Security Council meeting 4841

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen 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.

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 13 October 2003 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, which will be issued as document S/2003/988, and which reads as follows:

"I have the honour to request that, in accordance with its previous practice, the Security Council invite the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations to participate in the meeting of the Security Council to be held on 14 October 2003 regarding the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem."

I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite the Permanent Observer of Palestine to participate in the current debate in accordance with the rules of procedure and the previous practice in this regard.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

The President

I should also like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 9 October 2003 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations, which reads as follows:

"In accordance with rule 39 of the rules of procedure of the Security Council, I have the honour to request the participation of Mr. Yahya Mahmassani, Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations, in the meeting regarding the decision by Israel to proceed with the construction of its expansionist conquest wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem."

That letter is published as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/2003/975.

If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Council agrees that an invitation under rule 39 should be extended to His Excellency Yahya Mahmassani.

I invite the Permanent Observer for the League of Arab States to take the seat reserved for him at the side of the Council Chamber.

The President

I should also like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 13 October 2003 from the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations which reads as follows:

"In my capacity as Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Group at the United Nations, I have the honour to request that the Security Council extend an invitation to Mr. Ahmad Hajihosseini, deputy permanent observer of OIC to the United Nations, Chargé d'affaires, a.i., to address the Council under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure in the course of the Council's consideration of the agenda item 'The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question'."

This letter will be published as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/2003/989.

If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 to Mr. Ahmad Hajihosseini.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

I invite Mr. Hajihosseini to take the seat reserved for him at the side of the Council Chamber.

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 13 October 2003 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 the 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.

I invite the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Mr. Papa Louis Fall, to take the seat reserved for him at the side of the Council Chamber.

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Council is meeting in response to the request contained in a letter dated 9 October 2003 from the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, document S/2003/973.

I should also like to draw the attention of Council members to documents S/2003/974 and S/2003/977, which contain the texts of letters dated 9 October 2003 from the representatives of Malaysia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, respectively.

As a measure to optimize the use of our time, in order to allow as many delegations to take the floor as possible, I will not individually invite speakers to take seats at the table. When a speaker is taking the floor, the Conference Officer will seat the next speaker on the list at the table.

The first speaker inscribed on my list is the Permanent Observer of Palestine, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine)

It is indeed difficult for the international community to keep pace with the successive crimes committed by Israel. Before I deal with the question before the Council today, I cannot but refer to the crimes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp and around the city in the last few days. We had sent two letters to you, Mr. President, about this matter.

The occupation forces killed eight Palestinians and wounded more than 70. According to a report by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), it completely demolished nearly 120 houses, and 50 houses were partially destroyed. This led to the evacuation of about 1,500 Palestinian citizens from their homes. Rafah now looks as if it had been struck by an earthquake. This is the result not of a natural disaster, but of human evil -- the evil of the Israeli occupation.

Amnesty International has described the events that took place in Rafah as a war crime. Nevertheless, the occupation forces today returned once again to the area and issued military orders to deport 15 Palestinian citizens from their homes in the occupied West Bank to the Gaza Strip. This is a grave violation of international humanitarian law and of numerous Security Council resolutions.

The Council and the international community must deal with all these matters and other, similar ones, at a subsequent stage.

Israel, the occupying Power, is committing an immense war crime against the Palestinian people -- a crime that has the magnitude of a crime against humanity -- by building an expansionist wall in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem. This has involved the confiscation and destruction of thousands of dunums of Palestinian land; the destruction of the livelihood of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians; and the illegal, de facto annexation of extensive areas of occupied Palestinian land.

With the continued building of this expansionist wall -- if the international community permits the continuation of such a crime -- Israel will have effectively transferred large numbers of Palestinian civilians and will have confined the rest of the Palestinian people in several walled bantustans with additional secondary walls inside them. It will, of course, also have effectively destroyed the possibility of the existence of an independent, sovereign State of Palestine and the potential for achieving a political settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in line with the two-State vision, based on Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and the armistice line of 1949, known also as the line of 1967.

Israel, the occupying Power, began building the first phase of its wall in the northwest areas of the occupied West Bank in June 2002. For several months it succeeded in avoiding any real response by the international community to this action because of the secrecy surrounding the planning of the wall and the false impression it created about compliance, albeit relative, with the armistice line. In addition, of course, to the continuation of its bloody military campaign against the Palestinian people and the continuation of its media and political campaign against the Palestinian Authority and leadership, different immediate priorities were imposed on the Palestinian side and on the international community.

Under this cover, Israel, the occupying Power, actually concluded what it refers to as the first phase. It declared, in April 2003, the completion of 27 kilometres of the expansionist wall and then, by the end of the summer, the completion of the entire first phase of about 150 kilometres.

The wall is composed of several components, including, in some areas, concrete walls 8 metres high with fortified guard towers and, in others, several fences, including electrical ones, containing all or most of the following: trenches, dirt paths, two-lane paved patrol roads, barbed wire, sensors and "no-go" areas, making the width of the wall anywhere from 70 to 100 metres. I hope that Council members will take a look at the two pictures distributed with our statement today. In its first phase, this expansionist wall has already resulted in the confiscation and destruction of approximately 15,000 dunums of land for just the footprint of the wall alone, which also involved the uprooting of more than 100,000 trees and the destruction of 30 kilometres of water networks. Moreover, because the wall has cut deep into Palestinian territories -- up to 6 kilometres from the armistice line -- it has isolated more than 105,000 dunams of Palestinian land. If the wall is not removed, the fate of that land will be its illegal, de facto annexation by Israel.

The confiscation of the Palestinian land on which the wall has been built and of the Palestinian land isolated between the wall and the armistice line has had destructive effects on the lives of more than 200,000 Palestinian civilians in 65 villages and towns on both sides of the wall. Among other things, it has partially or completely separated those civilians from their land and water resources and from the rest of the Palestinian people. In addition, severe restrictions have been placed on the movements of some of them. These restrictions include the complete walling of the city of Qalqilya and the control of entry and exit into and out of the city through one gate, which is open for only a few hours a day for the city's 40,000 inhabitants.

With regard to occupied East Jerusalem, Israel, the occupying Power, has not contented itself with isolating the city from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory and with its ongoing attempts to Judaize the city and change its demographic composition. It has built a similar wall up to 8 kilometres long -- which could be called the northern wall of Jerusalem -- which has resulted in the confiscation of 800 dunams of Palestinian land from the villages of Al-Ram, Kalandia and Kufr Aqab. All of that is part of the plan for a Greater Jerusalem that extends deep into the occupied territory to include the illegal Israeli settlement of "Maale Adumim".

Similar plans are in store for the city of Bethlehem. The city has been completely besieged, especially since the building of a wall 15 kilometres long north of the city -- that is to say, south of Jerusalem. The wall is totally suffocating the city in an attempt to provide for the expansion of the Israeli settlements south of occupied Jerusalem.

On 1 October, the Israeli Government adopted plans for the expansionist wall's second phase, which dwarfs the first phase in terms of the extent of the illegal expansion and conquest of Palestinian land, as well as other dangerous consequences in that regard. The second phase is to begin with the establishment of the wall east of the illegal Israeli settlements of "Ariel" and "Kedumim", which will cut more than 22 kilometres into Palestinian land. The consequences of that can only be imagined. Once again, I invite the Council to review the map distributed with our statement, which illustrates the first and second phases, as well as the entire project. If the international community allows the implementation of this phase of such an Israeli crime, then the third and fourth phases will follow, making the length of the wall more than 500 kilometres, at a cost of more than $1 billion. After that, the establishment of the wall on the eastern side of the Palestinian territory will begin in order to isolate it from its international border with Jordan, allowing for the conquest of the Jordan Valley and the completion of the walls of the three or four bantustans on half of the occupied Palestinian territory.

To restate the obvious, the expansionist wall of conquest -- in its parts and in its entirety -- is illegal. Its construction represents a violation of both Article 2, paragraph 4, and Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Charter of the United Nations. It violates the established principle of international law that prohibits the acquisition of territory by force. It violates article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which bans any annexation by the occupying Power of the whole or part of the occupied territory. It also violates article 33 of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits collective punishment of protected civilians. Finally, it represents a grave breach of the Convention under article 147, as it involves extensive destruction and appropriation of property. All of that is in addition to its serious violation of relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 242 (1967), cornerstone of the peace process, and of the Oslo Agreements. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the establishment of the expansionist conquest wall by the occupying Power is a war crime and, I reiterate, it is of the same magnitude as a crime against humanity.

The establishment of this expansionist wall complements Israeli settlement activities. Their nature is the same in terms of the colonization, conquest and annexation of the land. The wall is another war crime that compounds the other war crime -- the Israeli settlement of our land -- in addition, of course, to the countless other war crimes committed by the occupying Power against the Palestinian people.

Israel, the occupying Power, has illegally transferred more than 400,000 Israeli settlers to the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, placing them in more than 200 settlements built on more than 8 per cent of Palestinian land, in addition to the land in their vicinities and the additional land they attempt to control. It has established a separate infrastructure and a complete network of roads for those settlers, and it has enabled them to exploit and abuse our natural resources, including our water, and to terrorize our people. Now, with the building of its expansionist wall, the occupying Power is attempting to annex the Palestinian land on which half those settlers are living, while leaving enough room for the expansion of the rest of the settlements and, at the same time, destroying the Palestinian national existence.

