At the Sharm El Sheikh Summit, all relevant parties worked together to negotiate an understanding that would bring an end to the violence that has plagued the region over the past two weeks. Contrary to the spirit of the Sharm Summit, this Special Session of the Commission on Human Rights, and the biased speeches we have heard over the past two days have been at the very least, counterproductive, distracting us from our major efforts of ending the violence, restoring calm and moving ahead with the diplomatic process. The resolution is partisan, one-sided and inflammatory. It is flawed in its examination and description of the events, its causes and the behaviour of the parties concerned. It is divorced from the reality on the ground since the meeting of the relevant leaders at Sharm El Sheikh on the 17^th of October.

Let me just remind you once more, how these events transpired.

Yes, there were casualties, both Palestinian and Israeli. More Palestinians were killed and wounded than Israelis. We sincerely regret the loss of life. We have not, however, heard one word of regret, neither in the speeches made, nor in the resolution, about casualties on the Israeli side. Not for those killed or wounded in the rioting, nor for those lynched in a Palestinian police station in Ramallah while under the custody of the Palestinian police force.

As I stated earlier in the session, the violence and the casualties could have been avoided by not sending children and innocent civilians to stand in front of demonstrators and to serve as human shields behind which Palestinian policemen, the Tanzim and other armed Palestinians, could shoot at Israeli forces. It could have been avoided if leaders in Palestinian society and Palestinian media had not incited the masses to rise up in hatred against Israel, causing youngsters to go out into the street to throw stones and molotov cocktails. Casualties can still be avoided today by implementing the understandings of the Sharm El Sheikh Summit.

Today, there is only one way to stop the casualties on both sides: stop the violence! There is no call on the Palestinians, in the resolution, to stop the violence, the rioting, the use of live ammunition, the use of machine guns, the sending of children to the frontlines of rioting crowds or to stop the use of molotov cocktails.

Let me report to you about an incident which occurred last night, in which a bus carrying 39 women and children from Israel in the Gaza direction, was ambushed by Palestinians who placed a road charge next to it containing five kilograms of explosives, and then opened automatic fire upon it. Miraculously, not one of the 39 women or children was wounded or killed. I would like to ask the orators in this session, was this also a case where kids were throwing stones or sticks against Israeli soldiers armed to the teeth? Or was it the other way around? Or perhaps you would choose to overlook in your deliberations, let alone in the resolution, terrorist incidents of this nature when perpetrated by the other side.

You might be aware of the fact that there is a major development today in the media centres of a European capital, when it was discovered that the representative of a major television network published a letter of apology in a Palestinian newspaper, Al-Hayat Al Jadedah, apologising, in fact, to the Palestinians because of the television coverage of the lynching in Ramallah, and promising to continue to respect "the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work". He added: "we are credible in our precise work". One wonders, is this but an isolated incident, or perhaps one of the reasons why the television images are so skewered, and therefore, resolutions and reports based upon what was viewed on your screens were not based on actual facts, but rather on this kind of distorted reporting.

Mr. Chairperson, the resolution contains only calls upon Israel. Blame is laid only on one side. This resolution is so partisan as not even to have merited a discussion, let alone a vote. It renders the deliberations irrelevant.

The resolution uses inflammatory language, and deserves no applause. I would like once more to refer to the wise counsel of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, in Sharm El Sheikh, when he warned that language can be violence too, and appealed to the leaders on both sides, as well as the wider international community, to weigh their words carefully because words could inflame. I believe our Chairman reiterated these words yesterday morning, but they went unheeded.

I submit to you that the wording of this resolution, in every paragraph, runs counter to the advice and caution of the Secretary General of this very organisation. It also employs the use of such violent language that it is bound to further tensions on the ground.

Finally, this resolution is divorced from reality and therefore, counterproductive. The parties at Sharm El Sheikh agreed to issue public statements unequivocally calling for an end to the violence, to take immediate concrete measures to end the confrontation, eliminate points of friction, ensure an end to the violence and incitement, and to return to the situation which existed prior to the current crisis. They have agreed to the establishment of a fact-finding committee, headed by the United States, on the events of the past several weeks and how to prevent their recurrence and to have consultations within the next two weeks about how to move forward. All other committees are superfluous.

The parties have begun to implement this understanding on the ground with difficulty. It is not yet fully implemented. We have yet to hear a clear-cut call from Mr. Arafat to the armed groups of the Palestinians to cease the riots, the shooting and the hostilities. We have given appropriate orders to the Israeli army and police. We hope the cessation of hostilities will take effect within the next 48 hours.

This resolution has nothing to do with events on the ground. It merely bears in mind the outcome of the Summit. Therefore, it contributes absolutely nothing to the situation on the ground. Not to the end of the violence or to the resumption of the peace process. In fact, the resolution is injurious to the peace process.

Supreme diplomatic efforts, not biased deliberations, are what is needed now to take us beyond the current violence and bloodshed, to stabilise the situation, to end hostilities and thereafter, hopefully, restart the diplomatic process. This Committee has adopted a resolution which could aggravate and indeed destroy efforts underway to end the violence.

Thank you.