Ltems-In-Middle East

UN Secretariat Item Scan - Barcode - Record Title Page 25 Date 15/05/2006 Time 3:55:03 PM

S-0888-0004-03-00001

Expanded Number S-0888-0004-03-00001

ltems-in-Middle East - excerpts from the verbatim records of the 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th Regular Sessions of the General Assembly containing references to the Secretary-General and the situation in the Middle East

Date Created 01/01/1969

Record Type Archival Item

Container S-0888-0004: United Nations Documents of the Secretary-General: U Thant - Arranged by Subject

Print Name of Person Submit Image Signature of Person Submit EXCERPTS PROM THE VERBATIM RECORDS OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH REGULAR SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONTAINING REFERENCES TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL AND TO THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Opening Meeting The Temporary President (A/PV.1753 at page 3): "... In the Middle East, notwithstanding the efforts of the General Assembly and the Security Council, nothing has "been achieved "beyond a precarious truce constantly "broken by grave incidents, acts of terrorism and reprisals." General Debate Mr. de Magalhaes Pinto. Brazil (A/PV.1T55 at page 7): "... Then the idea prevails that, in the final analysis, after duly weighing and measuring the realities of power, it might be more advisable, more realistic, to set the matter aside in order to leave it to the discretion of the super-Powers, as if a new world directorate had already been established. This is exactly what has happened in the case of the Middle East, and of other world problems as well, such as disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons." "... In a world continually drawn between the opposing forces of policentrism and bipolarization, the so-called small conflicts tend to insert themselves into the context of larger and more complex ones affecting the whole international community. The Brazilian delegation called the attention of the Security Council to this point when we emphasized some time ago in that forum that the problem of the Middle East, difficult enough to settle on its own terms, could become downright impossible to solve if — 2 — allowed to move in the direction it is even now taking, of "becoming one more chapter in the long history of confrontations between the great Powers."

(A/PV.1755 at page 8) "... And, more than once in the debates held in the Security Council on the question of the Middle East, Brazil had the opportunity to stress and emphasize the special responsibilities of the major Powers, to which we have addressed an appeal — which has so far been ignored and unheeded — for a reduction or balance in the supply of armaments and war material to the parties in the dispute." (A/PV.1755 at page 12) "A joint participation in which all voices can make themselves heard is just as necessary in connexion with problems such as that of the Middle East." (A/PV.1755 at page 13) "... As one of the largest Catholic communities in the world, Brazil attaches particular importance to the question of the Holy Places. ¥e continue to maintain the necessity for implementing resolution 267 (1969) of the Security Council, unanimously adopted on 3 July 19&9» and we cannot remain indifferent to the measures, unilaterally adopted, which aim at altering the status of the City of Jerusalem." - 5 -

Address by His Excellency Mr. Richard M. Nixon President of the United States of America President Wixon (A/PV.1T55 at page 2J):

"Already, as you know, we have had extensive consultations with the Soviet Union as well as with others about the Middle East, where events of the past few days point up anew the urgency of a sta"ble peace. "The United States continues to believe that the United Nations cease-fire resolutions define the minimal conditions that must prevail on the ground if settlement is to be achieved in the Middle East. We believe the Security Council resolution of November 1967 charts the way to that settlement. A peace, to be lasting, must leave no seeds for a future war. It must rest on a settlement which both sides have a vested interest in maintaining. "We seek a settlement based on respect for the sovereign right of each nation in the area to exist within secure and recognized boundaries. We are convinced that peace cannot be achieved on the basis of substantial alterations in the map of the Middle East. We are equally convinced that peace cannot be achieved on the basis of anything less than a binding, irrevocable commitment by the parties to live together in peace. "Failing a settlement, an agreement on the limitation of the shipment of arms to the Middle East might help to stabilize the situation. We have indicated to the Soviet Union, without result, our willingness to enter such discussions. "In addition to our talks on the Middle East, we hope soon to begin talks with the Soviet Union on the limitation of strategic arms. There is no more important task before us. The date we propose for the opening of talks has passed for lack of response. We remain ready to enter negotiations." -5-

Mr Nilsson, Sweden (A/PV.1T5T at pages "It is deeply regrettable that it has not yet been possible to carry out the decision on the crisis in the Middle East, which the

Security Council took in its resolution of 22 November 196?. The peoples in the area continue to live in a condition of political tension, military actions and counter-actions, entailing the risk of serious

repercussions also outside the area. This is possibly the risk which

has made the four great Powers conduct negotiations on a method to carry out the decision of the Security Council and in this way to facilitate the task of the special representative of the Secretary-General. The day the four great Powers will reach agreement on such a method, the parties must take it fully into account. The efforts of the four Powers deserve our support."