Israel has done all of this despite the absolute prohibition of such colonization under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and its Additional Protocol 1, which defines such action as a war crime, as does the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court. Israel has done all of this despite the fact that the Security Council has reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention in 26 resolutions, which demand that the occupying Power comply with its provisions and some of which specifically demand the cessation of settlement activities and declare the annexation of East Jerusalem to be null and void.

How can these Israeli war crimes be appropriately described? Is this classic colonization? We believe it is worse than that. Is this a new apartheid system? We believe it is worse than that. It is a combination that has drawn upon those two ugly phenomena, amounting to the lowest-level thinking of racist colonizers with regard to achieving expansion, colonization and negation of the indigenous people's national existence, which are all in grave breach of fundamental laws and values of the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law and the relevant Security Council resolutions.

Indeed, the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Commission, Professor John Duggard, in his report to the Commission on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, stated, inter alia, the following with regard to the issue of the wall:

"Like the settlements it seeks to protect, the Wall is manifestly intended to create facts on the ground. It may lack an act of annexation, as occurred in the case of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. But its effect is the same: annexation. Annexation of this kind goes by another name in international law -- conquest." (E/CN.4/2004/6, para. 14)

He goes on to say:

"The right to self-determination is closely linked to the notion of territorial sovereignty. A people can only exercise the right of self-determination within a territory. The amputation of Palestinian territory by the Wall seriously interferes with the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people as it substantially reduces the size of the self-determination unit (already small) within which that right is to be exercised." (Ibid., para. 15)

Israel claims that it is building the expansionist wall as a security measure to prevent suicide bombings. This is not only incredible and illogical, but a repetition of the same lie and pretext that has been used by Israel over the years to commit all of its crimes against the Palestinian people, particularly its campaign of expansionism and settler colonialism.

Israel could build walls along the armistice line and could raise them to 80 metres instead of eight. It is true that this would be a bad thing in terms of coexistence between the two sides, but no one could say it is illegal. Indeed, Israel did that to some extent around the occupied Gaza Strip. If this were now the case with regard to the occupied West Bank and the armistice line, then it would be possible to believe that Israel is actually building the wall as a security measure.

It is imperative to recall in this regard that in the past Israel repeatedly used the same meaningless security pretext before the Security Council to justify its illegal settlement activities throughout the territories it has occupied since 1967.

Indeed, over the years the Council has repeatedly witnessed, as can be seen in the record, the actual colonization of our land while the Israeli side continued to repeat the argument that this was all just "a security measure". The transfer of 400,000 settlers was described before this Council as "a security measure". In reality, the entire issue has revolved around one thing, land, and Israel's plans to illegally expand and conquer more land at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people.

In the war of 1948, immediately after declaring its existence, Israel conquered almost half the territory allotted by the United Nations to the Arab State when the United Nations partitioned Mandated Palestine in accordance with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, under the pretext that it was attacked by the Arab States. In the war of 1967, Israel occupied the remaining half allotted to the Arab State, which represents less than one-quarter of Mandated Palestine, and has refused to withdraw for more than 36 years.

When the Palestinian leadership made the unparalleled historic concession to accept coexistence between the two States, with Palestine established only on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, Israel continued instead to colonize our land and to illegally transfer its nationals to that land.

Even after the start of the Oslo peace process, the occupying Power continued in this regard, actually doubling the number of settlers since then, and it has continued since the launching of the road map.

Israel is doing all of this when it has not even solved the issue of the ownership of land in Israel itself. There are 5.5 million dunums of land privately owned by Palestinian refugees. I speak here specifically about private ownership and not public ownership, all of which was accounted for and documented by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP), composed of the United States, France and Turkey. In fact the UNCCP record was recently modernized in a way that has made it available for practical use. These 5.5 million dunums constitute almost half of the land of Israel if we exclude the Negev desert.

Apparently, for Israel taking over these lands instead of restoring them to their rightful Palestinian owners was not enough. It has actually moved to colonize the land left to the Palestinian people in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, once more as part of the biggest war crime of its kind in our contemporary history.

Absolute madness and compounded crimes, the arrogance of power and the absence of morality, have all been sustained by illegitimate protection, by a huge influx of funds and unlimited armaments, all provided by basically one source.

The Security Council clearly bears responsibility for the prevailing situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. In addition, the Security Council, the Middle East region as a whole, and the entire international community are now approaching the moment of truth. Either Israel, the occupying Power, will be allowed to continue all that it has been doing illegally -- that is, colonizing our land, conquering it and denying the existence of the State of Palestine, with all the consequent grave results, not least the demise of the two-State solution and the emergence of a more radical solution or the continuation of a perpetual conflict -- or Israel is to be stopped. Settlements must be stopped. The wall must be stopped. And both must be reversed. That will rescue the potential for achieving peace and a final settlement based on the existence of two States, Israel and Palestine.

Accordingly, the meeting of the Council and its decision this time have strategic and historic importance. We hope that the Council will rise to the level of this challenge.

The President

I now call on the representative of Israel.

Mr. Gillerman (Israel)

Here we go again. In a pattern that is as familiar as it is distasteful, we have gathered for yet another meeting of the Council called to censure Israel for its measures to prevent terrorism, rather than to address the terrorism itself. Members might pause to consider what message is sent to the citizens of the world by this kind of Council activity, especially after hearing from the Palestinian Observer that the biggest war crime carried out in contemporary history is not the murder of innocents, but the defensive measures taken to protect them.

What message is sent by the Council when it convenes to address Israel's measured defensive response against a terrorist training facility, a response in which there were no casualties, but does not convene immediately to address the deliberate murder of 20 innocent civilians at a beachfront restaurant in Haifa on the eve of the holiest day in the Jewish calendar?

What message is sent when the focus of a debate is the building of a security fence by Israel to protect against terrorism, rather than the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians that made its construction inevitable?

It is a message that the victims of terrorism, at least if they are Israeli, cannot seek or find protection in this Council from the rogue regimes that continue to sponsor the deliberate murder of innocent civilians, in violation of international law and the Council's own resolutions. This is the true double standard at the United Nations, and sooner or later it must be addressed.

Many lies and misrepresentations have been made about Israel's security measures, but no lie is so bold and audacious as the one which pretends that Israel's actions occur in a vacuum and are not in response to years and years of terrorism of the most vicious and brutal kind.

The decision to construct a security fence is one which Israel has arrived at with great reluctance. Three main factors have brought us to this conclusion. The single most important factor has been Yassar Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. Israel's policymaking over the past 10 years has been guided by the belief that measures agreed bilaterally by the two sides are preferable to unilateral measures. Indeed, we still believe that today. But 10 years and thousands of victims later, we have painfully come to the realization that wanting someone to be a partner does not make him one. Yasser Arafat has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is incapable, unwilling and uninterested in making peace with Israel. In the choice faced by the Palestinian leadership -- namely, between building a partnership with Israel or with Palestinian terrorist groups -- the terrorists have won every time.

In choosing terrorists over Israel, and jihad over salam, Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have flouted numerous Security Council resolutions -- including resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1435 (2002) -- the provisions of the road map and repeated Palestinian undertakings in our peace agreements. Those documents clearly require that the Palestinian Authority dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, prevent terrorism and incitement, and bring those responsible to justice. Yet, to this day the Palestinian leadership continues to declare, brazenly and publicly, that it has no intention of fulfilling the very first clauses of the road map, which call, inter alia, for the dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. As we can see almost daily from the headlines, Yasser Arafat continues to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian leadership that will do something other than foment hatred, sponsor terrorism or encourage and tolerate the smuggling of sophisticated weapons into the hands of murderers while using civilians as human shields.

To be sure, along with the continued incitement and the glorification of murder as martyrdom, there are occasional half-hearted condemnations of terrorist atrocities offered by the Palestinian leadership to placate the international community. But those merely condemn terrorism as a tactic, saying that it is against the interests of the Palestinian people. Were terrorism to be an effective tool, those statements imply, it would presumably be acceptable. We have yet to hear from any Palestinian leader the simple moral truth that deliberately killing the innocent is wrong.

For evidence of that duplicity, one need look no further than the fact that the Palestinian Observer at the United Nations occasionally offers muted criticism of terrorism but, at the same time, considers it unacceptable for a Council resolution to expressly condemn the actions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and to call for their dismantlement, as required by the road map.

In short, had there been any concerted action by the Palestinian side to confront and prevent the terrorists -- as they have repeatedly undertaken to do -- the security fence might not have been necessary. But by deciding to remain passive, and even to support terrorism, the current leadership has built that fence with their own hands.

The second factor that has convinced Israelis of the need to construct the fence has been the scarcity of other options. There are no easy choices. In the horrendous situation that we are faced with, in which terrorists are operating with impunity in the heart of civilian centres, there is no perfect way by which we can obstruct the terrorists without having some impact on the lives of the Palestinians they are hiding among. Trying to find the appropriate balance between the right of Israelis to live without being blown up on buses and in restaurants and the right of Palestinians to live and move freely is a dilemma that Israel, its courts and its citizens anguish over daily.

