text: In favour: Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, India, Madagas- car, Peru, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repubhc, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: United States of America. Abstaining: Australia, Denmark, France, United King- dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The proposal was adopted by IO votes to I, with 4 abstentions. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Mansour (Palestine Liberation Organ&ion) took a place at the Co&i1 table. 15. The PRESIDENT: The Council is meeting on this item today in accordance with the request contained in the letter dated 11 September 1985 from the representative of Qatar to the President of the Council [s/174563. 16. I should like to draw the attention of members of the Council for having granted our request for an immediate meeting of the Council and to thank you, Sir, for having invited me to speak on behalf of the Group of Arab States. 21. The Council is meeting to consider the grave situa- tion in the occupied Palestinian territories, a result of the arbitrary Israeli practices against the civilian population of those territories. These practices now constitute an escala- tion of acts of oppression and persecution practised by Israel ever since the occupationof these territories in 1967. The observer for the PLO mentioned in his letters, which have been distributed as documents of the Council, all the details of these practices as communicated in the media. I shall therefore confine myself to mentioning only some of them. 22. Recently Israel imposed a curfew on a large number of Palestinian towns and refugee camps. It forbade their inhabitants to move freely and gave free rein to settlers to sow disorder and to commit crimes against Arab civilians, destroying their goods and their resources, in accordance with their Fascist doctrine and their hatred of and com- plexes vis-&is the Arab population. 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic document discussing a situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a focus on the actions of Israel and the reactions of various countries. The language used is formal and diplomatic, with no mention of economic development, natural resources, or environmental issues. The text seems to be centered around human rights and international relations.