its agenda. In accordance with past practice in this matter, I propose that the Council extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

In accordance with the decision taken at the 4474th meeting, I invite the Chargé d'affaires, a.i., of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to take a seat at the Council table.

This meeting is convened in accordance with the understanding reached in the Council's prior consultations. In that connection, I wish to recall that, in my statement as President of the Security Council at the 4474th meeting held on 21 February 2002, I indicated that members of the Council would shortly hold a debate on the basis of the Secretary-General's statement and propose new initiatives.

In light of the long list of speakers before the Council, I would appeal to all the speakers to limit their statements to no more than five minutes in order to make efficient use of the Council's time. I am sure that I can count on your understanding and cooperation.

I shall now give the floor to the Chargé d'affaires of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine.

Mr. Jilani (Palestine)

We wish to convey to you and the members of the Council our gratitude and appreciation for your immediate response to our request to convene an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider the grave situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem. I would also like to express our gratitude to the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for his statement before the Council and for his tireless efforts and unwavering commitment to bringing the parties back to the negotiating table and to putting an end to the tragic deterioration of the situation.

The immediate response of the Council is an acknowledgement of the extremely dangerous situation in the region and the continuous deterioration of Palestinian-Israeli relations, as well as the ongoing escalation of Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority and its leadership. This grave situation threatens to push the region into total confrontation and war.

As the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory continues to decline dramatically and as the toll of death and destruction continues to rise as a result of the ongoing assaults by the Israeli occupying forces against the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority, it is incumbent upon the international community to address this dangerous crisis. The Security Council should uphold its responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security and undertake the necessary action to remedy this grave situation.

Upon instruction from Prime Minister Sharon, the Israeli occupying forces intensified the bloody military campaign against the Palestinian people and Palestinian institutions. In just the past few days the Israeli occupying forces have killed more than 50 Palestinians, including women and children, and have wrought vast destruction on both public and private Palestinian property. This has included attacks on the official compounds of President Yasser Arafat in Gaza City and Ramallah and the destruction of several police and security installations, as well as of Palestinian radio and television facilities. At the same time, the Israeli occupying forces have repeatedly raided densely populated Palestinian cities and refugee camps. These raids and attacks have resulted in the killing and injury of many Palestinian civilians, many of whom were uprooted from their homes more than 50 years ago and have been living under Israeli occupation for almost 35 years.

Since 28 September 2000, the Palestinian people have suffered flagrant violations of their human rights as defined by international humanitarian law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For over 16 months, they have been subjected to continuous and systematic war crimes and State terrorism being committed by the Israeli occupying forces.

These crimes have included the killing of more than 900 Palestinians, including many children, and the injury of tens of thousands, many of whom have been permanently disabled as a result of the serious injuries sustained. The Israeli occupying forces have also committed crimes of extrajudicial killings; the destruction of homes, buildings, agricultural fields, roads and other infrastructure; the confiscation of more land for settlement activities and the destruction of numerous economic facilities. At the same time, the Israeli Government has ordered the tightening of the military siege and restrictions on the freedom of movement of all Palestinian persons and goods, virtually dividing the occupied Palestinian territory into numerous detention centres, while continuing the military siege of President Arafat and the whole Palestinian population of more than 3 million.

Last week, President Arafat repeated the call he made in December for an immediate and total cessation of all acts of violence. That same day, in an address to the Israeli people, Mr. Sharon declared his intention to continue and escalate the bloody attacks against the Palestinian people and its National Authority by using all Israeli air, land and naval weaponry and continuing the policy of extrajudicial killings.

In addition to all of this, Mr. Sharon decided to set up what he refers to as buffer zones around Palestinian cities and villages in order to transform them into Bantustans and collective detention jails. He has also decided to build a wall to separate East and West Jerusalem with the aim of entirely isolating Arab Jerusalem and imposing a complete siege from the north, south, east and west. All of these illegal policies and practices are extremely dangerous and aim at breaking the will of the Palestinian people, humiliating them and destroying their national dignity. Mr. Sharon and his Government bear full responsibility for these actions and their dangerous consequences and repercussions.

We have listened with great interest to the statement made by the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, which we consider to be an important prelude to our discussion. We hope to be guided by it and to build upon it, in order to come out of this meeting with action that is unanimously approved by the members of the Council and that can actively contribute to calming the situation and moving the parties back to the negotiating table. In his statement, the Secretary-General expressed the deep concern of the international community and its conviction that the situation has reached the edge of the abyss and threatens to plunge the entire region into war. We share his concern and support his analysis of the problem and the mechanism for resolving it.

In his statement, the Secretary-General also expressed what we believe to be an international consensus: that there is no military or security solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and there is no alternative to a political solution through the negotiation process. There is also international consensus that the core of the solution depends on addressing the three key problems mentioned by the Secretary-General: the Israeli occupation of Arab and Palestinian territories, lack of security, and economic depravation. These problems are interlinked and must be addressed in a coordinated manner. The Secretary-General has warned of the danger of attempting to deal with the security issue in isolation from the political issues, specifically the question of land and the socio-economic issues. The failure to appropriately address these issues collectively will result in a situation worse than the one now prevailing.

It must be reiterated here that Mr. Sharon has never concealed his opposition to a final settlement, and he has imposed the condition of seven days of calm, giving those opposed to the peace process ample opportunity to divert any calming of the situation and a return to negotiations. This condition is being imposed on the Palestinian side, while the occupation forces simultaneously continue to commit extrajudicial killings and assault the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority and its security installations. This is all being done by the Israeli side with the purpose of aborting any attempt to implement the Mitchell recommendations and to complete the negotiation process, particularly to avoid the requirements of a freeze of settlement activities.

At the same time, Mr. Sharon's attempts to bury the Mitchell recommendations do not mean that the international community should declare them defunct before an agreed and implementable alternative can be found. Otherwise, the international community once again risks appearing helpless to compel Israel to implement what the international community has accepted and is committed to. The alternative is that Israel alone decides what can and cannot be accepted and when and how what it has accepted is to be implemented, if at all. This is truly a depressing situation.

Despite the pessimism about finding a solution to the Middle East conflict and the hardened position on both Israeli and Palestinian sides, there is a growing conviction on both sides that the requisites for solving this conflict do not differ much whether we reach a solution now, after a year, or after ten years. It is the same solution upon which the whole peace process in the Middle East has been based, as defined in Madrid in 1991 and in the Oslo agreements.

This solution is based on ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 and on the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, to coexist in peace and security with the State of Israel within secure and internationally recognized borders. This is the vision that has received international consensus. This is the vision that was declared by President Bush and detailed by Secretary of State Powell and was welcomed by the Palestinian side. What remains is for it to be accepted by the Israeli side. Herein lies the question of the failure or success of the international community in shouldering its responsibilities through this Council.

Mr. Latona (Mauritius)

Let me start by thanking you, Sir, for organizing this open debate on the situation in the Middle East. We have supported the request of the Group of Arab States for convening this open debate not only because the situation in the Middle East is extremely dangerous and alarming, but more importantly, we fear that if nothing is done to diffuse the situation, we might very soon witness a full-scale war in the region.

We fully concur with the views and concerns expressed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his briefing to the Security Council last Thursday. We remain gravely concerned over the continued downward spiral of events. As we meet to discuss the Middle East issue, it is hard to believe how close the two sides were to reaching an agreement a year ago, and how far apart they are today.

Over the past months, the cycle of violence has only gained momentum and vigour. Violence is breeding more violence. Hate and mistrust are now widespread. Since the September 2000 uprising, more than 900 Palestinians and 250 Israelis have been killed. More than 17,000 Palestinians have been injured. Over the past week alone, violence has taken a toll of 60 more lives. A tit-for-tat response has become the daily feature of the Middle East crisis.

We condemn all acts of provocation and violence from the Israeli side. We also condemn all acts of terror from Palestinian fringe groups, which continue to harm the Palestinian cause. We also mourn the victims of all the bloodshed. It appears as if life has lost all its meaning, especially when we hear of reports of a pregnant woman being shot at an Israeli checkpoint. Against this backdrop, we can see no immediate hope of any de-escalation. While the spiral of violence takes wider proportions, more lives are likely to be lost. With so much suffering, we fear the situation may lead to such a point where it will be nearly impossible to bring the parties back to reason.

What is more disturbing is that the Israeli leadership, it would appear, is sparing no effort to destroy the peace process, from harsher economic blockades to the occupation of Palestinian offices and various extrajudicial killings. With the recent attempt by the Israeli authorities to sideline Chairman Arafat by keeping him under virtual house arrest for almost three months -- although there have been some limited steps over the weekend to ease partially the restrictions on his movements -- we stand to be convinced that Israel really wants peace and a conclusion of the political process.

The international community has said time and again that there can be no military solution to the Middle East crisis. Yet Israel, under the pretext of defending its population, is resorting only to military action to further oppress the Palestinian people. Israel is demonstrating its power, taking no heed of the call for restraint by the international community. This compounds further the feeling of despair among the Palestinians.

