VICE-PRESIDENT OF COLOMBIA, HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS OF BRAZIL, SLOVAKIA, AND LATVIA ADDRESS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
21 March 2002
Morning





Commission Continues Debate on Right to Self-Determination


Gustavo Bell Lemus, the Vice-President of Colombia, briefed the Commission on Human Rights this morning on his Government's efforts to protect citizens and reestablish peace in a country torn by years of internal conflict with guerrilla groups.

Mr. Bell Lemus said no one had ever criticized the will of the Government to pursue peace, but the guerrilla forces did not have the same will for peace, especially the FARC movement, and recently the Government had ended peace negotiations with the FARC because it was not possible to negotiate with people who were assassins and hostage takers.

The Colombian Vice-President said the growing disintegration and dehumanization of the conflict had increased human-rights violations but had not destroyed the internal cohesion of the society, and in fact 10 million Colombians recently had voted in parliamentary elections. Mr. Bell Lemus appealed for continued international support and aid to Colombia.

Also addressing the Commission this morning were Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, State Secretary for Human Rights of Brazil; Indulis Berzins, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Latvia; and Eduard Kukan, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic.

Mr. Pinheiro said, among other things, that international efforts against terrorism depended not only on military force but on continued respect for human rights; that in December President Fernando Henrique Cardoso had publicly recognized that the slavery practice for nearly four centuries in Brazil had constituted a crime against humanity and had urged the State to seek to redress this injustice through affirmative action policies; that economic globalization should be more justly managed; and that Brazil's AIDS crisis was severe enough that the Government had decided that the human rights of its citizens justified the production of generic drugs through which the circumvention of patents might be necessary.

Mr. Berzins said, among other things, that Latvia believed in transparency in the promotion of human rights and had offered a standing invitation to the Commission's thematic special procedures to visit the country; that an information campaign had resulted in a sharp increase in applications for citizenship; that a Society Integration Foundation had been established to promote a harmonious society based on common democratic values; and that Latvia recently had signed the two additional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

And Mr. Kukan told the Commission that Slovakia was cooperating actively with other democratic countries in the international battle against terrorism; that both parties to the conflict in the Middle East should strive to prevent terrorist attacks and respect human rights; and that Slovakia had responded to the World Conference against Racism by drawing up a second action plan to fight racism within its borders.

The Commission also carried on this morning with its debate on the right to self-determination, hearing statements from a series of national delegations.

Representatives of Egypt (on behalf of the Arab League), Cuba, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, Guatemala, India, Vietnam, South Africa, Armenia, Bahrain, and Chile addressed the meeting.

Panama, Morocco, and Israel spoke in right of reply.

The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to conclude its debate on the right to self-determination. It is expected over the course of the afternoon to begin its discussion on racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia.


Statements

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, State Secretary for Human Rights of Brazil, said that since the barbaric attacks against the United States, the world appeared to be entering a neo Cold War in which the prevailing tendency seemed to be a dangerous return to polarities, this time around the notions of terrorism and means of combatting it. While Brazil understood the right of self-defence of States, it considered it just as important that the fight against terrorism depend not only on the use of military force but on continued respect for human rights. The crimes of September 11 could not be excused or justified, but the Security Council resolution on terrorism should be implemented through renewed efforts to arrive at political solutions for the problems that one way or another spawned terrorism.

Fighting against racism and discrimination required incessant efforts on all fronts, Mr. Pinheiro said; and it was important to recognize, rather than deny, that social inequality and structural racism existed in order to come to grips with these problems. Brazil had one of the largest populations of African origins in the world, and last December President Fernando Henrique Cardoso had publicly recognized that the slavery practice for nearly four centuries in Brazil had constituted a crime against humanity. He had urged the State to seek to redress this injustice through affirmative action policies. Much remained to be done but the Government was solemnly committed to doing it. It also was taking extensive steps to better the lives of its vast population of indigenous peoples. Brazil would introduce before the Commission this year a draft resolution declaring the incompatibility of racism and democracy.

Globalization would only be sustainable if it incorporated the dimension of justice, Mr. Pinheiro said. There had to be "globalization with solidarity" that extended to such matters as trade relations, better access to markets, reform of the Bretton Woods institutions, and adjustments of their activities to make them more helpful for development, reduction of the volatility of capital flows, and practical cooperation to combat AIDS.