There is no democracy that has found a perfect solution to the problem of terrorism -- especially suicide terrorism, which was invented and perfected by the Palestinians -- and most especially when it operates from within a society whose leadership is passively and actively supportive of its goals. Among States facing such a threat, Israel has been among the most successful, preventing over 80 per cent of attempted terrorist attacks. But as the terrorists develop new and even more heinous means of murder, so must we devise better methods of prevention.

The construction of a security fence is one of the most effective non-violent methods of preventing the passage of terrorists and their armaments from the terrorist factories in the heart of Palestinian cities to the heart of civilian areas in Israel. We have seen this in the Gaza Strip, where since the construction of a similar fence, under an Israeli-Palestinian agreement of 1994, not a single terrorist has succeeded in penetrating into Israel from Gaza through the fence in order to execute an attack. That fence garnered no dissent from the Security Council or from the Palestinian side, and has in fact contributed to enhancing the personal security and welfare of Israeli and Palestinian communities on both sides of the fence. Until now there has been a stretch of some 300 kilometres across which Palestinian terrorists have been able to infiltrate Israeli population centres to murder civilians. Between Israel and Palestinian Authority areas there is no border or natural obstacle, and the distance dividing terrorists emanating from Palestinian cities and targeted Israeli population centres has sometimes been less than a ten-minute walk. But in those areas of the West Bank where a fence has been constructed, a reduction in terrorist attacks is already evident.

The third factor supporting the construction of the fence has been the knowledge that it will enable Israel to markedly reduce its involvement in the daily lives of Palestinians. The net effect of the construction of the security fence will be a reduction in terrorism and an overall improvement in the quality of life for both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples. By building the fence, Israel will be able to significantly reduce the presence of its forces in Palestinian areas and further diminish the necessity for defensive action within Palestinian cities. Importantly, the fence will also enable the removal of roadblocks and checkpoints. The result will be greater freedom of movement within the West Bank without increasing vulnerability to terrorism.

Moreover, it is hoped that the protection and security that the fence provides will help create an atmosphere conducive to peaceful and fruitful negotiations. The security fence is a crucial measure in taking terrorism out of the equation. When a Palestinian leadership emerges that is ready to negotiate a political solution, the terror weapon will be less available to scuttle the efforts for peace. Could it be that those on the Palestinian side opposing the fence wish to ensure that the terrorist weapon remains a decisive factor in their arsenal? Could it be that the fence is particularly objectionable to extremists in Palestinian society because they see it as thwarting their long-term agenda of seeking Israel's destruction?

In determining the route of the fence, Israel has sought to create a barrier between those areas from which the terrorists originate and those that they seek to target. But along with those security concerns, Israel has taken into consideration other humanitarian and environmental concerns, even at the cost of increasing the risks to its civilians. The rights and interests of local populations must be weighed against the rights of civilians to protection from terrorism. Local Palestinian residents have been engaged and consulted throughout that process, with a view to providing individual solutions and ensuring access to schools, health resources and so on.

The use of public and unused lands has been of the highest priority. In the circumstances where that has been impossible, dozens of agricultural gates have been established along the route of the fence to enable farmers to continue cultivating their lands. In addition, new crossing points have been added for Israeli and Palestinian pedestrians and vehicles, as well as for the transfer of goods.

Any private land used in building the fence is requisitioned for military purposes, in full conformity with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law and local law that specifically provide for that purpose. Indeed, there are a number of precedents in which other States have made this kind of requisition for security purposes, pursuant to the applicable provisions of international humanitarian law. There is no change whatsoever in the legal status of this territory and it remains the property of the owner. Compensation matching the properties' value is provided for the use of the land and any damage to trees and crops. In addition, owners of agricultural land are also provided with compensation for the full value of their crop yield for as long as the property will need to be used. Farmers who cultivate olive and fruit trees growing within the security fence area can designate a new site to which the trees will be replanted.

All residents have the opportunity to submit objections. In numerous cases, the authorities and the complainants have reached mutual agreement regarding alterations of the path. Complainants whose concerns are not resolved also have the unprecedented opportunity to file a petition directly with the Israeli Supreme Court.

In seeking to divert attention from the fact that the true architects of this fence are the Palestinian leaders who have failed to take any measures against terrorism, Palestinian representatives have used a number of emotive and pejorative terms, which are without foundation.

First, they have termed the fence a "wall", even though they are fully aware that for well over 90 per cent of its length it is a chain-link fence. Those short sections that are actually a solid structure are only in areas where Palestinian terrorists can and have shot at Israeli civilians on roads or in nearby towns. Despite blatant misrepresentations to the contrary, there is no enclosure of the West Bank and no Palestinian town or village is closed off. Passage and movement are guaranteed between Palestinian areas throughout the West Bank and into Israel. And, as I have stated, the fence will enable a reduction of Israeli forces in Palestinian areas, thereby facilitating greater freedom of movement within the West Bank and an overall improvement in the humanitarian situation for the vast majority of Palestinian residents, without enhancing the risks of terrorism.

The use of the term "wall" is a transparent attempt by some to evoke memories of darker days, when solid walls were used by certain States to divide one people and prevent the flight to freedom. The comparison is both false and offensive. This fence seeks to separate two peoples who are in conflict, to prevent suicide bombers from targeting innocent civilians and thus to create a terror-free environment in which finally we can move towards a peaceful settlement, which is itself founded on the concept of separation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

Secondly, they have charged that the construction of the fence is racist, though what is really racism is their suggestion that one people does not have the right to protection from murderers. What is really racism is the mistreatment and persecution of Jews in Arab lands, the prohibition of entry imposed upon Jews in certain Arab countries, and the prohibition of the sale of property to Jews on punishment of death. To build a fence in order to provide security for the Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel and ultimately to advance the vision of peace between two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, is anything but racism.

Thirdly and above all, they have charged that the fence is an act of de facto annexation and an attempt to prejudice final-status negotiations, as though it were Israel and not the Palestinian leadership that walked out of those negotiations and adopted the path of violence. The Israeli Government has repeatedly made clear, and I reiterate again today, that the fence has no political significance. Israel remains committed to resolving all aspects of the conflict, including the final status of the West Bank and Gaza, through political negotiations. The sole purpose of the fence is to protect the vital security of Israeli citizens targeted by Palestinian terrorism. It does not annex territories to the State of Israel nor does it change the status of the land, its ownership or the legal status of the residents of these areas. The Palestinian observer's accusations in this regard are belied by the fact that certain sections of the fence, for example near Modiin and Kibbutz Maale Hachamisha, are actually being built within sovereign Israeli territory.

In fact, not only has Israel repeatedly asserted that there is no political significance to this fence; we have demonstrated in practice and articulated in negotiations that Israel is ready and able, at tremendous cost, to adjust or dismantle a fence if so required as part of a political settlement. In the context of its withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel moved a similar structure in order to comply with Security Council resolution 425 (1978). After having adjusted the fence, Israel moved portions of it a further 95 centimetres, at a cost of millions of dollars, to respond to requests by the Secretary-General. Similarly, in the context of permanent-status negotiations, Israel expressed a willingness to adjust the fence established in Gaza as part of the permanent territorial settlement.

In both cases, Israel has proven that security fences are security fences. This fence is intended to counter terrorism of the most brutal kind, not to dictate a border that is and remains the subject of permanent-status negotiations. It is our hope that, by our building this fence, its very function will become irrelevant and that one day it will be dismantled.

It has been suggested that, in order to avoid the impression of having a political motive, Israel should have constructed the fence along the so-called Green Line. On the practical level, a fence along the Line would create far greater humanitarian problems, arbitrarily dividing certain villages and separating others from access to water and other basic services on a large scale. Moreover, it would ignore the aim of the fence, which is to frustrate acts of terrorism directed against Israeli population centres. It is the terrorists who, by their murderous attacks, have dictated the route, which seeks to protect as many civilians as possible while seeking to minimize humanitarian and environmental hardship.

Of equal importance, the so-called Green Line has never represented an international boundary. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically refer to that fact. There was never a recognized and legitimate sovereign in the West Bank. The legal status of these areas remains that of disputed territory to be resolved through negotiations. It is this that is required by Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which call for the parties to start negotiations, inter alia, on secure and recognized boundaries, and agreements reached between the parties specifically refer to the need for there to be direct negotiations to resolve this issue.

When the familiar rhetoric and misrepresentations of the Palestinian observer are peeled away, the simple truth is revealed. The fence is a response to Palestinian terror, designed not to establish a border, but to create a terror-free environment in which a border can be agreed through negotiations. Many Palestinians who oppose the fence simply want to continue killing Israelis. The Israelis who built the fence simply want to live.

Much has been said of the need to conduct the war against terrorism in accordance with international law. We agree, but international law is not a suicide pact. International law recognizes that the measure of the legitimacy of a State's actions is whether such action is proportionate to the threat. This means assessing the threat according to those attacks planned and prevented, not just those that have succeeded. In Israel's case, this has meant considering not just the hundreds of civilians killed in terrorist attacks, but those many hundreds of attacks successfully thwarted, including mega-terror attacks planned against skyscrapers, gas depots, fuel tankers and bridges.

International humanitarian law specifically allows for territory to be requisitioned for security purposes. Some who speak of international law seem to have forgotten that there is in place a significant body of established laws that provide support for the confrontation against terrorism. They also seem to have forgotten that in fighting terrorists we fight an enemy that has no respect for life or for law. Yes, we must respect the rule of law. But we cannot do so by applying misconceived or blinkered interpretations that no enlightened nation would apply to itself if faced with such sustained attack and that effectively strengthen the hands of those devoted to trampling the law as they trample innocent lives.