A few days ago, Israeli forces attacked Chairman Arafat's compound in Gaza City, killing four of his military aides. However, let there be no doubt that Chairman Arafat is a symbol of the Palestinian struggle, and he remains the only viable interlocutor and partner for peace. Any attempt to physically eliminate this symbol, by design or otherwise, will only set the entire Middle East ablaze, with dire consequences. Therefore, we strongly urge the Israeli authorities to urgently review their policy towards Chairman Arafat and Palestine.

We share fully the assessment of the Secretary-General that the key problems remain occupation, security, economic deprivation and suffering -- all of which are interrelated. It is also important to note that the security aspect will not be resolved if it is not addressed alongside the core political issues. No peace will be achieved if one side is not only reluctant to give up anything, but also wants to take all that it can. We have heard reports of Israeli reservists who have refused to serve in the occupied territories. We can only hope that their action will be an eye-opener for the Israeli authorities.

Since late last year, we have seen growing international consensus that a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be achieved only with the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), with the creation of a State of Palestine, which will live in peace with the State of Israel, and with both States enjoying secure and recognized borders. We believe that this growing consensus constitutes a very important step in the search for peace in the Middle East, and the Security Council has a very important role to play in this regard.

Mauritius supports fully the establishment of a Palestinian State and believes that such a move is the only way forward towards a lasting peace in the Middle East. What the Palestinian people need is a homeland that they can call their own. They cannot be denied this right. In this regard, we believe that the recent proposals of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia contain numerous merits which should be carefully and seriously considered.

Over the past 18 months, we have seen the deep-rooted feelings of hate and mistrust that the Israelis and Palestinians have for each other. We continue to believe that there is a need for third-party intervention to protect the civilians on the ground and help the two parties implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee and the Tenet security plan.

For several months now, many protagonists on the ground have attempted -- unfortunately without much success -- to end the crisis and relaunch the negotiations. While we call upon them to remain fully engaged and to renew their efforts to break the deadlock, we can afford no longer to see inaction and paralysis on the part of the Security Council over the worsening situation in the Middle East.

We tend to behave as if the Security Council's responsibility under the Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security simply did not apply to the Middle East crisis. This is totally unacceptable to my delegation, which believes that the United Nations has a permanent responsibility with regard to the Middle East issue until it is completely resolved. More important, the Security Council needs to be proactive to ensure the implementation of its own resolutions regarding the Middle East. The time for action is now, before the peace process is completely shattered, making it impossible to put the pieces back together.

Mr. Levitte (France)

France associates itself fully with the statement that will be made shortly on behalf of the European Union by the Permanent Representative of Spain.

First of all, I should like to thank you, Mr. President, for having organized this public debate on the situation in the Middle East, in response to the legitimate and fully justified request by the Palestinians, as conveyed by the Ambassador of Yemen on behalf of the Arab Group.

France believes it is normal and essential that the Security Council, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations, be able to debate and express its views on the current situation, which is unquestionably a threat to international peace and security. In his statement last Thursday, the Secretary-General was the voice of wisdom and reason. It is urgent that the Council support the path that he outlined.

The new escalation of violence between Israelis and Palestinians is extremely grave. As the Secretary-General himself stressed last Thursday, the parties are at the edge of the abyss of total war. The number of dead and wounded continues to increase: 977 Palestinians and 279 Israelis killed since September 2000. This toll is intolerable. Both sides are losing. France deplores the loss of human life and sympathizes with the Palestinian and Israeli populations in their suffering; they are the primary victims of this vicious circle of violence and the absence of any hope for peace.

The entire international community, and the Council in particular, are in agreement on the following two points of diagnosis. First of all, there is no military solution to the conflict. The dramatic deterioration in the situation in the last few days cruelly illustrates the stupidity of using force, violence and terrorism. Secondly, the parties need the assistance of the international community to emerge from this trap of violence without falling back into it, so that a real constructive process can be restarted. Naturally, this would assume that there is a shared political will on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides to resume direct dialogue, without which efforts from the outside would be in vain.

The policy of military reprisal has been pursued for more than a year now, and resorting to violence leads nowhere. Violence does not give Israel security; it plunges the Israeli and Palestinian peoples into intolerable conditions of life. The struggle against terrorism must be pursued with the utmost energy, but it must be accompanied by an equally energetic search for a political solution. Peace and security go together. That was the approach courageously taken by Itzhak Rabin; it is also the approach taken here in the Council by the Secretary-General.

There can be no durable ceasefire without the relaunching of a political perspective that corresponds to the legitimate aspirations of Israel and the Palestinians. For Israel, this means full recognition of its right to live in peace and security within internationally recognized borders. For the Palestinians, it means the establishment of a viable, independent and democratic State as well as an end to the occupation of their territories.

A peace process can take place only between partners. Destroying the Palestinian Authority's infrastructures runs counter to the demands made on it to shoulder its responsibility for a return to calm. Israel also has its part to play in ending provocations such as extra-judicial executions and in lifting the restrictions inflicted on the Palestinian people that feed the cycle of violence. President Arafat must have full freedom of movement.

It is urgent and imperative to re-establish the political track, which has disappeared, and to re-launch a genuine political process of dialogue and negotiation in the Middle East as a whole with a view to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace settlement on the basis of the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and the application of the key principle of land for peace, which has been at the heart of the peace process since it began at Madrid, 10 years ago.

It is this belief in the need to re-launch the political process to give the peoples once more some hope for a negotiated peace that motivates the European Union's ideas, and those of France in particular. As the Council is aware, those ideas include, on the one hand, the holding of elections in the Palestinian territories centred on the theme of peace. On the other hand, they involve recognizing a Palestinian State as a point of departure for a negotiating process. These two proposals complement each other closely. On the one hand, they involve confirming that most Palestinians believe in the principle underlying the peace process. On the other hand, they involve restoring the feeling in Israel that there is a majority in the Palestinian camp that supports peace, and that there are institutions with mandates to resume negotiations.

We are well aware that these proposals raise sensitive questions regarding implementation. Holding a popular referendum under international monitoring would of course mean -- on the basis of the Tenet plan and the recommendations of the Mitchell report -- that both sides take steps to establish an effective ceasefire and that trust be restored. These measures should lead to the Israeli Army's withdrawing to the positions it held before September 2000 and to a lifting of the restrictions. Our ideas are a contribution to the ongoing reflection. It is a matter of re-mobilizing peace supporters in both camps and emerging from the cycle of violence.

In this context, France also fully supports the courageous and responsible efforts of the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, and of the President of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Abu Alaa. Those efforts should be supported and continued. In broader terms, we pay tribute to, and encourage, the various initiatives for dialogue and informal exchanges of views made recently by peace supporters on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. I am thinking in particular of the two groups meeting around Yasser Abd Rabbo, Sari Nusseibeh, Yossi Sarid and Yossi Beilin. I would also like to recall the peace initiative of the presidents of the Knesset and of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which opens up a path to dialogue among the elected representatives of the two peoples.

Everyone's efforts and ideas are needed and useful. Above and beyond the ideas put forth by France and some of its European partners, many other countries -- particularly in the Arab world -- have an essential role to play, and can make a useful and constructive contribution. The two countries that have signed a peace treaty with Israel -- Egypt and Jordan -- are involved in patient and constructive diplomatic efforts that we must encourage. In addition, the involvement of Saudi Arabia, whose Crown Prince suggested some particularly interesting ideas, must be welcomed. We hope that all of this will yield fruit and that it will be widely supported within the Arab world.

Of course, the involvement of the United States, a sponsor of the peace process since the Madrid Conference, is essential. We hope that it will be active and resolute. It will be all the more successful if it is done in concert with the other members of what is referred to as the "quartet", namely, the United Nations, Russia and the European Union.

In closing, what is to be expected of the Security Council? Listening to the Palestinian representative -- and I believe that I will soon be listening to the Israeli representative -- it seems to me that there is today an opportunity to be seized to engage in a collective and constructive effort so that the Security Council can adopt a text that can contribute to a lasting ceasefire and to restarting a genuine peace process. France is ready to work resolutely to that end.

Mr. Valdivieso (Colombia)

This meeting to consider the situation in the Middle East, including the question of Palestine, is taking place in the midst of widespread despair over the possibility of achieving a negotiated political solution. In the past 18 months, the situation in the occupied territories and in Israel has fallen into a spiral of violence from which there seems to be no way out.

Israel's excessive use of force, which has an indiscriminate effect on the Palestinian population, as well as selective murders, are practices that have not contributed to the cause of peace, nor have they resolved the security problems of the Israeli people. Likewise, the terrorist attacks by extremist Palestinian groups, which have had an indiscriminate effect on the civilian population of Israel, have not contributed to resolving the problem of the occupation of Palestinian territories, nor have they helped meet the major economic needs of the Palestinian people.

Like many others, we wonder what the right way is to put an end to that spiral of violence. Of course, we consider that a large part of the responsibility rests with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, insofar as it is they who, by their actions and omissions, determine the possibilities for a political solution. But in saying this we must reiterate, as we have on past occasions, that the international community, including the Security Council, can have an impact on, and can make an effective contribution to, bringing the parties back to the negotiating table.