Brazil had cooperated extensively with the mechanisms of the Commission, Mr. Pinheiro said; it had been visited twice in the last two years by the High Commissioner for Human Rights; it had received visits from six Commission Special Rapporteurs since 1995; and it now was publicly announcing a standing invitation to Commission mechanisms to visit the country. In the fight against AIDS, Mr. Pinheiro said, Brazil had developed generic drugs, for which it might have been necessary to circumvent patents, believing the matter was of high and immediate public interest and necessary for its fulfilment of international human rights obligations.

INDULIS BERZINS, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Latvia, said the United Nations had been the first international organization Latvia had joined after restoring its independence. Latvian society had benefited from and advocated the promotion of a human rights culture, and it viewed international human rights treaties as going beyond the reciprocal interests of countries -- the Commission must continue its practice of examining human rights situations in any part of the globe. The Commission had struggled for years to avoid becoming an overtly political organ, and this challenge was always in front of it. In addition, the Commission was no longer a six-week affair but a year-long series of activities, and Latvia would continue to advocate its proposal that the Commission's bureau be elected at the start of each year.

Latvia believed in transparency in human rights, Mr. Berzins said, and recalled that last year the Government had issued a standing invitation to all thematic Commission special procedures to visit the country. In another recent development, Latvia had signed the two additional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The decision by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to close its mission to Latvia reflected a positive appraisal of Latvia's efforts to enhance human rights.

The Government had launched an information campaign on citizenship, Mr. Berzins said, and a sharp increase in the number of applications for citizenship had occurred. The Society Integration Foundation had been established to promote a harmonious society based on common democratic values.

No one could claim that the Durban Conference had solved the problems of racism and racial discrimination, Mr. Berzins said, but it had laid down a framework through which everyone could make further progress. The true measure of the success of the Conference would be whether it made a real difference in people's lives.

EDUARD KUKAN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic, said that his country, through its official declaration on 13 September 2001, had added its voice to the anti-terrorist coalition determined to protect the universal values targeted by terrorism. Slovakia was prepared to continue in its active cooperation with other democratic countries of the world in order to implement the most effective measures possible in the fight against terrorism. His country was determined to maintain its unfailing respect for the obligations towards the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in the human dimension area and to insist on their universal fulfilment. Slovakia put emphasis on respect for the principle of the universality of human rights. Whilst acknowledging that the promotion of human rights in individual countries must also take the specific historical and cultural development of these countries into consideration, this could not serve as a pretext for violation of universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Mr. Kukan said his country had been dismayed by the events in the Middle East and believed that such actions only served to spin around the spiral of violence and hatred in Israeli-Palestinian relations. All parties involved must unconditionally approach practical measures against possible terrorist attacks in order to restore the trust lost on both sides. Both parties must choose ways and means that fully respected international law and human rights when trying to ensure the legitimate protection of the lives and property of their populations.

An important milestone that provided an opportunity to seek more effective means for the protection of human rights and freedoms through the world was the World Conference against Racism which finished only a few days before 11 September. This represented a significant step forward, the Foreign Minister of the Slovak Republic said. Slovakia had responded to the Conference's conclusions by drawing up a second Action Plan for the Fight against Racism on a national level, and by preparing new anti-discrimination legislation. At the same time, the conclusions of the European Conference against Racism went in some respects beyond those of the World Conference. In these fields the Slovak Republic felt bound by the final documents of the European Conference. As an example, the Slovak Government had recently created a body to deal with the issue of reparation and compensation of victims of the Holocaust.

GUSTAVO BELL LEMUS, Vice-President of Colombia, said Colombia was grateful for international help provided throughout the country's efforts to establish peace; unfortunately, peace talks recently had had to be abandoned after a new series of guerrilla attacks. No one has ever criticized the will of the Government to pursue peace. The guerrilla forces had not had the same will for peace, especially the FARC guerrillas. It was quite impossible to negotiate with people who were assassins and hostage takers. The international community must condemn such terrorist attacks, and after the recent assaults many expressions of support and dismay had been received from around the world.