Israel has no problem being -- indeed, it is proud to be -- held to the highest standards. But at least let us be permitted to value the lives of our civilians in the way that any other democratic country would. If the Council decides to call us to account, then surely some of our neighbours should be the focus of equal attention. If the Council were to devote only a fraction of the time and resources it has spent considering Israel's record to a fair examination of the destabilizing and dangerous conduct of the rogue regimes in our neighbourhood, does anyone doubt the conclusions that would be drawn? If the United Nations voice is to be taken seriously, this selective treatment must end.

Israel yearns for peace, and has proved that it is willing to make the most painful compromises to that end. We will continue to pursue every opportunity for a peaceful settlement, with a view to realizing President Bush's vision and the relevant Council resolutions. But no State can allow its citizens to be murdered in the hundreds by terrorists, with the support and tolerance of the current Palestinian leadership, which has virtually ceased to even masquerade as a peace partner. The fence is to protect against terrorism, improve the overall humanitarian situation on both sides and contribute to an atmosphere in which peace negotiations can proceed for the benefit of both peoples.

This conflict, and this debate, is not just about Palestinian rights. It is about Israeli rights as well. Dead, injured and terrorized Israelis are also a humanitarian problem, and until our neighbours and the international community are willing to seriously accept that fact and deal with it, we will have difficulty advancing towards a peaceful solution. It is just not enough for condemnations and expressions of sympathy to be issued in capitals or in United Nations speeches on the day an attack takes place, without the sustained action and public support needed to demonstrate that the international community will not tolerate the deliberate murder of innocent civilians.

Those in the Palestinian leadership that have turned Palestinian victimhood from a condition that could be resolved by peaceful settlement into a political strategy of immortalization in the pursuit of personal power have a great deal to answer for. We do the peace process no service by reinforcing a sense of entitlement without affirming a sense of responsibility.

The road map can never succeed if we absolve the Palestinian side of its obligations to end its morally bankrupt and profoundly destructive terrorist strategy. The security fence, like other Israeli defensive measures, is a product of that strategy. And it is the abandonment of that strategy that would obviate the need for such defence measures, including the security fence itself, and pave the way for peaceful negotiations based on mutual recognition and mutual compromise.

If we confuse cause and effect, if we apply justice selectively, and if we pander to more one-sided initiatives that assert sweeping rights but ignore well-founded responsibilities, we will only encourage a strategy of terrorism and push the day of peace further into the future.

Before concluding, I would like to ask representatives and colleagues to pause for a moment before deciding how to respond to this issue, and think of the lives that can be saved by the security fence, and the lives that could have been saved had it been constructed earlier. I would like them to think of the Almog family -- Zeev Almog, aged 71; his wife, Ruth, aged 70; their son, Moshe, aged 43; and their grandsons, Tomer and Asaf, aged nine and 11 -- a whole family, three generations, wiped out, all murdered, together with 15 other innocent victims, at the Maxime restaurant in Haifa last week. I put it to them: "Imagine if they were your children, and ask yourself what would you expect your Government to do to protect them? Would you not do anything -- literally anything -- to save them?"

Mr. Mekdad (Syria)

The Security Council is meeting for the third time in less than a month to discuss the illegal practices of the Israeli occupation. Today, we are discussing in particular the recent decision of the Israeli Government to begin work on the second phase of what it refers to as the separation fence.

We have just listened to the statement of the representative of the Government of occupation and terrorism -- the Israeli Government. We were not, of course, surprised that the statement contained many lies and allegations. His comments are only part of a campaign to distort reality and mislead international public opinion -- a campaign that has been going on for more than 55 years. The fact that he did not say a word about where the wall is being built is proof that his comments are mere allegations. Incidentally, it is being built on the occupied Palestinian territories -- perhaps the representative of Israel is not aware of that fact. He did not say in his statement that Israel has, de facto, annexed land, that the wall has been built on territory that is under dispute, or that that had been done by means of fait accompli and the logic of force alone. What are referred to as the disputed territories are the remains of the Palestinian territories. Israel wants to take control of what is left of the Palestinian territories by using that particular logic.

Those who know Israel are well aware that this method is not unusual. It comes as no surprise to us that the occupation Government, which by law prevents its citizens from learning the truth about its practices in the occupied territories, is attempting to mislead international public opinion concerning its real objectives and true intentions. The current Government is following the notorious method of the infamous Goebbels: lie, lie and lie again, until others come to believe what you are saying. Unfortunately for the rulers of Israel, the world will not continue to believe their lies. One day it will learn the truth -- with the exception of a small minority, who at some point in the future will discover that they have been on the wrong side.

Israel's objective in building its racist, expansionist wall, is not, as it claims, to protect its security. Rather, the wall is being built to achieve the following objectives. First, the route traced by the wall is far removed from the borders of the territories occupied since 1967, penetrating deep into Palestinian territories. This reveals the Israeli Government's real intention: to create facts on the ground allowing them to set borders as they wish, thus placing the Palestinian people in large bantustans and isolating them. That would make it impossible to achieve the objective of the peace process with the Palestinians which is: to establish a Palestinian State in the territories occupied since 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Secondly, by building the wall, Israel is in fact annexing vast expanses of the territories of the West Bank, thus violating one of the foremost principles of international law: the acquisition of others' territory by force is inadmissible. Therefore, Israel's acts violate resolution 242 (1967), which provides the foundation for the Middle East peace process.

Thirdly, the route traced by the wall clearly reveals that Israel aims to consolidate its annexation of occupied Jerusalem, in flagrant violation of resolution 478 (1980), which holds Israel's annexation of eastern Jerusalem to be null and void.

Fourthly, Israel plans to enclose within the wall large settlements established in occupied Palestinian territories, containing more than 200,000 settlers. Thus, Israel is not only violating the Fourth Geneva Convention by building those settlements but goes even further by annexing those settlements to Israel. That was demonstrated very clearly by the Israeli Government's recent decision for the wall to enclose the "Ariel" settlement, which was established 22 kilometres into the occupied Palestinian territories. Those actions are, in fact, war crimes under the Fourth Geneva Convention and its Additional Protocol 1. Therefore, Israel should be deterred from continuing and no legal or political legitimacy should be granted to its actions.

It can be seen from the aforementioned that the present Israeli Government, led by General Sharon, who is well known as an enemy of peace, is merely a war Government aiming to put an end to the peace process and any real chance of implementing it. Israel, which attempts to justify its actions by claiming it is combating terrorism, is in fact perpetrating war crimes and terrorism against the civilian Palestinian population, men, women and children, as they build their expansionist wall as part of their policy of settler colonialism. Israel is even exporting its crises through aggression against Syria and Lebanon. The campaign against terrorism is greatly harmed by the fact that Israel is exploiting that campaign in order to conceal its objectives and to divert attention from its acts of expansion and aggression. If Israel's killings of dozens of Palestinians in the last two days and the destruction of more than 20 homes -- as has been recognized by United Nations agencies -- is not terrorism, then what is?

The Security Council, the principal body entrusted with maintaining international peace and security, is called upon to shoulder its responsibilities in the face of Israel's criminal practices. The Council must condemn Israel clearly and unequivocally. It must deter Israel and make it clear to it that its settlements, colonialism, the annexation of the occupied Palestinian territories through the expansionist wall's construction, to consolidate the annexation of occupied East Jerusalem, and its aggressions against Syria and Lebanon are illegitimate acts constituting a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law, international humanitarian law and the numerous resolutions adopted by the Security Council, including the resolutions on which the Middle East peace process are founded. The Council's failure to shoulder its responsibility would have a negative impact on its credibility and would further exacerbate the situation in the region, bringing dire and uncontrollable consequences and distancing us from the objectives on which the entire world has agreed: to bring just and comprehensive peace to the region.

Finally, through Syria, the Arab Group has last Friday submitted a balanced draft resolution that took the concerns of the Security Council into consideration and we hope that it will be put to the vote at the conclusion of this open debate.

Sir Emyr Jones Parry (United Kingdom)

The United Kingdom is gravely concerned about the prospects for peace in the Middle East. It is vital that both sides realize exactly how much is now at stake. The United Kingdom is committed to the Quartet's road map as the best way ahead to implement the vision of two States, living side by side in peace and security. It is essential that the two sides implement the obligations contained in the road map.

To that end, the United Kingdom supports the Palestinian efforts to form a stable and empowered Government which can be a genuine and unconstrained partner for peace. Prime Minister Qurei is a long-standing supporter of the cause of peace. It is imperative that his new Government acts decisively to tackle the scourge of terrorism, including by unifying control over the Palestinian security apparatus. And in parallel, the domestic reform process must continue. The rest of the world will judge the Palestinian Authority by the results it achieves.

The United Kingdom has consistently condemned the morally repugnant and intolerable suicide bombings that Israel has suffered. We unreservedly condemn the acts perpetrated by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Their tragic impact has been all too obvious. We recognize, in return, Israel's need to take security measures against the real threat of terrorism which it faces. The United Kingdom Government has always defended Israel's right, acting, consistent with international law, to protect its citizens. But disproportionate use of force by the Israel Defence Forces only fuels the cycle of violence.