The responsibility of the parties is therefore fundamental. In that respect, we share the views expressed by the Secretary-General in which he made an appeal to the parties to renew their commitment to the Madrid and Oslo principles and to return to a real political dialogue with the goal of achieving a just and lasting solution to the problem of the Middle East. In this regard, Colombia considers that any strategy that seeks to erode the authority of President Arafat and of the Palestinian Authority will only benefit the extremists and move us further from the shared objective of peace. We affirm this while sharing the conviction that President Arafat can and must do more to put an end to the wave of terror.

We recognize that there are no magic formulas for achieving a solution. Even so, we have the Tenet plan, on the one hand, which contains formulas that could reduce the violence and, on the other, the Mitchell report, in which there are bases for a possible return to the negotiating table. The commitment of the parties to these road maps for action, which enjoy wide international support, could allow them, simultaneously and jointly, to discuss the political process, the restoration of security and the economic recovery and development of the Palestinian people.

The international community also has a responsibility to fulfil. In recent months, the Security Council has succeeded in inscribing the question of the Middle East on its regular programme of work, abandoning the sporadic consideration of the item to which we had become accustomed and which, for no good reason, distanced the Security Council from one of the principal threats to international peace and security. Colombia firmly believes that, to the extent possible, the actions of the Council should be linked to and coordinated with the actions of other international players with political relevance in the Middle East on the basis of clear and shared objectives, including the definitive proclamation of a Palestinian State, the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and the principle of land for peace.

We recognize that promising initiatives have been put forward at the international level, including those recently proposed by Saudi Arabia. Colombia supports such efforts and welcomes any initiative that might help to break the cycle of violence and create conditions conducive to the resumption of negotiations.

Regional or other initiatives that could result from the activities of the so-called quartet made up of the representatives of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the Secretary-General of the United Nations deserve our support. We encourage those actors in the international community that are involved to be tireless in their efforts and to work hand in hand with the Security Council in the search for lasting political solutions.

Mr. Lavrov (Russia)

Russia is deeply concerned by the ongoing escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Despite the efforts of the international community to help settle that conflict, it has proven impossible to achieve a positive breakthrough. Moreover, the violence is acquiring a logic of its own and its consequences are assuming qualitatively new and more dangerous forms. Breaking the spiral of confrontation would be in the genuine interests of Palestinians and Israelis alike. There can be no solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by force of arms.

The only possible way out of the impasse is the immediate adoption by both parties of corresponding measures, starting with the implementation of the Tent-Mitchell plan forthwith. On the Palestinian side, this would require putting a halt to any action threatening Israel's security and the lives of civilians, as well as arresting and bringing to justice all those participating in terrorist activities. Israel, for its part, must cease its destruction of the structures of Palestinian national autonomy end the isolation of President Yasser Arafat and halt its extra-judicial assassinations, invasions of Palestinian towns and blockades of Palestinian territories.

Russia calls on both sides immediately and unconditionally to take these steps so as to meet each other half-way, to end the violence and to resume the negotiating process. In the interests of eradicating terrorism and of creating conditions of security, there must be cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, headed by its legitimate leader, Yasser Arafat.

International efforts must also be intensified to overcome the crisis and to restore the situation to the political track. It is equally important that further concerted action be undertaken by the United Nations, Russia, the United States, the European Union and the interested Arab States, including with respect to the new peace initiatives.

We are pleased to note among Palestinians and Israelis alike a growing understanding of the need to overcome these negative dynamics. A delegation of the Palestinian-Israeli coalition for peace is currently in Moscow, composed of eminent politicians and parliamentarians from Israel and Palestine. The resolve of Israeli and Palestinian politicians to work to re-establish trust deserves our respect and support.

In close cooperation with all interested parties, Russia will continue firmly to work to ensure a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict on the basis of resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973); the principles of the Madrid conference, in particular the principle of land for peace; and existing agreements. Our common goal is to establish lasting peace based on equal security for Israel and other States and peoples of the region and to ensure that the Palestinian people enjoy their national rights, including their rights to self-determination and to the creation of a viable sovereign State.

Mr. Ryan (Ireland)

Ireland is fully associated with the statement to be made shortly by the representative of Spain on behalf of the European Union.

My authorities are deeply dismayed at the latest surge of violence in the Middle East. They condemn unreservedly all acts of terrorism and violence. They particularly condemn acts that take the lives of civilians and that put the lives of civilians at risk. Such acts are contrary to international humanitarian law and are never justified.

A peace process once bright with hope and promise has dimmed. Acts of violence, a cycle of reprisal and counter-reprisal, political acts of extraordinary pettiness all too often seem to be the order of the day. We cannot allow the hope and promise once offered by the Middle East peace process to slip away. The Israeli and Palestinian peoples are fated by history to live together side by side. Healing and reconciliation offer the only way forward. The current cycle of decay, bitterness and acrimony leads nowhere, but serves to put off the inevitable day when, by political acts of true courage and imagination, the two peoples will be able to live together in healing and reconciliation.

It should be clear to all by now that no solution will be found through terrorism or any other form of violence, or through military action. The Israeli and Palestinian peoples have suffered enough, and it is past time for the Israeli Government and the Palestinian National Authority to take the steps that each knows it must take to bring their peoples' suffering to an end.

The Palestinian Authority must act vigorously and effectively to bring an end to terrorism. Terrorist acts are not only wrong in themselves; they will prolong the suffering of the Palestinian people and will not bring the achievement of their legitimate aspirations one day closer. As has been amply demonstrated, they gave the best possible excuse to those on the Israeli side who wanted to halt the peace process and who now wish to prevent its resumption.

The Israeli Government must likewise accept that the excessive use of force, extrajudicial killings; attacks on the institutions and infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority; and collective punishment, including house demolitions, economic closures and the impoverishment of Palestinians, are not only wrong and deeply unjust in themselves, but can never bring about the peace and security desired by the Israeli people. Rather will these acts reinforce the resentment and alienation necessary to fuel and sustain campaigns of terror. Again, we draw attention to the corrosive effect that continued settlement activity has had, and continues to have, on the peace process.

A peace process involves partnership. Neither side can choose the partner with whom to deal. There is no choice. Palestinians have no option but to deal with the democratically elected Government of Israel, led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Likewise, only the Palestinian National Authority and its duly elected leader, President Yasser Arafat, can represent the Palestinian people in the peace process. President Arafat, through his physical isolation, has been prevented for many weeks now from travelling and from carrying out his functions. This policy does Israeli no credit. It is seen as vindictive by the international community. It is manifestly counter-productive and should be brought to an end.

Partnership in a peace process means that even though the other partner may be, in a sense, an adversary, one nonetheless acts in a way that will help him to carry out the tasks on his side necessary to advance the peace process. Partnership means having an understanding of the political and other difficulties faced by the other party. Partnership means carrying on, despite the inevitable setbacks. The partnership that was established after Oslo functioned in that way. Israelis and Palestinians demonstrated that they could manage it and build on it. The partnership survived many crises before tragically breaking down.

The minimum level of trust required to restore and sustain the necessary partnership in the Middle East peace process clearly does not now exist. To restore this trust, the sustained and concerted involvement of the international community is required. Last Thursday, Secretary-General Annan said that it was imperative for the Security Council and the wider international community to work in a concerted manner with the parties towards a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful settlement.

Ireland agrees strongly with the Secretary-General. We have consistently stated in both private and public deliberations of this Council that the Security Council does have a role, and that it should exercise it with care and balance in the interests of helping the peace process. It is entitled to a view, and should be listened to, regarding the implementation of its own resolutions. It should work, as the Secretary-General said, in a concerted manner with the parties themselves, as well as with the others involved, in particular the members of the "Quartet", which includes the European Union. The High Representative of the European Council, Mr. Javier Solana, is in the region at the moment, working with others to help the parties to end the cycle of violence and recommit themselves to the path of political negotiation.

The Secretary-General also referred to new thinking and imaginative new ideas being proposed from several quarters. Ireland agrees with him that this is to be welcomed and that the new ideas should be considered promptly and thoroughly by the international community. Prominent among the new ideas are the reported proposals of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. These deserve the most careful consideration by the parties and all those engaged in mediation, as well as by the Arab world. New ideas have also emerged from the ongoing contacts between Deputy Prime Minister Peres and the President of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Abu Ala.

Ideas like these will contribute to developing the political horizon that is needed to achieve a reduction in violence and a return to the negotiating table. When we discussed the Middle East issue here in December last, all delegations were firmly focused on the implementation of the Tenet understandings and the Mitchell report, because these promised a route back to the negotiating table. However, even though President Arafat's statement of 16 December was followed by a significant reduction in violence, that did not prove sufficient to get the Tenet and Mitchell processes under way. It became clear at that point that something more was required, in the Secretary-General's words, moving beyond a discussion focused on how to pursue Tenet and Mitchell.

Progress on the political and security fronts, as well as on the economic front, must proceed in parallel. The violence between Israelis and the Palestinians does not exist in a political vacuum. It exists primarily because Palestinian national aspirations -- legitimate aspirations -- have been frustrated.

