United States vetoes draft resolution condemning Israeli acts in Lebanon.

A draft resolution by which the Security Council would have condemned the "Israeli practices and measures against the civilian population in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashava district which are in violation of the rules and principles of international law, in particular the provisions of the Geneva Confention of 12 August 1949" was vetoed by the United States in the Council on 12 March.

Under the draft resolution, submitted by Lebanon, the Council would also have demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, desist forthwith from its practices against the civilians in those three regions and immediately lift all restrictions and obstacles to the restoratin of normal conditions in the areas under its occupation in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and other norms of international law.

The United States, in opposing adoption of the draft resolution, said it was unbalanced, did not accord Israel "fair treatment", and applied "double standards".

The voting on the next (S/17000), was 11 in favour (Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, France, India, Madagascar, Peru, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukranian SSR, USSR) to 1 against (United States), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, United Kingdom). The draft resolution was not adopted due to the negative vote of a permanent member.

Under the Lebanese draft, the Council would have reaffirmed the urgent need to implement the provisions of previous Council resolutions on Lebanon, which demanded that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon.

The Council would also have reiterated its call for strict respect for the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries, and would have affirmed that the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 applied to the territories occupied by Israel in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district and that the occupying Power was duty bound to respect and uphold the provisions of that Convention and of other norms of international law.

The Council would also have requested the Secretary-General to establish a fact-finding mission to report to the Council on Israeli practices and measures in those three regions, to keep the situation under review, to consult with the Government of Lebanon and to report to the Council on the implementation of and compliance with the resolution as soon as possible.

The Council held four meetings, beginning on 28 February, in response to a request for an urgent meeting "to consider the continuing acts of aggression and abusive practices of Israeli occupying forces in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district" contained in a letter of 25 February from Lebanon to the Council President (S/16983).

The Council reviewed six documents. Four of them were letters dated 25, 25, 26 February and 4 March to the Secretary-General from Lebanon containing details of "continuing abusive Israeli operations and practices in southern Lebanon" (S/16974), S/16974/Add. 1, S/16990 and S/16997). In document S/16997 Lebanon said a "massacre" had been perpetrated by Israeli forces at Maarakah, south of the Litani River in the vicinity of the town of Tyre. It said Israeli forces had planted mines and explosives at the village mosque and had blown it up when villagers had gathered there on 4 March. According to preliminary reports, it went on, at least 15 people were killed, 45 were wounded, and "dozens" were trapped amid the rubble.

Israel, in a letter of 6 March to the Secretary-General (S/17007) rejected what it termed the "false assertions" made by Lebanon and stated that Israel had "no involvement whatsoever" in the explosion near the mosque in Maarakah.

A letter of 6 March to the Secretary-General from India (S/17008) contained the text of a communique adopted on that day by the Coordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-aligned Countries regarding the situation in the areas occupied by Israel in southern Lebanon, the western Bekaa and the Rashaya district.

Rachid Fakhoury (Lebanon) said Israel had used its military machine to "lay siege to peaceful Lebanese villages, storming them and attacking their citizens, defenceless, unarmed old people, women and children" who were resisting the "occupying aggressor with the pride and sincerity of nationalism". Armed resistance was an inevitable result of the Israeli invasion and occupation and the "inhuman practices" against the Lebanese. The situation in the Israeli occupied territories had deteriorated. There had been a "continuing escalation of the siege of villages and towns, acts of oppression, killing, detention, forced exile, demolition of homes", humiliation of the inhabitants, indiscriminate firing into homes and streets and kidnappings.

Lebanon had sincerely attempted to help bring about a successful outcome to the military talks of Naqoura, called for by the Secretary-General with the aim of obtaining full Israeli withdrawal and making arrangements to achieve security and stability after the withdrawal. Israel continued to refuse to present the detailed timetable for withdrawal that Lebanon demanded. It refused to give any role to the "legitimate" Lebanese army, and continued to insist on putting power in the area from the southern Litani to the international borders in the hands of "illegitimate local forces created, armed and trained" by it. It had refused to allow UNIFIL to deploy to the international borders, in accordance with Council resolution 425 (1978).

Israel persisted in its attempt to empty southern Lebanon of UNIFIL and insisted on its deployment in areas north of the Litani, he stated. It had refused to continue to take part in the Naqoura talks, and had presented Lebanon and the United Nations with faits accomplis. It then unilaterally had begun to implement a redeployment of its forces. That "stubborn" Israeli stand had led to the end of the Naqoura talks, which were now at an impasse, despite the fact that during the talks, in response to an Israeli request, Lebanon had presented a complete plan for the deployment of the Lebanese army in the areas to be evacuated by Israel. Lebanon was still prepared to consider anything that would lead to arrangements that would help a planned Israeli withdrawal, when Israel provided a "clear, sincere response".

The unilateral nature of Israel's redeployment plan in three stages had made it impossible to co-ordinate with Israel. Lebanon continued to support UNIFIL's role as long as Israel provided a concrete timetable for its complete withdrawal from Lebanon. However, Lebanon continued to have doubts concerning Israel's last two stages in its redeployment plan because they still required new decisions by the Israeli Government. The third stage of redeployment did not constitute a "true" withdrawal so long as that decision set out a security belt in which...