Mr. Bell Lemus said the population had been harassed by violent acts and had expressed its rejection of this through civil resistance and had refused to cooperate with groups outside the law that had tried to intimidate and change the national situation and to destroy society. Indigenous groups had shown great courage in preventing the destruction of their homes and lands; and there had been repeated requests that armed bands cease their predations. The conflict had not destroyed the internal cohesion of society; this was not a civil war nor a conflict based on ethnic or political causes, nor an independence movement. Rather, outlawed groups representing no more than 1.1 per cent of the population were trying to impose their skewed visions on the rest of society. Recently, nonetheless, 10 million Colombians had voted peacefully in parliamentary elections. The dispute was a violent action against society and the Government. The growing disintegration and dehumanization of the conflict was the major factor in an increase in human rights violations, with the narcotics trade adding to the violence and disarray. Territorial struggles of competing illegal groups over these drug crops were leading to new disruptions. Proceeds from drug sales unfortunately helped to fund the terrorist groups.

The Vice President said Colombia would continue to battle against all illegal armed groups who under any guise threatened the population. And it would continue to do so ethically, as States always should, by respecting the fundamental rights of citizens. A long democratic tradition had helped in this process, and recently democratic and human-rights protections had been extended and reformed. The Government was committed to efforts at reconciliation; but the prevailing context of violence required greater efforts and more resources for success to be achieved, and Colombia appealed to the international community for greater support. Legal and penal changes had been made to reflect such crimes as forced disappearances and internal displacements.

Special agreements had been reached with many international agencies to promote human rights in the country and to meet the special needs created by the crisis, Mr. Bell Lemus said, and a series of Commission Special Rapporteurs had visited the country or were scheduled to do so. Colombia was well aware that it had to strengthen its democracy to ensure greater respect for human rights. Colombia hoped for continued international understanding, support, and solidarity.

NAELA GABR (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, said the Millennium Summit had reiterated the respect for the right of self-determination, and had made it clear that without it, it would be impossible to safeguard other human rights. All people had the right to chose their own political regime and the rights of people subjected to occupation could not be ignored. If the right to self-determination was a fundamental rule, which underpinned all other human rights, it was high time that all human beings belonged to an independent country. It was therefore necessary to reject any situation where people were being deprived of this most basic right. It was important to realize that the Palestinian people had paid an enormous price by not being allowed the right to self-determination. The resistance of the Palestinian people was legitimate and could not be ignored.

The Commission was requested to support the establishment of a sovereign State for the Palestinian people. Israel had failed the Palestinian people with a policy of disregard which had failed to secure peace in the region. Israel needed to be brought to realize that the Palestinian spirit and resistance could not and should not be ignored. This was a policy that had entirely failed in securing peace in the region. The Commission was called upon to support the establishment of an independent and sovereign State, so that the Palestinians could enjoy their human rights.

MERCEDES DE ARMAS (Cuba) said her country gave great importance to the efforts that had been made in the framework of the United Nations system to assure the full exercise of the right to self-determination for all peoples of the world. The exercise of the right to self-determination was a pre-condition for the application of all human rights. While domination and foreign occupation persisted, speaking about respect for other rights made no sense. Concerning the Special Rapporteur on mercenaries, his report had highlighted that mercenary activities were not part of the past, but had increased in numbers and had acquired new and dangerous forms which threatened the exercise and validity of human rights and the full exercise of the right of people to self-determination. Cuba therefore welcomed the recent entering into force of the 1989 convention against recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries.

A quarter of a century ago, Cuba had suffered from a treacherous, repugnant and murderous attack which deeply touched the whole nation - it still lasted in the collective memory of the Cuban people. On 6 October 1976, a Cuban aeroplane had been the object of a cowardly sabotage that had provoked an explosion in the middle of a flight near Barbados. The 73 innocent victims were still waiting for justice. Those who had conceived, planned and led this criminal action had a thick terrorist file since the sixties when they had begun their training with the CIA. In spite of the international campaign against terrorism, the Cuban American mafia continued actions to abort the judicial process against the perpetrators of this crime.