We are all agreed that a reduction in violence is the most urgent priority. It takes nothing from this priority to say at the same time that it should be made clear to the Palestinian people what they can expect for their political future, and to take steps to help them back to the road of economic and social development. This would strengthen the hand of those working to stop terrorism and end the armed intifada, and it would weaken the hand of those who claim that Palestinian national aspirations are more likely to be brought about by confrontation than by negotiation.

Mr. Negroponte (United States)

The United States is deeply troubled by the recent events in the Middle East. We are working intensively to have the parties take a step back from confrontation and a step towards the kind of cooperation that will ease the suffering and establish the basis for a political solution. There is no substitute for direct engagement. Over the past few days, Secretary of State Colin Powell has spoken with Chairman Arafat, Prime Minister Sharon, Secretary-General Annan, European Union High Representative Solana, Arab heads of State and the Foreign Ministers of some of the countries represented in this Chamber today.

There is little disagreement in this Chamber that the present situation must be changed. The solution lies in addressing all three aspects of the problem: political, security and economic. We have a vision of where we think the parties to this conflict should go, and we are working to implement those steps that have the most realistic chance of realizing this vision.

For my Government's part, the vision has been stated at the highest level: a viable State of Palestine living alongside the State of Israel in peace and security. That is the goal at which United States diplomatic efforts are aimed. I would note the positive contribution of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's comments make to the political horizon for the region: real peace between Israel and all its Arab neighbours, arising from a comprehensive peace based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and the principle of land for peace.

The public support of several Arab States for these ideas is also important. President Bush spoke with Crown Prince Abdullah this morning and conveyed our desire to work closely with the King of Saudi Arabia in pursuit of Middle East peace. President Bush praised the Crown Prince's ideas regarding full Arab-Israeli normalization once a comprehensive peace agreement is achieved.

How do we help the parties reach their goals? Everyone who has tried to address this question has come up with one conclusion: the road back to real negotiations must start with security. Without effective security cooperation, that horizon will remain just that: something longed for but not achieved. But this road cannot end with security. Just as progress towards the political horizon cannot be made without effective security cooperation, so, too, is sustained security cooperation much more likely if there is a real prospect for political progress.

The challenge before us is how to move the parties from where they are now to the kind of relationship that will lead to productive negotiations. Extremists remain determined to sabotage peace in the region. The Palestinian Authority must help eliminate the danger they pose -- not only to Israelis, but also to the legitimate aspirations of its own people to a safe and secure future.

Security is not a one-way street. Israel, too, must meet its obligations. Chairman Arafat requires an infrastructure to implement his orders. Actions by Israel against the Palestinian security apparatus charged with preventing violence and terror are counterproductive. The United States is looking to both parties to help create an environment for moving forward.

But my Government is not simply calling for action on the security front. We are bringing the parties together -- away from the limelight -- to find practical solutions to their differences. Last Friday's meeting between the parties was positive, and these discussions are continuing today.

My Government is intent on encouraging the parties to implement the Mitchell Committee recommendations. Mitchell is the means by which the parties can restore calm and rebuild enough confidence -- in each other and in the process itself -- to restart a real political dialogue. The Mitchell recommendations indeed contain a political context, and they are designed to lead to a political outcome. We hope that this outcome will reflect the vision outlined by President Bush and Secretary Powell.

The third element of our approach -- the economic element -- is no less important. My Government is preoccupied by the deteriorating economic situation of Palestinians. President Bush highlighted this problem during Prime Minister Sharon's visit to Washington. In addition to our longstanding assistance programmes, we are moving ahead with a $130 million emergency response programme that includes financing for health and job-creation projects. We are also implementing over $200 million in long-term infrastructure projects to help bring clean water to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. In addition, we are the largest single donor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and will contribute $88 million to that organization this year.

I began my remarks by underscoring our concern over the deteriorating situation between Palestinians and Israelis. We are trying to find the best means to reverse this deterioration. As a practical matter, Security Council action at this time will not resolve the problems between Palestinians and Israelis.

The Secretary-General has wisely said that while the situation is bleak, the present course of events is not irreversible. We agree. The United States is committed to helping the parties move forward. We want, and hope, to send General Zinni back to the region as soon as conditions are appropriate. We ask the Council to perform its task responsibly -- in a way that will further the cause of peace with due regard for the interests of all parties concerned.

Mr. Kolby (Norway)

The peace process in the Middle East is facing its most serious crisis ever. Norway is extremely concerned about the dramatic escalation of violence in recent weeks. Present developments are threatening all of the achievements made since the Declaration of Principles was signed in 1993.

Norway strongly condemns the Palestinian terrorist attacks, including the use of Kassam rockets. The Palestinian Authority must fight Palestinian terrorism vigorously and dismantle the terrorist networks. We welcome the arrest of the suspected murderers of Israeli Minister Ze'evi as an important step in this regard.

The security situation did improve after President Arafat's 16 December speech. Norway very much regrets that Israel did not take advantage of that positive momentum.

The Israeli bombardment of Palestinian cities and institutions, which has led to death and destruction on a scale unprecedented since the start of the peace process, is unacceptable. These Israeli military operations are out of proportion in relation to military, security and police needs. Norway fails to see how these attacks can contribute to greater security.

It is Norway's conviction that both parties must now adopt forceful and immediate measures to stop the escalating violence. These steps include the following.

The Palestinian Authority must do its utmost to halt Palestinian terrorist attacks. Continued terrorist attacks cannot be tolerated.

Israel must stop its attacks on Palestinian infrastructure, stop incursions into area A, withdraw its armed forces, lift completely the house arrest of President Arafat, stop the targeted killings, lift the closure and transfer the value-added tax (VAT) owed to the Palestinians.

A serious political dialogue must be resumed immediately, with the aim of ending the Middle East conflict and establishing a viable Palestinian state based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) as well as the Oslo Accords.

The Tenet plan and the Mitchell recommendations must be implemented immediately and unconditionally.

Humanitarian and development assistance to the Palestinians must be increased to counter the increasingly difficult economic and social situation.

The international community, and indeed the Council, must stand united in its demand that these measures are implemented.

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders seem today locked in a battle with no exit strategies. This is untenable. The final responsibility to end the hostilities continues to lie with the parties themselves. At the same time, the Security Council must assist the parties in reaching this goal. Norway stands ready to make its contribution in this regard.

The aim of the Oslo process was to end the occupation and to create security for Israel. We can still achieve that goal, but only if a political process is started now. In that regard, Norway finds the informal ideas presented by Saudi Arabia very interesting indeed. Norway strongly encourages the further exploration of those ideas.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom)

It was a good format to listen to the Secretary-General two working days ago, to consider his words, and then to have an exchange of views this evening. The Secretary-General came very close to articulating what every Member of the United Nations can accept as common ground. His is therefore an approach on which we should be building.

These meetings have been taking place against a backdrop of increasing violence and despair in the Middle East. The statement which Spain will later deliver on behalf of the European Union expresses very clearly the urgency with which we all feel efforts to end the violence must proceed. As Ambassador Ryan implied in his remarks earlier, there has recently been a failure of courage and imagination on both sides. We all know that the only effective solution is through a return to dialogue and negotiation. The precise obligations on each side to bring violence and terrorism to an end are well spelled out in the European Union statement.

Our goal remains a two-State solution: a State of Israel and a viable Palestinian State, both secure within recognized borders. The recent remarks by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia give extra momentum to that objective. His vision of full normalization of relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours is very welcome. We hope that other countries in the region will build on it.

An end to occupation can be achieved only by negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, leading to a just, final and comprehensive settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and on the principle of land for peace. The parties must focus on creating the conditions for the success of those negotiations. That can most readily be done by their implementing in parallel the obligations they have accepted under the Tenet security plan and the Mitchell Committee report.

But the United Kingdom sees ample evidence that the parties alone cannot now find their way back to the path of peace. Mutual trust and confidence have disappeared as the levels of violence have increased and the intifada has continued. We therefore welcome and encourage the sustained engagement of the Secretary-General and his Special Coordinator, the Governments of the United States, the European Union and its Member States and Russia, and those in the region and further afield who remain determined that peace can and must be achieved. The United Kingdom, for its part, will remain an active member of that category.

We continue to believe that if the Council is to act effectively it must speak unanimously. An analysis of the speeches made by Council members so far in this debate indicates a wide area of common ground. We must play our proper role and enlarge on that. Further than that, the international community must speak with one voice. We must all remain focused on urging the parties to fulfil their responsibilities to end the violence and to return to the negotiating table.

Mr. Fall (Guinea)

This is the third time the Security Council has met in less than two weeks, which demonstrates that, as the Secretary-General has observed, the situation in the Middle East remains highly explosive and demands that we address it with resolve and clear-sightedness. Here, I join all preceding speakers in expressing concern at what we are agreed is the unending cycle of violence and counter-violence that is now the daily lot of the Israeli and Palestinian populations.

In that region, every passing day brings its train of misfortune and senseless destruction, futile attacks and aimless bombings, whose purpose is simply to draw the parties to the conflict away from the path of reconciliation, dialogue, understanding and final peace. The delegation of Guinea is deeply concerned at this intolerable situation. We reaffirm that blind violence and reckless disregard for the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law can lead only to chaos. We unequivocally condemn these acts, which cannot be justified on either political or moral grounds. Guinea urges both parties to renounce confrontation and thus to protect the last chance to resume negotiations; hence the need quickly to achieve a lasting ceasefire.