At a time when the international consensus on a two-State solution is firm, it is alarming that the practical basis for this is in jeopardy. We are therefore deeply concerned about the route of Israel's fence that is being planned and built inside the occupied territories. Normally, one does not build walls on someone else's land. So, any such wall should be built on the green line or in Israeli territory.

But more important is the impact of the wall. The separation wall undermines the trust between the parties that is necessary for negotiations. It has a negative impact on the daily lives of Palestinians and it calls into question the two-State solution. We are particularly alarmed by Israel's issuing of a military order declaring the land between the fence and the Green Line a closed zone, where Palestinian residents must apply for permits to remain in their own villages.

Facts on the ground created by Israeli settlement activity also threaten the viability of a Palestinian State and make the possibility of a negotiated settlement more difficult to reach. The humanitarian and economic consequences of closures and curfews on the Palestinian people result in hardship and unemployment and only fuel hatred and violence. Palestinian people need to see a real improvement in their lives on the ground. That is why the United Kingdom believes that the international community has a direct stake in the peace process. A continuing, strong international commitment to the road map-based process is imperative. A strong and determined Quartet can play a vital role, closely following road map implementation through reports of monitors and making an extra effort where it detects problems or deficiencies.

But, ultimately, Israel's security can only be achieved through a just and lasting settlement negotiated between the parties. A Palestinian State will not be created by acts of terrorism. The road map offers the region the best opportunity for peace. In that context, we look to both the Israelis and the Palestinians to move forward in implementing their obligations under the first phase.

The task is to create a virtuous cycle. On the Palestinians' part that means stopping the terrorists and meeting the obligations of the road map, especially in terms of the commitment to tackle the sources of and those perpetrating terrorism. For the Government of Israel, in parallel, it means a move on settlements, the fence, freedom of movement and an end to extrajudicial killings. The United Kingdom, for its part, stands ready to help in that process.

Mr. Arias (Spain)

The purpose of this meeting is to examine the seriousness and the implications of the construction by Israel of what is being called the wall.

The search for a solution to the Middle East conflict requires the creation of the requisite climate of trust between the parties, which will enable them to emerge from the spiral of violence. We must state that the construction of the wall in the West Bank does not help create that atmosphere. Indeed, the route of the wall creates problems for the vision of peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on two States living in peace and security. The international community has always called on the parties not to change the situation on the ground. Spain reiterates that.

We also cannot forget the problems created by this measure, adopted by the Government of Israel, in terms of international law and humanitarian law. Regarding the latter point, we must note that this measure and its impact, particularly in terms of complicating land issues, is already directly affecting the Palestinian civilian population and particularly their movement, thus deepening the terrible humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories.

My delegation has often spoken against terrorism. It has condemned here the recent attacks on the Israeli population. Nothing justifies, nor can justify, the recent attacks in the area, but that cannot divert us from the basic matter before us today -- the construction of the wall in the Palestinian territories -- I underscore, in the Palestinian territories -- and the confiscation of land or the demolition of houses. Those are all illegal activities. What is worse is that, as I said at the beginning, they are activities that are increasingly harmful to any effort to bring peace to the region.

Mr. Tafrov (Bulgaria)

Like other preceding speakers, my delegation is extremely disturbed by the extremely serious situation in the Middle East. Bulgaria agrees with the analysis of the situation, contained in recent documents by the European Union.

We have said here and elsewhere that our country strongly condemns suicide bombings, which continue to be carried out by members of extremist Palestinian organizations. We launch an appeal to the Palestinian Authority to take firm and specific steps to disarm terrorist organizations and to dismantle their structures. We also appeal to Israel to stop resorting to punitive measures, including extrajudicial killings, and to act in keeping with international law.

Bulgaria strongly opposes Israel's construction of what is called a security wall, with a route that is different than the 1949 green line of demarcation. Construction of this wall sometimes involves confiscating Palestinian land, blocks the free movement of people and goods, and undermines the Palestinians' hopes for the peace process and the road map. For Bulgaria, the wall is unacceptable.

Bulgaria is convinced that the road map alone is the answer to the problems of the Middle East. Both parties must do their utmost to overcome their differences, to resume their contacts and to continue joint efforts to create two States living within internationally recognized boundaries, as provided for by Security Council resolutions.

At the same time, we believe that the problem of the construction of the security wall is part of a complex situation related to security.

Therefore, we believe that condemning specific aspects of this overall picture in the Middle East is not able to make a practical contribution to efforts to resume the peace process and implement the road map.

Bulgaria believes that it is necessary for the entire international community, and in particular the members of the Quartet, to convince both parties to implement the road map. At that point, there would no longer be any reason to build the wall, and prospects for a peaceful resolution would increase.

Mr. Lavrov (Russia)

The Russian leadership is seriously concerned by the course of events in the Middle East. Palestinian-Israeli relations are growing ever more tense. Recently, a real danger of the expansion of the geographic framework of confrontation has emerged, threatening to draw other countries into it. All of this can lead to even more tragic consequences for the already strained circumstances in the region and international security as a whole.

Russia firmly condemns terrorism in all of its forms and manifestations. We call upon the leaders of the Palestinian Authority to make every effort to put an end to terrorist acts against the civilian population of Israel. Terrorism is obstructing a solution to the objective of providing security for Israel and undermining the prospects for the establishment of a Palestinian State.

We are convinced that an important component for the exit strategy from the confrontation is the cessation of unilateral steps by the leadership of Israel. The unlawful settlement activity on the Palestinian territories and the construction of the so-called separation wall, which has resulted in the seizure of Palestinian lands, must be immediately halted. Such actions run counter to the concept of the establishment of two independent States, Palestine and Israel.

Both the Palestinians and the Israelis must reject actions that contradict the spirit and letter of the road map of the Quartet of international mediators. We are all convinced it is precisely this document, adopted by both sides, that is a unique and sole basis for achieving a Middle East settlement. By the way, President Putin brought this matter up today in a telephone conversation with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

We believe that if the road map is not made binding in nature, it may remain on paper and the region will ultimately be swept up in a wave of violence. This is why, during the meeting of the Quartet in New York this September, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Russia, Igor Ivanov, put forward an initiative for the adoption of a special Security Council resolution that would approve the road map. This proposal not only remains valid, it is becoming ever more urgent.

We also believe that it is necessary to establish an international monitoring mechanism to strengthen oversight over the implementation by the parties of their mutual obligations. There is also the need to consider the possibility of holding an international conference on the Middle East, which would make it possible to work out a formula for a comprehensive regional settlement. These Russian proposals have one objective: to stop the spiral of violence and open prospects for peaceful development in the Middle East.

Mr. Aguilar Zinser (Mexico)

On other occasions in which the Security Council discussed the issue of Israel and Palestine, my country began its statements with condemnation in the strongest terms of the terrorist attacks that claimed innocent civilian victims in Israel. At this meeting, my delegation regrets that we must begin our statement by also condemning in strong terms the destruction of the Rafah camp in the Gaza Strip by segments of the Israeli armed forces. Israel has no valid justification for making innocent people living in the Palestinian territories victims of their reprisals.

Israel is entitled to demand and have secure borders. It also has the right to take steps to protect its people from terrorist attacks. However, the methods and procedures through which Israel is achieving these legitimate objectives are contrary to international law and therefore illegitimate. They run counter to commitments made by the Israeli authorities, particularly those recently agreed on under the Quartet peace plan, which was supposed to manage efforts to ease tensions in the region. These measures thus contribute to exacerbating the climate of confrontation and the vicious cycle, which adds to the insecurity in Israel.

My country considers that the critical road map published last 30 April is an instrument that should promote the peace process and govern the conduct of both Israel and the Palestinian authorities. This map provides for actions and mutual concessions. Unfortunately, it does not provide for any machinery to oblige the parties to comply with it.

But one clear obligation on the parties in the peace process is to refrain from building walls that make the life of Palestinians more difficult and make the peace process even more remote. We think that building a separation wall within Palestinian territory is unjustified. Despite the promises that it will be temporary in nature, it is greatly aggravating the high levels of tension in this conflict.

My delegation therefore considers that it is appropriate and timely for the Security Council to express its views on this item through a resolution. The wall repeatedly strays from the demarcation line established after 1948 between the Israeli and Palestinian territories. It has a very serious impact on the residents and their capacity to exercise their basic fundamental rights. Independent non-governmental groups such as Human Rights Watch consider the construction of the wall to be a very significant obstacle to the peace process and an action that aggravates the situation in Palestine and imposes severe restrictions on the exercise of the human rights of Palestinians themselves.

We therefore believe that the State of Israel must halt construction of this wall and avoid any action in Palestinian territory that cannot be justified on the basis of their legitimate right to secure borders or to prevent any terrorist acts on their own territory.

Mr. Maquieira (Chile)

The Security Council has been convened to analyse the problem of the construction of the separation wall by the Israelis in Palestinian territory. This is part and parcel of the broader situation in the Middle East, which recently began a new stage with the road map, which seemed to be a means for moving towards peace and reconciliation in the region. However, the implementation of the road map seems to have encountered a crisis; it is made very difficult because of the extrajudicial killings, the destruction of homes, the constant arbitrary restrictions on, and displacement of, the Palestinian population and the recent building of new settlements in territories occupied by Israel.