FAISAL EL-HAMAOUI (Syrian Arab Republic) said Syria had been part of the creation of the United Nations in 1945 and since then it had been appealing for all peoples right to self-determination. All colonized countries had managed to enjoy this right, however, the Palestinian people were still fighting to gain this right and the establishment of an independent State with Jerusalem as its capital. Israelis believed that genocide, the destruction of homes and the massacre of children would frighten the Palestinians and push them to despair. Those who supported Israel were wrong, the Charter of the United Nations and several resolutions adopted by the United Nations rested on the respect of all peoples' right to self-determination. This right could not be ignored.

It was shameful to see that colonization and occupation remained factors in today's society. It was shameful to accept that Israel refused to comply with the many resolutions of the United Nations and personal appeals by the Secretary-General. The Commission must ensure that Israel allow the Palestinian people the right to self-determination. Israel must accept logic and the principle of justice. Israel was imposing its occupation in the Middle East, yet Israel enjoyed the support of the international community on every level, at a time when Palestinians were ignored and lived in deprivation. This must end.

ABDULWAHAB ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said that although the Commission regularly passed resolutions on the right to self-determination, Saudi Arabia had doubts about international commitment to this right, as politics in the real world appeared to be intruding. The right of Palestinians to self-determination had been denied for years and continued to be denied. These people had a right to their land, to a State with Jerusalem as its capital, and to their holy places. The Palestinian intifada was a response to the denial of this right and the way to end the intifada was to grant this right. The Israeli occupation must end.

Israel's massacres of Palestinians had not ended Palestinian resistance, and would not end it. Israel had to abide by the rules and principles of the peace process agreed to at the Madrid conference. Security Council resolution 1397 and the peace proposal suggested by Saudi Arabia recently were an effort to end the impasse. Unfortunately, the Israelis were still dominating the occupied territories. It was to be hoped that all peace-loving countries would go along with the Saudi Arabian proposal which could well lead to peace in the region. The Commission should adopt by consensus the resolution on this issue which would be submitted to this session.

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said the examination of this agenda item was an opportunity to summarize the successes of the United Nations in freeing occupied countries. There were many achievements in decolonization and it was an honour for the Commission to be associated with this process. However, there were still people suffering under occupation. Attempts to revive the peace process had failed since Israel had not complied with the demands of the international community. The only hope was that those who were in favour of peaceful dialogue should sit at the same table, but racism and hatred needed to be condemned. There had been several threats within the Israeli Government to actually physically remove the Palestinian people. The behaviour was on par with that of concentration camps. Algeria supported the Palestinian people wholeheartedly and supported the intifada.

Concerning the Western Sahara, Algeria had always had a preference for direct discussions on this issue. Progress had been made towards peace during meetings in London, Berlin and Wyoming. There was no sense to the credo "if you want peace, prepare for war", the situation had to be resolved according to the relevant United Nations resolutions. It was added that the activities of mercenaries in Africa continued to take place because of the greed of foreign powers inciting conflicts in the continent. Mercenaries continued their criminal and destructive enterprises, and were often seen side by side with foreign elements. There was a clear link between mercenaries and terrorist organizations that could not be ignored.

MOHAMED Y. A. MOHAMED (Sudan) said circumstances had become ever more difficult for the Palestinian people because of the violence and colonization committed by Israel; collective punishments, destruction of homes, and other Israeli policies amounted to genocide. The Palestinians' right to self-determination was inalienable, it was not negotiable. Israel must stop threatening Palestinian leaders if it really wanted peace and security in the region, and it must accept international law and United Nations resolutions related to the Palestinians' right to self-determination. The international community must remove the obstacles Israel continued to put up to this right.

Palestine was entitled to an independent State. Israel must dismantle its settlements in the occupied territories, particularly in East Jerusalem, and it must cease its military attacks. It should also accept the presence of international observers. Israel, furthermore, had no right to exploit the attacks of last September as a way of cracking down on Palestinians' legitimate struggle for self-determination.

ANTONIO ARENALES FORNO (Guatemala) said the issue of self-determination had been debated for many years, both within the United Nations and outside it. However, one had forgotten the right to self-determination of people who were not under colonial rule or occupation. There were people fighting for self-determination within a state. The fight of indigenous people had been discarded for fear of a domino effect on the territorial integrity of the state. The right to self-determination through secession would continue to exist and there was no sense in ignoring this trend. In fact, more discussion on this issue was needed in the Commission so that the development of this right could proceed. A response was needed so that indigenous people could affirm their dignity and their human rights. The Catalan people, Quebec and Puerto Rico were showing the way to the international community on how to deal with the aspirations of self-determination within a state.