Israel must put an end to the destruction of infrastructure and to the closure of autonomous Palestinian areas; it must end its house arrest of the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. The comparative freedom of movement he has recently been permitted within Ramallah is insufficient. The Palestinian leader must regain all his rights and full freedom of movement. Israel must also withdraw from the autonomous Palestinian areas and must give up its exclusively military policy.

Likewise, Hamas and other fringe groups must cease their suicide attacks against Israeli civilian populations.

As international bodies, notably the Security Council, have repeatedly reaffirmed, the only viable way out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through a cessation of hostilities, a return to a better frame of mind, and the rapid resumption of negotiations based on resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and on the Tenet plan and the recommendations of the Mitchell report. Otherwise, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will slip further into deadlock, inevitably leading to a large-scale war that will endanger peace and security not only in the Middle East but internationally.

To lay new groundwork in the search for an equitable solution to this thorny problem, my delegation endorses any new initiative -- such as the recent initiative by Crown Prince Abdullah -- that can strengthen the Middle East peace process, because in the present situation we should overlook no way of helping the Israeli and Palestinian sides to find a just and lasting solution to the conflict that has divided them for so long, and thus to create true peace between Israel and all its Arab neighbours.

Mr. Tafrov (Bulgaria)

I wish first to say that Bulgaria fully endorses the statement to be made by the representative of Spain on behalf of the European Union. I have a few brief comments to make in my national capacity.

Bulgaria joins in expressing profound concern at the escalation of violence in the Middle East. The recent attacks clearly demonstrate that we are witnessing an unprecedented deterioration of the situation on the ground. The spiral of violence has resulted in the loss of human life, which we deplore most deeply. The urgent necessity of stopping this spiral of death is evident.

As we have already had the occasion to say before the Council, Bulgaria believes that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians should be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties concerned on the basis of resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and on the basis of the principle of land for peace.

My country calls for the immediate cessation of any further acts of terrorism. We also call for the cessation of the often disproportionate and useless reprisals. We fully support the Secretary-General's appeal to the parties to the conflict to put an end to confrontation and mutual accusations and to return to the negotiating table. It is absolutely crucial that the parties begin to implement without delay the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee and the Tenet plan in order to arrive at a lasting ceasefire. This would help to reduce violence and restore the conditions for reviving the peace process -- conditions which have substantially deteriorated. The greatest priority among these conditions is undoubtedly that of security. Even a minimum of security will allow the political process to succeed. It is unnecessary to point out the importance of economic conditions in the occupied territories, which are currently deplorable and must be markedly improved.

Bulgaria fully supports the efforts of the "quartet", and we call upon the parties to make an effort to follow the recommendations of the representatives of those countries and organizations that are working tirelessly for a solution to the Middle East problem. My country attaches special importance to the efforts of the European Union aimed at finding a solution to this complex and dangerous situation. In this respect, we fully support the European Presidency's statement on the Middle East issued on 20 February 2002.

Bulgaria welcomes the willingness of the Israeli Government to discuss with Saudi Arabia its ideas for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict. In this respect, the information just given to us by Ambassador Negroponte on the contacts with President Bush seems to us of particular interest.

Bulgaria is prepared to work within the Council so that all members of the Council can find a common ground of understanding on the question of the Middle East. As Ambassador Greenstock has just said, Secretary-General Kofi Annan's statement to the Council as well as the statements of all the delegations thus far allow us to hope that a common ground of understanding can be found within the Council.

Mr. Wehbe (Syria)

I should like at the outset to convey to you, Mr. President, my sincerest thanks and gratitude for your quick response to the request of the Arab Group to convene this session of the Security Council to consider the extremely dangerous situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and to take the necessary action in that regard.

Allow me to reiterate our thanks to the Secretary-General for the statement he delivered before the previous open meeting, in which he set out his views on the developments in the occupied territory.

The grave deterioration of the situation in the occupied Arab territories as well as the alarming spiral of Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and its infrastructure -- particularly in the past few days -- constitute a blatant violation of international law and international humanitarian law, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. These actions also violate the relevant Security Council resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israeli occupation forces have committed a series of criminal actions which daily cause the death and injury of dozens of people and now total around a thousand Palestinian martyrs and thousands of injured Palestinians since the beginning of the intifada. This is in addition to the imposition of the policy of siege, starvation, destruction and the killing of children, the elderly and women, as well as what was mentioned by the representatives of Mauritius and Palestine.

Israel has atrociously exploited the will of the international community to combat terrorism after 11 September. With the pretext of combating terrorism -- as if others were not fighting terrorism -- it has attempted to classify resistance against occupation, self-defence and the defence of land and dignity as terrorism, thus violating the principles of international law and world ethics. Israel is trying to cover up the war of genocide it is waging against the Palestinian people. It is natural that the wave of internal Israeli criticism and external criticism against Mr. Sharon's policy towards the Palestinian people is increasing: that policy violates all laws. In particular, the Israeli Government is committing daily massacres that express the hysteria prevailing in the ruling institutions of Israel.

Events have proved that the achievement of security for Israel alone is a myth, because security must be achieved for all. Security cannot be achieved without laying its basic foundation: peace. Peace is lacking.

Bitterness at this approach has been expressed in the refusal of many Israeli regular and reserve officers to do military service in the occupied Palestinian territories. I quote from a statement by one Israeli officer: "The occupation practices are war crimes according to all international criteria. Atrocities are carried out in the Palestinian areas. It is inconceivable to control 3 million persons who are starving and whose basic right to live is denied. This is inconceivable."

If the Israeli officer who observed these events has rebelled and expressed such indignation, what does the international community, particularly the Security Council, expect from the Palestinian people, who are suffering from hunger, injustice, suppression and occupation, with all their negative aspects? What does it expect the Palestinian people to do? Does this people not have the right to rebel against and resist occupation in order to regain its rights and land? This is a legitimate right enshrined in the Charter and Council resolutions.

The main reason for what is transpiring in the occupied Arab territories is the Israeli occupation of territories in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. In this connection, it seems that Israel has not yet realized the fact that killing begets only killing and violence begets only violence and destruction. Destruction will only lead to destruction and the occupation will only generate resistance. This is a legitimate resistance. Security will not be brought about without the achievement of a full, comprehensive and just peace for everyone in the region.

In the light of this gloomy picture -- the Israeli Government's escalation of assassinations of Palestinian citizens and leaders, destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and institutions, daily massacres by the Sharon Government -- which I will not enumerate here -- its attempts to impose genocidal war and ethnic cleansing, and the effects of these practices on peace and security in the region -- the Security Council, which the Charter has entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, is called upon first to denounce and condemn the persistent Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people.

Secondly, it must call upon Israel to cease immediately its acts of aggression in the occupied territories, to forgo its policy of siege, starvation and assassination of Palestinian citizens and leaders and to return to negotiations with a view to achieving a just and comprehensive peace.

Thirdly, it must call upon Israel to implement all relevant Security Council resolutions and not exempt it from complying with United Nations resolutions.

Fourthly, the Council should emphasize that the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is applicable to the occupied Arab territories.

Fifthly, it should hold the Sharon Government fully accountable for the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians in the occupied territories. We should be courageous in this regard.

Sixthly, it should reiterate its clear-cut stand on the Israeli policy of settlement in the Arab territories since 1967, including Jerusalem, particularly as put forward in resolution 465 (1980).

Seventhly, the Council should emphasize the need for Israel to abide by the Madrid peace process. That process was approved by the international community; it is based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and on the principle of land for peace. This is particularly important, since Israel is trying to bide its time and thwart the achievement of a just and comprehensive peace. It is also trying to avoid a complete withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem, the occupied Syrian Golan to the 4 June 1967 line, and the remaining occupied parts of the Lebanese territories.

There are numerous peace initiatives. Many initiatives may also emerge. But we have a clear-cut initiative. There is a peace process. That process requires clear and explicit political will and not further initiatives. So long as the process is based on the resolutions of this august Council, the peace that we aspire to is one that is just and comprehensive, in line with the Madrid peace process and its terms of reference, based on Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as I mentioned, and the principle of land for peace. The emphasis by the Security Council on such a peace is needed now more than ever, so as not to waste time and to avoid an increase in violence in the region.

This is particularly necessary, since Israel has not concealed in any way its intentions to evade the requirements of a comprehensive peace by maintaining its occupation of the Arab territories. Otherwise, what is the justification for the continued occupation? While Israel claims that it is seeking peace, it is conducting a systematic political process to kill the peace process.

If Israel wishes to live in peace, it must weigh its options. By renouncing occupation - and this is a simple matter set out and approved by the Security Council - it must respond to the requirements of a just and comprehensive peace, chosen as a strategic goal by the Arabs. Israel must realize that it cannot hold on to the land of others and enjoy peace at the same time.