We have condemned, and continued to condemn, terrorist bomb attacks against Israeli civilians, but nothing can justify the use of excessive force or the imposition of conditions that would seriously hinder the creation of a Palestinian State.

With regard to the matters before us, we would like to see a process that would bring about the minimal conditions for dialogue between the parties, with the cessation of terrorism and violence, a halt to the building of settlements in the occupied territories and the destruction of the separation wall that is being built in Palestinian territory, which divides villages and towns.

We strongly condemn the construction of this security wall -- or separation wall. It is an insurmountable obstacle to finding a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. It not only flies in the face of what was decided in the road map and in Security Council resolutions, but also flouts the basic principles of international law. It makes it impossible to establish a Palestinian State and throws into serious doubt the seriousness of the negotiation process and any work to bring both States to a life, side by side, within secure and recognized borders.

The Chilean delegation considers that the Security Council must express its views on the situation and make a strong appeal, through a resolution, for the cessation of the building of the separation wall and the dismantling of what has been built thus far. Accordingly, Chile supports the text before us.

Mr. Sow (Guinea)

Since our last public debate on the situation in the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis has become even more distressing and tragic. The cycle of violence is intensifying and the climate of mutual mistrust seems to dominate the relationship between the parties. This new period, characterized by a heightening of tension, is particularly critical, resulting in a greater deterioration of the situation on the ground and gradually moving the players farther away from the path of peace.

In such a context, the stated will of the Israeli Government to press forward with the building of the separation wall is a source of serious concern for my delegation. There should be no doubt that this illegal measure, taken in the name of security, will reinforce the feelings of frustration and hate of the put-upon Palestinian populations. It inevitably leads to a deepening in the lack of understanding between the two parties and imperils the very core of the peace process, namely, the road map of the Quartet, which has been so carefully negotiated and whose implementation has barely begun.

Through their dogged insistence on establishing a barrier between populations whom nothing can separate and who are fated by history to live in harmony, the Israeli authorities have chosen the worst security option. Clearly, the separation wall, whose route cuts seriously and deeply into Palestinian territories, is a pernicious way to continue and expand the settlement of occupied territories and to deprive the Palestinian people of a territorial element that is essential to the full exercise of its sovereignty. In addition, it is the expression of a policy known as "bantustanization", whose objective is to create enclaves that are not viable, denying any freedom of movement to the Palestinian people and reserving the most fertile and most productive lands for the occupier.

This enterprise is doomed to failure, being counter to elementary standards of international law, human rights and humanitarian law. It is ultimately aimed at undermining the very basis of the peace process in the Middle East. It runs counter to the vision of two States, Palestinian and Israeli, living side by side within safe and internationally recognized borders. It is one of the most eloquent manifestations of the denial to the Palestinian people of the exercise of their right to full sovereignty within the framework of an independent, free and viable State.

When the continuation of a deliberate policy of settlements is added to this list, my delegation cannot but deplore the fact that the Israeli Government is dragging the Middle East into lasting instability. We accordingly reiterate our unequivocal condemnation of the building of the separation wall, which, contrary to the position taken by Israel, will not satisfy its legitimate need for security, since it can only lead to a deepening of the gulf between Israelis and Palestinians and to the annihilation of the numerous peace efforts.

We therefore once again urge the Israeli authorities to demonstrate common sense by ending this deplorable practice, which can only do their interests a disservice, and to restore to the Palestinian people the territories arbitrarily confiscated from them, thus showing a greater readiness to contribute to a just and lasting solution to the crisis in the Middle East.

The draft resolution introduced by the Arab Group, of which we are sponsors, calling for the dismantling of the separation wall deserves the support of our Council. Its speedy adoption, which we ardently desire, will show the will of the international community to put an end to a policy which runs counter to the objectives laid out by the Quartet's road map.

In conclusion, my delegation recalls that there is only one way to re-establish mutual confidence and dialogue, and once again find the way to peace in the Middle East: clear and binding implementation of the road map, with the firm and determined support of the international community.

Mr. de La Sablière (France)

At the outset, I recall that France associates itself with the statement which will be made by the presidency of the European Union.

The building of a separation wall, which deviates from the Green Line and encroaches on the occupied Palestinian territories, together with the continuation of the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories, is an issue of vital importance for the future of the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What is at stake is historic -- nothing less than the possibility of a negotiated settlement on the basis of two States -- Israel and a viable Palestinian State -- living in peace and security, within secure and recognized borders.

What is at stake is the very idea of a peace process based on the principles enshrined by the international community in resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 1397 (2002) -- the principle of land for peace, which was given concrete expression in the road map of the Quartet, which was accepted by the two parties at the Aqaba Summit on 4 June last.

With such high stakes, it seems to us legitimate and critical for the international community, through the Security Council, to respond, recall the rule of law, and show the parties the way to be followed.

France has publicly indicated its opposition to the construction of the separation wall following a route that cuts into the occupied Palestinian territories and deviates from the Green Line, as it has indicated its opposition to the settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories, and this for at least three reasons.

First, construction of the wall following the route chosen is illegal in terms of international law and cannot be justified in terms of the war on terrorism.

France recognizes Israel's inalienable right to security, its right to self-defence and its right to combat terrorist attacks, which are totally condemnable, morally odious and which no cause can justify. However, the struggle against terrorism cannot justify everything and must be carried out with respect for the law.

What can be criticized from a legal perspective regarding the building of the separation wall is not so much the wall itself as the route chosen by the Israeli Government. That route broadly cuts into the territories occupied in 1967 and opens the way to the confiscation of Palestinian territories, thus contravening international humanitarian law and in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as the agreements signed between Israelis and Palestinians.

This is all the more true of the second segment of the wall, which is closely following the location of settlements -- and in particular of Ariel -- which are clearly illegal. The permanent nature of the wall means that the territories between the wall and the Green Line will be de facto incorporated by Israel and under its control.

Moreover, the inadmissible nature of the acquisition of territory by force is a fundamental principle of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), on which the peace process is based.

In East Jerusalem, the construction of the wall calls into question once again a fundamental principle of the peace process, which should allow the city to become the capital of two independent States and which should preserve the specific status of the holy places.

Today the construction of the security wall on the Mount of Olives directly threatens the property and gardens of several charitable religious congregations. I would recall here the importance to France of ensuring free access to the holy sites of Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Secondly, construction of the wall following the chosen route has inadmissible humanitarian consequences. The wall is a physical barrier which gravely hampers the movement of persons and of goods, separates families and cuts off numerous Palestinians from their agricultural lands, thereby depriving them of their livelihood.

According to various estimates, the lives of more than 200,000 Palestinians will be directly affected by the construction of the wall. Several thousand people will find themselves trapped between the wall and the Green Line. Life in general and the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories, which are a source of great concern, can only further deteriorate -- let alone the offence to human dignity represented by the creation of a quasi-ghetto, as is the case in Qalqilya.

Thirdly, the construction of the wall runs counter to the road map and is likely seriously to jeopardize the future of the peace process and of a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians, which can be conceived only based on the 1967 borders and a viable Palestinian State.

The construction of the wall directly contravenes the road map, which expressly demands that the Israeli Government not undertake any action that would undermine confidence, in particular the confiscation of Palestinian houses and property.

This will be a permanent structure that will permanently change geographic and demographic data. The building of the wall can only encourage the development of settlements and aggravate the already serious problems that these are causing.

What Israeli leader would dare in future to dismantle the settlements in the interests of a necessary peace with the Palestinians, if they have developed in the shadow of a security barrier? The price of peace for Israel will then be considerably higher.

The planned route, if indeed followed, prejudges the borders of the future Palestinian State. The continued building of a wall of separation following a route that departs from the Green Line would de facto indicate that Israel no longer recognizes resolution 242 (1967) as an essential basis for negotiations with the Palestinians.

There cannot be peace without mutual recognition by each of the parties of their territorial rights. The route also seriously damages the viability of a future Palestinian State, which would be likely to find itself reduced to a collection of isolated enclaves.

What Palestinian leader could make his people agree to peace without the assurance of the creation of an independent and viable State, which is predicated on territorial continuity?

To thus so seriously and permanently jeopardize the opportunity for a negotiated settlement to the conflict is in no one's interest. In such conditions, we believe that it is the responsibility of the Security Council to respond through the adoption of a draft resolution showing its opposition to the building of the wall following the route selected -- a route that is illegal in terms of international law and whose humanitarian and political consequences are extremely serious and inadmissible.

Security and peace, moreover, go hand in hand. France reaffirms its conviction that only a just and negotiated solution to the conflict, leading to the end of the occupation of 1967 and to the creation, side by side with Israel, of a viable Palestinian State, will provide Israel that security to which all Israelis have an inalienable right.

It is on this path that the two parties embarked in accepting the road map during the Aqaba Summit on 4 June last. They must stay on this path. France calls on the parties immediately to fulfil their reciprocal and parallel obligations within the framework of the road map. France is convinced that the international community, in particular through the Quartet, has a key role to play to contribute to the advent of peace. We must press on.

The time has come to hold an international conference and to establish in the field a credible third-party monitoring mechanism. There is a need to take risks that will lead to peace in the Middle East; it is our collective duty to act.