On Palestinian issues, both the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people and the Israelis was recognized. Israel needed its international secure borders. The relevant United Nations resolutions must be strictly adhered to without bias or prejudice.

SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said that India had emerged from the dark shadow of colonial rule through a historic non-violent struggle for independence led by Mahatma Gandhi. The people of India, across the length and breadth of the country exercised their right to self-determination. In their hour of triumph, they had recognized the cardinal importance of efforts to universalise the enjoyment of this basic right to all peoples still struggling under colonial rule. India had maintained unwavering solidarity with the people of Palestine who had struggled bravely over the past five decades to attain their inalienable rights.

Taken out of context, self-determination could be abused by interested parties to encourage secession and undermine multi-ethnic, pluralistic and democratic States. Pakistan, whose own people had been deprived of their democratic rights for most of its history, ruled part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir illegally. Pakistan had occupied it as a virtual colony, and had been indulging in abuse of the concept of self-determination to bolster its agenda of territorial aggrandisement through terrorism against India. The terrorism perpetrated by Pakistan had been responsible for widespread killings of innocent civilians. Pakistan must ensure the right of self-determination for its own people before sermonizing others on it. Pakistan must also desist from loading its discredited agenda on to the legitimate aspirations of others for self-determination. The time had come for the international community to deliver an unequivocal message that it would not allow under any circumstances distortion and abuse of the right to self-determination.

TRUNG HOANG (Viet Nam) said Viet Nam strongly condemned the excessive use of military force against Palestinians that had caused such a huge loss of life and so much suffering in the occupied territories, especially to women and children. The Commission should redouble its efforts to put an immediate end to these military activities, and Israel must act swiftly to get the peace process back on track. After so much time and bloodshed, Palestinians were still being denied their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination and the right to establish an independent State in their homeland. It was sad.

A durable solution to the conflict could only come through peaceful negotiations, and such a settlement was necessary for peace and stability in the Middle East. Viet Nam supported such initiatives as land for peace, and the ongoing efforts of various States, including the recent initiative of Saudi Arabia. It believed that Security Council resolution 1397 that envisaged two States of Palestine and Israel living together in secure and recognized borders was a good step in the right direction.

SIPHO GEORGE NENE (South Africa) said that the South African Government had, on several occasions, made an intervention on the situation in the Middle East. At the core of the statements there was a clear and simple plea to both the Israelis and Palestinians. It was a known fact that violence begot violence. The spiralling cycle of violence in the Middle East would not lead to the solution of the problem in that region. As both Palestinians and Israelis would learn through pain and suffering, in the end the solution to their problems lay at the negotiating table. There could be no military solution to the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The actions of the Israeli army, which was the busiest military force today, had clearly exceeded the internationally accepted norms of humanitarian law. These actions only made peace more difficult to achieve.

Both parties were urged to immediately return to negotiations, based on the previous attempts by the special envoys from the United States, the Russian Federation, the European Union and United Nations Envoys and many others. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian leaders had to cooperate in the implementation of the Tenet work plan and the Mitchell Report with an aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement.

KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia) said the right to self-determination lay behind the mapping of today's geopolitics. There was nothing new in stating that to resist the exercise of this right by military force led to armed conflict, aggression, destruction, internal displacement, and refugee crises. Lately new strategies had sprung up to limit the right in time and place, claiming that it should be applied only once. That could obstruct the fair exercise of the right and could amount to double standards; it also was unacceptable to say the right was a violation of the territorial integrity of States.

Armenia was committed to the full implementation of the right to self-determination by the people of the Nagorno Karabakh region through peaceful means. A decade ago, because the absence of democratic governance had led to xenophobia and other forms of intolerance with regard to minorities, organized pogroms and massacres of Armenians had taken place in several Azerbaijani cities and towns; the rape, torture and murder of Armenian residents had shaken the international community. The population of Nagorno Karabakh had voted overwhelmingly for sovereignty. This was not a minority-rights issue, as it was sometimes incorrectly labelled, but a classic example of the right to self-determination. It was up to the rest of the world to abide by international law in this matter. Armenia remained convinced that a constructive dialogue between the parties engaged could defuse tensions in the region and contribute to regional and international peace.