Mr. Mahbubani (Singapore)

Once again, the Security Council is meeting on the situation in the Middle East, as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians shifts to a deeper and more dangerous level.

Singapore is deeply distressed that the escalation of violence has continued unabated, resulting in the senseless loss of so many innocent civilian lives for far too long. By some estimates, more than 1,200 people have been killed since the conflict began in September 2000, some three quarters of them Palestinian.

Targeting civilians and acts of terrorism are deplorable and must be unequivocally condemned. We are also deeply concerned about the bombardments near United Nations installations, which have caused damage to United Nations facilities and threaten the safety and security of United Nations personnel. The situation is certainly of grave concern to the entire international community and demands the urgent and sustained attention of the Security Council.

We are therefore encouraged that as a first step, the Council has reacted so promptly and responsibly to the request of the Group of Arab States and the members of the League of Arab States in convening the open meeting last Thursday, 21 February, to listen to the briefing by the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan. We have consistently supported the efforts of the Secretary-General as a neutral and even-handed facilitator.

We are also encouraged that in the past two months, Council members have had the benefit of listening to two excellent briefings - one by the Secretary-General's Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Mr. Terje Roed-Larsen, and the other by the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Sir Kieran Prendergast. These briefings, as the Council knows, are a new practice adopted by the Council, and we believe that they have been useful. They have broadened Council members' understanding of the problem and of the various diplomatic initiatives undertaken.

We are pleased that all United Nations Members had the opportunity to listen to a similar briefing by the Secretary-General last week, which clearly established that the interlinked problems of occupation, security and economic distress must be handled together. Like the Palestinian representative, we believe that these briefings could help frame subsequent and perhaps more important deliberations on the possible action that the Council could undertake, which should be unanimously approved by Council members.

Public debates alone cannot solve the problem in the Middle East. There is also no lack of diplomatic initiatives and prescriptions on how to bring the parties back from the abyss that the Secretary-General has spoken about. The so-called "Quartet" comprising the representatives of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations have laid down clear demands on both sides in their joint statement of 25 October 2001 -- a statement supported by all members of the Security Council.

The report of the Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-finding Committee, or the Mitchell report, has been accepted by the two parties and endorsed by the international community as a compass to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, 10 months after the issuance of the Mitchell report, the preconditions and timetable that had been laid down to implement the report have in effect made it an obstacle to peace.

What is needed right now are ways to turn the Mitchell report on its head and use it for the purpose for which it was intended. To do this, we must recognize that at the end of the day, it is the parties involved who must bear their respective responsibilities and obligations and take the necessary strategic decisions to return to the negotiating process. The map and the compass have been provided to the parties. It is ultimately up to them to put two and two together to find the peace which has thus far proved elusive. However, given the climate of deep distrust and mutual recrimination and the cycle of violence and counteraction, we strongly believe that outside help is urgently needed. I believe that Ambassador Greenstock made the same point when he spoke earlier.

The question is, what kind of external mechanism could make a real difference? The Security Council, with its Charter responsibility to maintain international peace and security, is certainly one such body, and it cannot neglect its responsibility. The "Quartet" is also a useful mechanism. In addition, there are many countries both within and beyond the region which have equally pivotal roles to play. Indeed, the strong interest expressed thus far in the informal proposal put forward by Saudi Arabia, and the positive references to that proposal that we have heard this afternoon, illustrate the positive role that other parties can play.

Therefore, perhaps what is needed is coordination and collaboration between these various players. We should find and make use of the comparative advantage of each of these mechanisms. Each mechanism should complement the efforts of others, not undermine them. We, the international community, hold the key to turning things around in the Middle East. Therefore, we believe that the Security Council could best contribute to the efforts of collective action by coordinating our positions, finding common ground and, as far as possible, speaking with one voice. As the Secretary-General said here last week, the Security Council should work in a concerted manner with the parties themselves as well as with the others involved. This is how the Council can be the most effective.

We note that the focus is on the immediate priority of breaking the cycle of violence. At the same time, we agree fully with the Secretary-General's observation that the political horizon of the hopes for peace must also be provided. Indeed, the causes of the current situation are fully intertwined. Occupation breeds violence; violence begets violence and causes economic deprivation; and dire socio-economic conditions in their turn feed extremism. Thus it is only logical to state that sustainable peace can be achieved only through a comprehensive approach comprising the political, economic and security tracks. Measures taken simultaneously on all these areas can be mutually reinforcing and buttress any agreements reached.

Ultimately, it is indisputable that there is no military solution to the crisis in the Middle East, and we are glad that several speakers have stressed that point this afternoon. Violence cannot take the place of dialogue and negotiations. A just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East can be achieved only through a negotiated settlement on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and the Madrid principle of land for peace. On this, there is complete unanimity.

Furthermore, even in these dark days we must remember the gains made in the other peace processes in the Middle East, including the Camp David Accords, the Madrid Conference and the Oslo peace accords. The longer it takes for the parties to find their way back to the path of peace, the harder it will be to fully realize these gains.

Mr. Wang Yingfan (China)

In recent days there have been frequent incidents of violence in the Middle East. The continued escalation of the conflict between Palestine and Israel has not only inflicted more death and casualties on innocent civilians, it also threatens to plunge the region into even greater calamity at any moment. China opposes the Israeli military attacks and its economic blockade against Palestine, as well as its actions to jeopardize the security of the lives and property of Palestinian civilians. China also opposes all acts of violence against innocent civilians.

The continued escalation of the violence between Palestine and Israel has long since demonstrated clearly that the approach of stopping violence with violence leads nowhere and that peace talks represent the only hope for the eventual realization of peace. The Chinese Government has repeatedly pointed out recently that maintaining the authority of the Palestinian National Authority, headed by Mr. Arafat, will be conducive to easing the current tension in the Middle East and to promoting the resumption of peace talks between Israel and Palestine. To isolate Arafat and to restrict his freedom is unwise and will, in fact, backfire.

China has always maintained that the key to a resolution of the question of the Middle East lies in the termination of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and in the restoration of the Palestinian people's legitimate national rights on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions and the principle of land for peace. At the same time, the security of Israel should also be guaranteed.

In his briefing to the Security Council on 21 February, Secretary-General Annan made a number of important points. Among other things, he said that the lack of mutual confidence between the two sides makes the role of a third party essential and that there needs to be new thinking and imaginative ideas for the resolution of the violent conflict between Palestine and Israel. He also said that security has to be addressed alongside key political issues -- particularly the question of land -- and the economic and social issues, including the increasingly critical desperate situation of the Palestinians.

Just as the Secretary-General pointed out, under the current circumstances there is great need for the Security Council and the international community to increase their attention and input vis-à-vis the Middle East. The Security Council should play its due role in easing the situation in the Middle East and in resuming the Middle East peace talks. We hope that Council members will make efforts in a constructive spirit so that the Council will contribute to easing tension in the Middle East and ending the violent conflict between Palestine and Israel.

Mr. Belinga-Eboutou (Cameroon)

Cameroon would like to congratulate you, Mr. President, for having convened this meeting of the Security Council on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, at the request of the League of Arab States.

The prevailing situation in that part of the world is a subject of very serious concern, as it is fraught with peril for peace and security and with dangers for mankind and human life. The gruesome statistics that we have just heard are particularly indicative of assassinations, butchery and destruction. Since September 2000, 977 Palestinians and 279 Israelis have been killed. How long will it continue? The peace process is quite obviously imperilled, as everything seems to be converging to stoke hate and violence. All of this gives a particularly historic and tragic tone and importance to our debate today.

We would like to welcome the presence of Israel and Palestine among us, whose peoples are at this very moment looking to the Security Council with both disquiet and, above all, hope. The peoples of the United Nations who live in the Middle East are expecting the Council to urge the leaders of these two countries to put an end to intolerance and violence and to get the peace process back on track. These peoples are waiting for the Council to hasten reconciliation between people and understanding between nations. They are waiting for a time when the clash of arms will be replaced by the song of peace.

Peace in the Middle East assumes the creation of a Palestinian State. Peace in the Middle East assumes recognition of Israel and its right to live within secure and recognized borders. Peace in the Middle East therefore involves the strict implementation by all the parties of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which resolution 338 (1973) refers to, as well as the implementation of the fundamental principle of land for peace. Those are the necessary prerequisites for a just and lasting peace, namely, a peace in whose establishment all parties have been involved; a peace that stems from dialogue and negotiation free from any violence. Such a peace cannot be imposed by force of arms. Peace imposed by force of arms is always doomed to failure. That has always been the conviction of Cameroon, and the position defended by my country.

It is therefore up to the Security Council to encourage both the Palestinians and the Israelis to resume the path of negotiation and dialogue in order to promote a just peace based on various new and old initiatives, including the recent initiative put forth by Saudi Arabia.

It is up to us -- as we have always said and now reiterate -- to create, on their behalf and within their hearts, a genuine culture of peace around those two brotherly people who are condemned to live together, as is often forgotten. It is up to us to help those two brotherly peoples -- who have waged war against each other for more than 50 years now -- to make peace.

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Oman, in which he requests to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite that representative to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

The President

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of Mexico.