Mr. Pleuger (Germany)

I wish to thank you, Mr. President, for having convened this important meeting. Given the latest developments in the region, it is my view that it is timely to have an open debate in the Security Council on the situation in the Middle East. I therefore welcome the opportunity to share views on the issue with Council members as well as with all other interested delegations.

I would like to point out that I associate myself with the statement that will be made by the Italian presidency of the European Union at a later stage of the meeting.

Germany deplores the recent surge in violence between Israelis and Palestinians. We must not allow this bloodshed to undermine the implementation of the road map, which we still consider to be the relevant document for a just and lasting peace in the region.

We call upon both the Israeli and Palestinian Governments to refrain from any action that might endanger the two-State solution, as laid out in the road map.

Thus Germany urges the Government of Israel to halt its continuing settlement activities and stop the construction of the so-called security fence. While recognizing Israel's need for security, we consider the security fence to be detrimental to the implementation of the road map. We believe that the fence might become an obstacle to the peaceful resolution of the conflict and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, living alongside Israel in peace and security. The path of the Israeli fence departs from the Green Line, cutting deep into Palestinian land, sometimes on the basis of the confiscation of land. All of that entails serious humanitarian and economic consequences for the Palestinian population.

At the same time, we urge the Palestinian Authority to take all necessary measures to end violence and terror by militant groups against Israeli targets. The suicide bombing in Haifa, which took the lives of many innocent civilians, has shown that the Palestinian leadership must do its utmost to prevent such atrocities. Germany calls on the new emergency cabinet of Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia to crack down on violent groups and to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.

The members of the Quartet continue to back the road map for peace as accepted by both sides at the Aqaba summit, held on 4 June 2003. We call upon both the Israeli and Palestinian Governments to continue to implement the road map in good faith, because we feel there is no alternative to the road map as the way to peace.

Mr. Wang Guangya (China)

The Chinese delegation supports the Arab Group's request to hold an emergency Security Council meeting. Like the majority of countries, we strongly deplore the fact that the Israeli Government has decided to continue to build a separation wall and expand settlements. Israel's actions are not acceptable. As an occupying Power, Israel must abide strictly by international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The root cause of the situation in the Middle East is Israel's occupation of Arab lands. Israel's building of a separation wall, in violation of international law, will not bring true security for Israel; it will only lead to more violence and hamper efforts aimed at achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The current situation in the Middle East is deeply troubling. The peace process is once again at a crossroads. The question of how we can break out of this impasse deserves our serious consideration. The urgent task at hand is to break, as soon as possible, the vicious circle of using violence against violence, and both the Israelis and the Palestinians must make efforts to that end. Israel must stop building the separation wall and stop expanding settlements; end its policy of targeted killings; stop its sieges and blockades against Palestinians; respect the Palestinian people's basic rights; and take measures to improve the humanitarian situation of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians must also take effective measures. They must halt suicide bombings against civilians. Suicide bombings do not help the Palestinian people's just cause of recovering their occupied lands and establishing an independent State as soon as possible.

The history of the situation in the Middle East demonstrates that using violence against violence is not the way out; hope lies only in dialogue and negotiations. We hope that both Palestinians and Israelis will face reality and consider their long-term interests and the bigger picture. They must take bold steps to create conditions for a return to negotiations and for continued implementation of the road map.

In order to break the vicious circle of using violence against violence, the Quartet must shoulder its responsibilities. At the same time, the rest of the international community must employ creative efforts. In the general debate at the current session of the General Assembly, a number of countries have proposed the deployment of an international protection force between the Israelis and the Palestinians, other countries suggested that the Security Council dispatch a fact-finding mission; and still others advocated the holding of an international conference on the situation in the Middle East. All those suggestions deserve our serious consideration. The United Nations can and must play a greater role in helping the Israelis and the Palestinians to achieve peace.

China, as a permanent member of the Security Council, is willing to join the rest of the international community in helping to promote the process aimed at a peaceful settlement of the situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Gaspar Martins (Angola)

I should like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this Security Council meeting at the request of the Arab Group. The situation on the ground clearly justifies this meeting. The issue under consideration is certainly one of the most sensitive that the international community is called upon to consider and take a stand on.

My country has always maintained good, friendly relations with the Arab world, based on the principles of solidarity and mutual understanding. We have also expressed our support for the Palestinian people and have consistently reaffirmed their inalienable right to self-determination and statehood. On the other hand, my country, the Republic of Angola, has established good, friendly relations with the State of Israel -- relations that we hope to see strengthened and made mutually advantageous to our countries and peoples.

It is therefore with a sense of profound grief that we witness the ongoing conflict between two peoples who have made outstanding contributions to the world's civilization. The issue is where, when and how to break this fatal linkage, the cause of daily loss of life and untold suffering for both peoples. On the ground, we witness a state of affairs that is absolutely contrary to the wishes of the international community and of all those who strive to bring about a new era in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

To us, the separation wall seems the most conspicuous initiative in such a state of affairs, an initiative likely to jeopardize all the efforts by the international community with a view to settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bringing a just and lasting peace to the region. In the long run, the wall -- like identical ones built in the past to divide peoples -- is doomed to fail and to fall.

The building of the wall in the West Bank has translated into a state of fear that assuredly will not lead to positive results. Fear is always a very nasty adviser, and it is an artificial solution to the problems Israel faces. Instead of solving the problems it was intended to solve, the wall will only create new, unresolved ones. The separation wall is doomed to create a situation that will definitely jeopardize all prospects for peace as well as the vision, so eloquently spelled out, of two peoples and countries living side by side in peace and security. We deem it essential that Israel be persuaded that its security will be better ensured in the long run by genuine gestures of peace than by walls of separation.

The last meeting of the Quartet, held in New York on 26 September, was very clear on its position. While recognizing Israel's legitimate right to self-defense, it called on Israel to put an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian population while noting with great concern, the building of Israel's West Bank fence, a real euphemism for the separation wall we are discussing.

The Quartet recalled its direct consequences on the daily lives of the Palestinian people, and how it undermines the Palestinians' trust in the road map process, by prejudging the final borders of a future Palestinian State.

We fully agree with the Quartet's position and call on the parties to abide by its provisions in order to put the peace process back on track. We must encourage the parties to give peace a chance.

To conclude, we took note of the draft resolution tabled by the other group. The principles outlined in the draft are universally accepted principles of international law, such as the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. The building of the separation wall stands as a clear violation of such a principle; therefore, we cannot but accept the reason why such a resolution has been tabled.

We agree with the need to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories, for which the construction of a wall of separation is yet another act which further aggravates the spiral of violence prevailing in the region. We would therefore like to appeal to the parties to consider the positions which have been followed until now and to give peace a chance. Through this resolution, our Council will be sending a clear signal to the parties and to the region.

Mr. Akram (Pakistan)

We have returned to this Chamber once again to discuss a specific and grave aspect of the disturbing situation in the Middle East. Pakistan believes that the construction of the separation wall in the occupied Palestinian territories is illegal. It entails enormous humanitarian suffering for the affected Palestinian people and seriously undermines the prospects for a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

A fundamental principle of international law flowing from the United Nations Charter is the illegality of the acquisition of territory by the use of force. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and resolution 338 (1973), and all subsequent international agreements on the Middle East, have been based on this principle and require Israel's withdrawal from Arab-occupied territories.

The Quartet's peace plan is also based on the principle of Israeli-withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories, in exchange for the establishment of a durable peace.

The separation wall being built in the occupied Palestinian territory, in effect, incorporates substantial areas of the occupied West Bank into Israel. The wall does not follow the Green Line. There is a contention that the wall is a temporary measure being constructed to enhance security for Israel against terrorism. This is not a tenable argument. There would be no terrorism if there were no foreign occupation. The objective we fear is indeed to pre-empt a solution of the Middle East conflict on the basis of the principle of land for peace.

The Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, in his 30 September 2003 report to the Commission on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 states:

"The wall has all the features of a permanent structure. The fact that it will incorporate half of the settler population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem suggests that it is designed to further entrench the position of the settlers. The evidence strongly suggests that Israel is determined to create facts on the ground amounting to de facto annexation. Annexation of this kind, known as conquest in international law, is prohibited by the Charter of the United Nations and the Fourth Geneva Convention." (E/CN.4/2004/6)

Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention clearly stipulates:

"Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced as a result of the occupation of a territory ...."

The 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip states that neither party will "change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations" and that the integrity and status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip territory "will be preserved during the interim period". (Article XXXI, final clauses 7 and 8)

Apart from being illegal from the perspective of these international and bilateral legal instruments, the separation wall is inconsistent with Israel's commitment under the road map.

The road map obligates the Government of Israel to immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001 and "Consistent with the Mitchell report ... freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)". This commitment is both clear and non-negotiable. The wall spurs, not stems the growth of settlements and outposts.

The separation wall will bring enormous suffering to the Palestinian people living in the West Bank. The special rapporteur has calculated that more than 210,000 Palestinians will be seriously affected by the wall. According to him,

"Palestinians living between the wall and the Green Line will be effectively cut off from their farmlands and workplaces, schools, health clinics and other social services. This is likely to lead to a new generation of refugees or internally displaced persons." (E/CN.4/2004/6)

There is little doubt that the wall separates the Palestinians from their own cities and resources. It isolates, fragments and in some cases impoverishes those affected by its construction. In order to obtain the land on which the wall is being constructed in the West Bank, private Palestinian property has been requisitioned pursuant to military orders. This is in flagrant violation of humanitarian as well as human rights law.