SAEED M. AL-FAIHANI (Bahrain) said the continued violations of human rights in occupied territories, including those of the Palestinian people, had prevented full adherence to the human right of self-determination. The Arab people of those areas were living under occupation, experiencing the excesses of Israel on a daily basis. Israel must adhere to relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions in order for peace to return to the region. Israeli practices violated basic Palestinian human rights. The killings and massacres, the destruction of homes had led to a new reality. Israeli policies had led to the economic violation of the Palestinian people. Today, the situation was perpetually deteriorating as a result of the constant violations of elementary human rights.

The Palestinian people as a whole, and the world as a whole, demanded the return to the negotiating table and the withdrawal of Israel to the 1967 borders. He was convinced that lasting peace in the region required sacrifices on the part of all parties involved. Israel must withdraw so that the Palestinian people could experience their right to self-determination. In order to give new impetus to the peace process, Israel must put an end to the settlements, the destruction of homes, the confiscation of drinking water and the attacks on holy places. Cooperation and coordination was needed in this part of the world, as opposed to more violence.

JUAN ENRIQUE VEGA(Chile) said the report of the High Commissioner provided a real strategy for the strengthening of a human rights culture. The events of the world after 11 September had made it important to look for safety for all populations. The universal adherence to a culture of human rights was essential to avoid these kind of situations. Democracy was a fundamental instrument of human progress. The Commission had a duty to think and act against these new trends of terrorism. It was a joint task to activate multilateral task forces to eliminate such threats. There was a value to the work of the Commission in the constant promotion and protection of human rights. All categories of human rights were indivisible and this integrated system was highly valued by Chile. It was the natural approach, the vision of the Millennium Declaration and a must to construct stability and dignity in the world.

The protection of human rights aspired for the protection of human dignity. Criticism needed to be heard in order to progress in this quest. The Commission played a significant role in this struggle and it was important to look at human rights abuses in specific countries of the world. A comprehensive vision was needed in the area of human rights in order to consolidate the process of peace. One could not underestimate the role of non-governmental organizations in this process - they were the conscience of the international community. The Conference against Racism was a historic moment and a positive step towards the universalization of human dignity. The task ahead was even more difficult and important since it concerned the implementation of the steps agreed upon in Durban.


Rights of Reply

A Representative of Panama, speaking in right of reply, said Panama categorically rejected what had been said by Cuba; the cases mentioned were the subject of criminal proceedings in Panama that would be completed in accordance with the laws of the country. The relevant Special Rapporteur had been invited to visit Panama in early May. Such crimes should be punished, Panama knew; nonetheless, any such trial and punishment should be carried out within and by Panama, as a sovereign State.

A Representative of Morocco said in a right of reply to the statement of Algeria that the Algerian delegate had distorted the history of his region. The Madrid agreement had not been a secret agreement, it was registered with the United Nations secretariat. The referendum proposal had been made in 1982 in Nairobi. Concerning Moroccan prisoners, their release was an obligation. There was a demand for the release of these prisoners and a moral obligation for Algeria to do so. History would remember that the oldest prisoners were actually in Algeria. Furthermore the framework agreement had never been criticized in such a way as described by the Algerian delegate. Concerning the credo of peace, Algeria had been following a logic of war.

A Representative of Israel, speaking in right of reply, said Israel fully agreed, surprisingly, with one matter stated by the representative of Syria -- that it was difficult to live through 50 years of violence. Syria had in fact inflicted such violence on Israel, starting 50 years ago. Terrorism against Israel had started long before the Israeli occupation in 1967; and hundreds of Israelis had been killed and thousands wounded. Syria had long served as a base for terrorist groups carrying out such attacks. In any case, a Government that killed en masse its own citizens should be the last to lecture any other country on human rights. In response to other countries that had spoken, Israel reiterated that self-determination and achievement of Palestinian rights would not be won through violence but through peaceful negotiations.





* *** *