In this Chamber, we recently heard the Secretary-General state that, unless something happens, it is very probable that violence will further increase in the Middle East. Those words posed a major challenge to us all, to the Israelis and Palestinians, to the community of the Middle East, to the international community as a whole and thus to the United Nations.

The establishment of peace in the Middle East hangs over the international community as an unfinished task, an assignment that periodically absorbs our collective conscience with the heartbreaking images of an apparently endless conflict. The States Members of the United Nations should not allow despair to prevail. We must not become insensitive to those images of death and destruction. The violence that threatens to spread everywhere cannot be the way to a solution. There is no military solution and we shall not tire of repeating that.

It is imperative to break the spiral of violence and to protect the civilian population in accordance with the provisions of international humanitarian law. We agree with those at this table who have affirmed that there is nothing -- no international action or initiative -- that can replace the will of the parties to negotiate. We therefore call on that will to resume direct dialogue.

The international community, however, does have a clear responsibility in the Middle East that it cannot shirk. It is a responsibility of the United Nations and, of course, of the Security Council. As Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, we must find new and imaginative formulas and viable proposals to fulfil this mission. Above all, we must be prepared to that end to discuss the matter in the Security Council and to do so in a spirit of mutual consideration and understanding.

In recent weeks, we have had four opportunities to address this item -- two in consultations and two in public meetings. In the light of circumstances and developments, this process is already leading the Security Council to consider promising and viable initiatives. Tonight's debate is in itself an opportunity that has been fully exploited to explore the approaches being sought by the international community. Members of the Council have indeed referred to very relevant proposals, such as the initiative of Saudi Arabia that is today the subject of attention and consideration in Israel, Palestine, the Arab countries, Europe and the United States.

It is also up to the United Nations to explore confidence-building mechanisms. The role of the United Nations Special Coordinator is especially relevant in that regard, both in and of itself and within the context of the so-called quartet. It also falls to the United Nations to promote humanitarian activities, attending to the needs of the civilian population and advancing reconciliation. For all of these reasons, and given our hopes for the future, my country is convinced and firmly believes that the United Nations is a part of the solution.

Other international efforts are also highly relevant and must not be abandoned. The international community greeted with hope the results of the Madrid conference in 1991, the Oslo Accords in 1993, the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in 2000 and the proposals contained in the Mitchell report and the Tenet plan. Israelis and Palestinians should not forget those commitments because they are a symbol of what can be achieved when there is a will. Mexico would like to see that hope for dialogue and peace in the region rekindled. Reconciliation, mutual trust and prudence: these are what the Mitchell report recommends.

We call on the parties promptly to implement the recommendations of the Tenet plan and the Mitchell report. While, the ceasefire is important, it is necessary that negotiations begin immediately between the parties as a demonstration of the willingness and desire firmly to resume a long-term peace process.

Mexico reaffirms the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to establish a State and the need for the resolutions of the United Nations, specifically Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), to be implemented. We also reiterate our position in support of the right of all States of the region to live in peace within secure and recognized borders and to prosper together. Mexico urges the representatives of the quartet -- the United States, the Russian Federation, the European Union and the United Nations -- to intensify their cooperation with the parties in order to find a solution to the current situation in the occupied territories. Given its vital importance, we must follow up -- and Mexico will do so -- the Saudi Arabian proposal for a peace plan for the region.

Lasting peace in the Middle East is the political goal to which we aspire. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that, if peace is achieved, the task of reconstruction will then be on the agenda. Once peace has been attained, the necessary material and emotional capacities will have to be restored. That will require a coordinated effort on the part of all of the agencies and programmes of the United Nations system and the international community.

It is more difficult to bring back to a people its hope in the future than to lay power cables or build a house. But, working together, we must find a way to achieve both objectives at the same time -- hope in the future, and development. As an international community, we have an obligation to support, both morally and materially, economic reconstruction, mutual confidence-building and individual and collective prosperity for all the peoples and communities of that region.

I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council.

We will now continue with the list of speakers. May I remind representatives of the request that statements be limited to five minutes.

I give the floor to the representative of Israel.

Mr. Jacob (Israel)

At the outset, allow me to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency for this month, and to congratulate your predecessor, the representative of Mauritius, for his most able leadership.

The people and Government of Israel are committed to negotiating a peaceful settlement to the conflict in the Middle East. This is a commitment that is unshakeable and rooted in our fundamental belief in the right of all the peoples in the region to live in freedom, peace and security. Even after more than a year of violence, we remain committed to the agreed terms of reference of the peace process, which require the sides to engage in direct face-to-face negotiations on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Furthermore, we have accepted the Mitchell plan and the Tenet recommendations in their entirety as a road map out of the morass of conflict and towards negotiations and a future of peace.

Israel demonstrated its commitment to peace in the negotiations at Camp David in July 2000 and in the unprecedented compromises and extraordinary risks we were willing to take for the sake of peace. Such compromises could have been accomplished only within the framework of direct face-to-face negotiations. History has repeatedly shown that peace cannot be imposed and that there can be no substitute for direct talks between the parties.

Israel's far-reaching peace proposals were rewarded with a deliberate campaign of violence and terrorism. For 17 months, Israel has faced an orchestrated campaign, incited and supported by the highest levels of the Palestinian leadership. Israeli civilians have been subjected to every manner of terrorist atrocity: suicide bombers in crowded restaurants and cafes, abductions and murders of our citizens, ambushes and sniper attacks on the roads, and missile attacks against our territory. Even as the international community has firmly and repeatedly called for a cessation of hostilities, the Palestinian leadership has equivocated and taken half measures in public, while continuing to plot violence in secret.

And now a new threat is emerging. Last week, Turkish forces detained three individuals linked to Al-Qaeda who had travelled from Afghanistan, through Iran, to Turkey, and who intended -- had they not been arrested -- to continue on to Lebanon and into Israel to carry out a terrorist attack in an Israeli city.

The Palestinian leadership purports, before the world, to condemn terrorism, while legitimizing and supporting it at home. To Western audiences, Palestinian representatives have been known to speak in the language of peace, but to their own people they speak in the language of hatred and holy war. Murder and martyrdom are glorified in Palestinian Authority schools and textbooks; members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups are embraced as national heroes. In December, when Chairman Arafat was finally pressured sufficiently to call for a ceasefire, he immediately undermined that call by making a speech in which he called for a million martyrs to sacrifice themselves on behalf of the Palestinian cause. Here in the United Nations, the Palestinians often declare their fidelity to the international campaign against terror, but just as often they undermine that claim by distinguishing between certain attacks and others. Does the Palestinian side truly want us to believe that attacking innocent Israeli children can be considered a legitimate act of resistance?

The international community must make absolutely clear that there is no justification whatsoever for acts of terrorism. The current international campaign against terrorism is predicated on this principle: no distinctions are made between so-called "good" terror and "bad" terror, or between the terrorists and the regimes that harbour and support them. The same must apply in this case, as well.

When Chairman Arafat made his historic commitment, enshrined in his letter of 9 September 1993 to the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, he showed no confusion as to what was considered terrorism. He renounced terrorism fully and without distinction, and committed himself to resolving all outstanding issues on the basis of the agreed terms of reference, through direct negotiations with Israel. Furthermore, the Palestinians claim to have accepted the Mitchell report, which defines terrorism without distinction and calls for a complete cessation of violence. How can that position possibly be consistent with the Palestinian leadership's brazen support for terrorism?

We must be clear: there is no cause so just, no grievance so severe, no objective so noble, that it can justify the deliberate killing of civilians.

Where do we go from here? It is our view that the only path forward requires an immediate, complete and unconditional cessation of violence as a crucial first step in restarting the process and rebuilding trust between the parties. Reaching a settlement of the conflict cannot be done in an atmosphere of hatred and violence, and negotiations cannot be conducted under the threat of terror. That makes neither moral, nor political, nor diplomatic sense. Israel cannot be expected to sit down and negotiate with the very same individuals who are supporting and engaging in terror. Nor can the Palestinians purport to negotiate peace while they prepare for a future conflict.

Such duplicity, in the midst of an unrelenting terrorist campaign, sends a message to Israelis that the Palestinians have still failed to come to terms with the very right of the State of Israel to exist. It serves to confirm the suspicion that, in the eyes of many Palestinians, the peace process is simply war by another name. If the Palestinian leadership truly wanted to live peacefully side by side with Israel, it would not be fuelling hatred and condoning the murder of Israeli men, women and children on a daily basis. The Palestinian leadership has failed to demonstrate, either to the Israeli people or to the international community, or, perhaps more importantly, to the Palestinian people themselves, that its goal is peaceful coexistence.

The only constructive action to be taken here is for the international community to exert pressure on the Palestinian leadership to abandon its campaign of terror and embrace a peaceful solution to the conflict. If the Council were to do anything other, it would send the message that violence is acceptable. This is a prescription for more violence and more terror and for the worsening of the current state of affairs.

The international community must resist the tendency to approach the conflict in the Middle East by attempting to find some middle ground between terrorists and their victims, to forge a compromise between those who initiate violence and those who must defend against it. There is no moral equivalence between the two. For 17 months the Palestinians have been intent on proving that violence works; Israel is intent on proving that it does not.

