Israel opposes the draft resolution on Participation of the Palestinian Observer Mission in the work of the United Nations because of both the preambular language, which serves as the basis of the resolution, and the operative elements proposed. The preamble seriously misrepresents previous United Nations Resolutions.

This draft resolution, which is cosponsored by thirteen Arab states, makes reference to General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947. It is ironic that at that time, every single Arab state, as well as the Palestinian leadership, rejected Resolution 181.

In a statement on 20 February 1950, Israel's Permanent Representative to the UN, Abba Eban, underlined the fact that this was not just "the exercise of a legitimate right of non- compliance" with a non-binding resolution, but rather "the use of armed forces to overthrow the recommendation of the General Assembly." To come now as a group insisting on an improvement in Palestinian participation in the UN, on the basis of a UN resolution that they forcibly resisted, simply misrepresents the experience of the United Nations in the matter.

Further misrepresentation in the preamble is evident in references to UN General Assembly Resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988. While this resolution changed the designation of the PLO, it clearly stipulated that this change would take effect "without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization within the United Nations System." Today's draft resolution conveniently overlooks this qualification.

Finally, it must be added, that reference to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in parts of the West Bank and Gaza, represents a transparent effort to create a political link between this resolution and the status of the disputed territories. The clear purpose of this effort is to affect the outcome of the permanent status negotiations over this territory by abusing the UN system.

Notwithstanding Israel's reservations with the intentions behind this draft resolution, it must be emphasized that both the preambular and operative parts make clear one fact: there is no effective change of the status of the PLO in the UN. The PLO remains an observer organization in the UN system. Still, the attempt to achieve additional rights and privileges with the intention of obtaining a symbolic shift in status should be opposed, for it contradicts the bilateral basis of the Arab - Israeli peace process begun in Madrid and it violates the principles of the Oslo Agreements.

Israel has been prepared, since the signing of the Hebron Protocol on 15 January 1997, to resume the permanent status negotiations. Israel again undertook this commitment in the Note for the Record, signed by the United States. The PLO has refused to resume these talks, in violation of the Note for the Record. Instead it seeks to obtain symbolic elements of changed political status by means of UN Resolutions. The international community should deplore these efforts and encourage the parties to resolve their differences bilaterally at the negotiating table - and not in the UN General Assembly.

In this context it is important to recall the commitment given in writing by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat to our late Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin on 9 September 1993:

"The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues related to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations."

The UN has a choice of reinforcing this commitment, or undermining its content and weakening the Arab-Israeli peace process. I call upon member states to oppose this initiative and thereby strengthen the Arab-Israeli peace process.