Politically, the wall will pose yet another and probably the most daunting challenge to the implementation of the Quartet's road map. The Secretary-General recently described the separation wall and the settlements as "serious obstacles to the achievement of the two-State solution." (SG/SM/8913)

In Security Council consultations, some members earlier have cautioned that construction of the wall amounted to pre-empting the final settlement agreement under the road map and creation of realities on the ground. We agree with this assessment.

A viable Palestinian State, as envisaged in the Quartet's road map, cannot be established in the bantustans that will be created by the separation wall. The peace which Israel seeks will not result from the continuing illegal occupation and suppression of a Palestinian population in these lands which is hostile and aggrieved.

It is imperative to recognize that the separation wall is an unlawful annexation of occupied Palestinian territory. It must be declared illegal by the Security Council, and the Government of Israel must be asked to cease, and reverse, its construction. We do not believe that terrorism is an excuse for the construction of that wall; certainly, it will not stop State terrorism against the Palestinian people.

The security situation in the Holy Land is grave and threatening. It warrants immediate attention and urgent action by the international community, and especially by the Security Council. The taboo of terrorism should not be misused to circumvent the peace process. The peace process, which we have all supported, must be rescued. The parties must be brought back to full and faithful implementation of their commitments under the road map, which should lead to the realization of our vision of two States, with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders.

Mr. Belinga-Eboutou (Cameroon)

We are once again gathered in an open meeting -- just a few days after the Quartet's 26 September meeting and the Security Council's own meeting of 5 October -- to address the subject of the Middle East. The General Assembly also discussed this question in depth during the course of its general debate. On all those occasions the people of the United Nations and people of good will have called upon the parties to the conflict and the mediators to resume the road map initiative and to define together future stages for its implementation. Everyone has reaffirmed strong support for that initiative, whose goal is to find a lasting settlement to the conflict between now and 2005.

Is it necessary to recall that the road map is based, first of all, on the idea of two States -- Israel and Palestine -- living side by side in peace and within secure and recognized borders? Similarly, need one recall that the parties to the conflict each entered into commitments contained in the road map to reach that goal? For its part, Cameroon has repeatedly called upon the parties to refrain from any actions that could compromise peace. Bearing all that in mind, we wonder whether the attacks, targeted raids, destruction of houses and goods, continued construction of the wall in the West Bank and the ongoing building of new settlements do not indeed impede the peace process we have sought, and which we continue to seek.

A few days ago, on 2 October, the Secretary-General expressed his own deep concern about the Israeli Government's decision to continue to build that wall deep in the territory of the West Bank. According to a statement by the Quartet on 26 September, the Secretary-General considered the separation wall and the settlements on Palestinian territory to pose a serious obstacle to reaching a two-State solution. Other members of the Quartet also share that vision, and have so indicated on several occasions. We have always condemned violence whatever its source. We have always recognized and defended Israel's right to ensure its security within the context of norms that are in keeping with international law, in general, and within the context of its respect for its own commitments under the road map, in particular.

It goes without saying that Israelis and Palestinians will be unable to achieve peace in an atmosphere of mutual defiance. In order to remove that mutual defiance, the parties must promote true disarmament: disarmament in terms of weapons policy, but also, and above all, psychological and cultural disarmament. They must do so by casting war psychosis and fear of the other from their hearts. There is no doubt that such disarmament will take time. If the protagonists themselves make good use of time -- the present and the future -- to shape future generations into a culture of peace, then we can hope for better prospects for the Holy Land, a land of peace, and for the Middle East as a whole.

It is true, nevertheless, that the long history of conflict has demonstrated that without the international community's involvement, the disarmament I mentioned will continue to be a very distant prospect. We therefore once again call upon the international community, and in particular upon the Quartet, to take bold and simultaneous steps, as opposed to incremental ones, in order to create the conditions necessary to ensure that peace prevails in the region.

The President

I would now like to make a statement in my capacity as the representative of the United States.

The United States has engaged intensively to encourage Israel and the Palestinian Authority to take concrete steps towards the implementation of a road map to peace that has broad support within the international community and the United Nations. We are not as far along in that process as we had hoped, largely due to the destructive impact of terrorist bombings and the failure to dismantle the organizations and infrastructure that encourage those acts.

Just 10 days ago, a suicide bomber killed 20 innocent people in Haifa. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad took responsibility for that attack. Terrorist groups such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade prevent peace and highjack any prospect for real dialogue. We have noted repeatedly that Israel has the right to defend itself against those insidious attacks.

In our view, all parties have responsibilities to bring peace to the Middle East. Ending terrorism must be the highest priority. Any resolution concerning the Middle East must take into account the larger picture -- that of the current security situation, including the devastating suicide attacks that Israelis have had to endure over the last three years. That is the broader context of the debate we are holding today.

The United States views on the construction of the Israeli fence have been clear. As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said recently,

"This wall is not really consistent with our view of what the Middle East will one day have to look like: two States living side by side in peace. We understand the Israelis have security concerns. It is extremely important, if it is going to be built, that it not intrude on the lives of Palestinians and, most importantly, that it not look as if it is trying to prejudge the outcome of a peace agreement."

We have urged Israel to consider carefully the consequences of its actions. In addition, senior United States Administration officials are engaging directly with Israel on the matter of the fence. We do not believe that a Security Council resolution focused on the fence furthers the goals of peace and security in the region. We also urge both parties to avoid actions that exacerbate the situation.

For its part, the United States, along with Quartet partners, will continue to work towards the implementation of President Bush's vision of a two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as set forth in the road map. Our diplomatic personnel -- including Secretary of State Powell, Ambassador John Wolfe and our missions in the region -- are actively involved with both parties at the highest levels. We remain committed to the road map as the way forward towards the overarching goal of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples living side by side in peace and security.

I shall now resume my function as President of the Council.

The next speaker inscribed on my list is the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Mahmassani (League of Arab States)

Allow me to commend the excellent manner and wisdom with which you, Sir, are leading the work of the Security Council.

The Security Council is meeting today to consider Israel's settler policies and construction of the separation wall in the occupied Palestinian territories, which threaten regional and international peace and security and hinder the establishment of a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Israel is building an electrified, electronically monitored separation wall -- a system that is more than 500 kilometres long, averages 60 metres wide and is as high as eight metres in some places -- under the pretext of the security situation. This is one further link in Israel's chain of systematically devouring, confiscating and annexing Palestinian territories.

The danger in all this is that the expansionist wall does not follow the Green Line that has separated Israel and the Palestinian territories since 1967, but cuts deep into Palestinian territories, annexing -- according to a World Bank study -- approximately 12 per cent of the West Bank. Other studies assess the area at 23.4 per cent of the West Bank. The erection of this wall near the western borders of the West Bank is just the beginning. Another wall will go up in the East to encompass the Jordan Valley area, constituting 21.9 per cent of the West Bank. This means that Israel's plans currently include the annexation of 45.3 per cent of the West Bank.

The economic repercussions of the construction of the wall include the almost total destruction of the Palestinian economy; the isolation of the Palestinian people in encircled islands; the blockade of 210,000 Palestinians within the Green Line; and the creation of a new generation of refugees and of further suffering for the Palestinian people. The real purpose of the wall is expansion, the establishment of new settlements and the entrenchment of 230,000 Israeli settlers on Palestinian territory.

The building of this Israeli expansionist wall within Palestinian territory is a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law, and a perpetuation of the Israeli Government's immoral actions. Israel may build walls on its own territory, but has no right to build them inside Palestinian territory. That is simply unacceptable.

The ongoing construction of the wall is a direct threat to the future establishment of an independent Palestinian entity and to the vision of a Palestinian State living side by side with Israel. It also destroys any hope for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. There is a consensus within the international community, including in the declared positions of the members of the Security Council and the Secretary-General, that the wall obstructs and undermines the peace process and that it should be dismantled immediately.

Despite all the international protestations against and objections to the construction of the wall, Israel pursues its policies of occupation and the building of settlements by force in Arab territories. This expansionist wall is a bypass road that extends towards Arab villages and cities and is intended to strangle and eradicate the Palestinian people politically, economically and socially and to transform the rest of the Palestinian territories into a non-viable Palestinian ghetto. This will simply increase poverty and despair.

The essence of the Israeli-Arab conflict is the ongoing Israeli occupation of Arab territories. Israel's attempt to divert attention by placing the conflict in the context of the fight against terrorism is naive, ridiculous, futile and will fool no one. Israeli occupation is the problem. Israel's current military option of imposing the logic of force on the Arab-Israeli conflict has proven the futility of its policy and has led only to further deterioration and to more death and destruction. The pursuit of that policy, including the opening of new fronts, will push the region to the very brink of war, with all its perilous consequences for international peace and security.

We call on the Security Council today to take a firm stand by compelling Israel to dismantle the wall, end its policies of occupation, renounce the military option and resume negotiations, which alone can lead to the establishment of a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, in conformity with the resolutions of international legitimacy, the Arab peace initiative and the principle of land for peace.

The President

I now call on the Ambassador of Malaysia.

Mr. Rastam (Malaysia)<