The Security Council must not be neutral here, nor should it encourage Palestinian violence by offering an ever-expanding package of rewards and incentives in exchange for a ceasefire. Violence must be ended unconditionally. After nearly a year and half of bloodshed, inspired and supported by the Palestinian leadership, offering any incentive in exchange for ending the terror is sure to result only in more terror.

The real tragedy of the Middle East conflict is that barely a year and a half ago, the peace process had brought us so close to achieving a final settlement. Israel remains willing to re-energize that process. We repeat: we are committed to the sequence of steps outlined in the Mitchell report, the first of them being a complete cessation of violence. We are further committed to a return to the agreed terms of reference of the peace process, and we are resolved that violence will not be rewarded and will not be permitted to influence the outcome of issues that are to be negotiated between the parties.

I urge the Council to support the position that violence is unacceptable and to refrain from endorsing any action that would detract from our immediate and crucial objective of ending the violence so that we may return in earnest to the agreed negotiating process. It is only through such a process that both Israelis and Palestinians can hope to realize their legitimate right to live in peace and security.

The President

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Spain. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Arias (Spain)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The Central and Eastern European countries associated with the European Union -- Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia -- and the associated countries Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, as well as the European Free Trade Association countries members of the European Economic Area -- Iceland and Lichtenstein -- align themselves with this statement.

The European Union strongly condemns and expresses its dismay at the latest outbreak of terror and violence in the Middle East, which has led to more casualties, including a significant number of civilians. We wish to convey our most sincere condolences to the Israelis and the Palestinians, both victims of this situation.

The current spiral of violence must cease immediately, and the suffering of both peoples must be brought to an end. Both parties need to take urgent measures to restore calm and to return to negotiations in order to resolve a conflict that has no military solution. We appeal to the Israeli Government and to the Palestinian Authority to offer, with the assistance of the international community, a perspective that is different from the current perpetuation of violence and of the suffering of their peoples. The lack of such a perspective only encourages further confrontation and plays into the hands of the extremists.

Terror and violence must end. Each side must face up to its responsibilities and take immediate and resolute action.

The Palestinian Authority and its elected President, Yasser Arafat, must do everything possible to put an end to terrorism and the armed intifada, dismantle all terrorist networks, and arrest and prosecute the perpetrators of these kinds of acts. In this regard, we welcome the detention by the Palestinian security forces of those suspected of involvement in the killing of Israel's Minister of Tourism.

To eradicate terrorism and work towards peace, Israel needs a partner. That partner is the Palestinian Authority and its elected President, Yasser Arafat, whose authority and capacity to fight terrorism must not be weakened by travel restrictions and other obstacles.

The Israeli Government must withdraw its military forces, stop extra-judicial executions and lift the closures and all restrictions imposed on the Palestinian people and its leadership. A total freeze must be imposed on settlement activities, as an immediate step. There must be an end to action against the facilities of the Palestinian Authority and to the destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure and of other facilities that contribute to the economic, social and humanitarian development of the Palestinians and that are financed by the European Union and other donors. We call on the Israeli Government to facilitate the access of humanitarian staff and assistance to the Palestinian populations.

Security is a priority, but it should not be isolated from the need for a political and economic perspective for the Palestinian people. To that end, in the Laeken Declaration of the European Union Council, and in the latest conclusions adopted by our ministers of foreign affairs, the European Union has issued a firm call to the parties to adopt all necessary measures immediately and unconditionally to implement the Tenet ceasefire plan and the Mitchell Committee recommendations. The objective of peace requires that security and political measures be implemented in parallel in a mutually reinforcing way.

As the Secretary-General indicated last Thursday to the Security Council,

"New thinking and imaginative new ideas are now being proposed from several quarters. This is to be welcomed, and such ideas should be considered promptly and thoroughly both by the parties and by the international community." (S/PV.4474, p.3)

The European Union encourages in this regard ongoing contacts between both sides, particularly between the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Shimon Peres, and the President of the Palestinian National Legislative Council, Mr. Abu Ala. The European Union also regards as a positive step the proposals of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and looks forward to their further development.

The European Union considers it essential and urgent that the United Nations, the United States, the Russian Federation and the Arab countries that are most closely concerned take resolute concerted action to help the parties break the cycle of violence and commit themselves to resuming political negotiations. In that regard, the High Representative of the European Council, Mr. Javier Solana, is now in the region to maintain the necessary contacts with the parties as a sign of our commitment to assist them in finding a final solution to the conflict.

We stress that a just and lasting settlement of the question must be based on the principles of the Madrid conference, in particular the principle of land for peace, and on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

The European Union is convinced that an impartial monitoring mechanism would serve the interests of both parties and is prepared to take an active part in the establishment of such a mechanism. It is equally important to ease the difficult socio-economic situation of the Palestinians as a way of encouraging peace.

The European Union will spare no effort in trying to contribute to reducing the violence and ensuring that Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace and security. That requires the reaffirmation and full recognition of Israel's irrevocable right to live in peace and security within internationally recognized borders, the establishment of a democratic and viable Palestinian State and an end to the occupation of the Palestinian territories.

The President

The next speaker is the representative of South Africa, who has asked to speak on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Kumalo (South Africa)

My delegation is pleased, Sir, to see you presiding over this important meeting. It is indeed encouraging to see the Security Council once again discussing the issue of Palestine.

Five days ago, the Secretary-General made what is probably the most sobering assessment of the situation in the Middle East. For the Security Council, whose mandate is the maintenance of peace and security, the Secretary-General's message could not have been more urgent. To quote the Secretary-General, we are indeed "nearing the edge of the abyss" (S/PV.4474, p. 2).

The Non-Aligned Movement has consistently maintained that ultimately there can be no military solution to the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The continued escalation of conflict cannot contribute to any solution in the Middle East. In fact, the events of the past 18 months have clearly demonstrated that there can be no unilateral solution to this crisis. It is foreign occupation, settlement activities, collective punishment of Palestinian people, extrajudicial killings, human rights abuses and poverty that are the root causes of violence and insecurity in the region.

Many years ago, the Security Council enshrined the principle of land for peace in its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which still constitute the internationally accepted basis for a negotiated settlement to the dispute.

The Palestinian Authority was created as an instrument to help lay the foundation for peace among the Palestinian people. But the institutions of the Palestinian Authority find themselves the target of daily military attacks by the Israeli army. This concerted effort is aimed at weakening and discrediting President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. The continued restrictions on the movement of President Arafat, aimed at keeping him under virtual house arrest, are another unacceptable attempt to humiliate the leader of the Palestinian people. However, we believe that all these actions can only make peace difficult to achieve.

The Non-Aligned Movement believes that the Israelis and the Palestinians may not be able to end the cycle of violence and resume dialogue without resolute international assistance. The international community must support a peace plan and ensure that there is effective monitoring of the implementation of agreements made. Although the Security Council has yet to be convinced, we believe that the presence of a credible, multinational monitoring mechanism is required on the ground.

South Africa has undertaken many initiatives to facilitate peace in the Middle East as mandated by the Non-Aligned Movement. The Non-Aligned Movement has a well known principled position calling for a Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital. Recently, President Mbeki invited leading political figures who support peace in the Middle East, both Palestinians and Israelis, to join him and several other prominent South Africans at a presidential retreat at the Spier wine estate in Cape Town from 9 to 11 January 2002. The aims of the Spier retreat were: to support the ongoing initiatives towards the creation of a favourable environment to restart peace negotiations; to share South Africa's experience in negotiations, peacemaking and transition to democracy; and to support the strengthening of the peace camps in Palestine and in Israel, as well as the general dynamic towards peace in the region.

The Spier communiqué, which was issued at the conclusion of the meeting, demonstrates that there are still leaders in Israel and in Palestine who are genuinely committed to dialogue and to building a partnership for peace. President Mbeki and his colleagues are continuing discussions to build on that initiative.

Even in the midst of the growing despair, there remains hope. We appreciate the efforts of other international groups, such as the European Union, in seeking new ways to restart the peace process. We are also particularly encouraged by recent signs of a revival among the peace camps in both Israel and Palestine. That is a fundamental acknowledgement that, ultimately, reconciliation and peace lie in the hands of the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. It is our collective duty to support them in their search for peace; the international community has a particular role to play in encouraging the re-emergence of those in both Israel and Palestine who support peace.

The President

The next speaker is the representative of Jordan. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein (Jordan)

Allow me to extend to you, Sir, my profound thanks for holding this emergency special meeting at the request of the Group of Arab States. I would like to extend my sincere congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. I am fully confident that your experience and skills will lead us to the desired success.

Allow me also to extend my profound thanks to your predecessor, Ambassador Koonjul, for the evident efficiency with which he oversaw the work of the Security Council during the previous month. I would also like to express my thanks and appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, and his Special Coordinator, Mr. Terje Roed-Larsen, for their efforts to find a solution to the tense and dangerous situation confronting our region.

Israeli acts of aggression and attacks on the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority and its institutions and infrastructure continue, with serious consequences. These acts of aggression continue to cause further deterioration of the situation involving the two parties and in the region as a whole. This impacts on the security and sta