Mr. Mercado Jarrin. Peru (A/PV.175T at page "The situation in the Middle East heads the list of problems submitted for consideration. In this, as in other fields, compliance

with the resolutions of the United Nations is indispensable, as are also mutual respect among nations, the cessation of all hostilities, the search for a peaceful settlement, the abandonment of all expansionist aims or religious wars and the duty to adjust national will to the imperatives of human rights without which the just and lasting peace we all desire cannot be obtained." -6-

Mr Holyoake, New Zealand (A/PV.1757 at page 62): "And it is true that in any stocktaking of our world we see warfare, violence and bloodshed on a massive scale, in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

(A/PV.1757 at pages 66-67) "The most obvious and tragic example of the powerlessness of the United Nations to keep the peace is the drifting and dangerous Middle East conflict. There is no situation in which United Nations

involvement is closer, no situation in which the challenge to the Organization is greater or more immediate. We believe it is imperative

that increasing efforts be made to reduce the violence and to find a way towards a peaceful settlement of this conflict. My Government supports wholeheartedly every effort to establish peace and security in that region. "There are two aspects of the present situation in the Middle East which give my Government special concern. Ve think it would be horrifying and intolerable if the dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbours were to spawn calculated terror throughout the world. There is some evidence of this. No reasonable person can accept the hijacking of civilian airliners and the destruction of property, with the ever-

present threat of loss of innocent lives of people from countries far

distant from the Middle East. ¥e believe that this kind of activity

is bound to recoil on the heads of the organizations responsible for it. The other aspect which New Zealand sees as being particularly harmful would be any attempt - by either side - deliberately to arouse or inflame -7-

religious feelings as a means of heightening the tensions and hatreds that may exist."

Mr. Eban. Israel (A/PV.1T5T at pages J6 and 77): "Since the invasion of Czechslovakia; in South-East Asia by the continued fighting in Viet-Nam; in North-East Asia by ominuous lightning flashes on the Russian-Chinese border; in the Middle East by the formal and effective Egyptian denunciation of the cease-fire; in Africa by the agony of millions in the Biafran region of Nigeria. "Now, the Security Council was able to do nothing about the invasion of Czechslovakia; it has had nothing to say about the war in Viet-Nam; it has not addressed itself to the misery of millions of West Africans caught up in a fate of bloodshed and starvation. It has been silent on the open repudiation by the United Arab Republic of its own cease-fire resolution in the Middle East. It has done nothing yet about the growth of piracy in the air. It has been silent about the macabre gallows on which scores of victims have been publicly throttled in the streets of Baghdad; it has had to listen indulgently to the effort of some Arab States to launch an outrageous campaign of religious incitement, reminiscent of the dark ages, in gleeful exploitation of the deplorable Al Aqza fire. It has been willing, it has been able, as in previous years, to adopt resolutions about the Middle East, and this on two conditions alone: that the texts be acceptable to the Arab States, and -8-

that they contain no word of specific criticism about the policies of actions of Arab Governments which have led to the murder of our citizens and an overt threat to assassinate our State. One third of the Security Council's members are States whose diplomatic relations and sentimental predilections are exclusively confined to one side of the Middle Eastern dispute; yet this is the only dispute with which the

Council deals.

(A/PV.1757 at pages 78-80) "... I suggest that United Nations Day, which falls on 2k October, should this year be proclaimed as a Day of universal cease-fire. On that day armed action should be halted all over the world; in Viet-Nam and in Nigeria; along the Soviet-Chinese border; in all parts of Africa and across all the cease-fire lines in the Middle East. "It is especially in the Middle East during the past year that the roar of guns has been constant and no calm dialogue has been heard. Nothing has gone as rational men expected. In September 1967 the Arab Governments took a united decision to refuse negotiation; to withhold recognition; to reject peace; and to avoid the determination of secure and agreed boundaries with Israel. This graceless policy has since been maintained and reiterated with a tenacity worthy of a higher end. Indeed, there has not yet been any conceptual or political retrest by President Nasser from his attempt in May 1967 to bring about Israel's destruction by strangling encirclement and sudden blocade. -9-

"Those dramatic events of the summer of 196? should not be lost from international memory. To forget them is to renounce all understanding of the Middle Eastern reality today. Israel will preserve an eternal and unfading image of the peril and solitude in which it then stood. We live intimately with that recollection. We brood upon it day and night. For it was only by an exceptional vigilance, by independent responsibility and cruel sacrifice that we avoided a disaster which would have ended our people's historic journey and weighted forever on the conscience of mankind. Whenever the summer months come by we shall remember how everything that we loved and cherished seemed likely to be swept into the flames of war and massacre.

We knew that without victory there would be no survival. We recall the silence and apathy with which the Security Council, between one adjournment and the next, calmly observed the only attempts in modern history to wipe a sovereign State off the map of the earth. We shall not forget how the declarations, hopes, expectations, understandings, promises, commitments on which Israel had sometimes been advised to rely for its security proved, in the event, fragile and illusory. We shall, of course, remember how the conscience of free men everywhere was roused on Israel's behalf in deep anguish of spirit - but in total impotence. And with the memory of the dark long shadows there will go the recollection of how, in desparate valour and perfect rectitude, we tore the strangling fingers from our throats. "After all, a people which still remembers its revolts against ancient tyrannies is not likely to forget the sharper danger and the larger deliverance which it lived two and a half years ago. It is a moment that -10-

vill linger and shine in the national memory forever - an incomparable moment that will move all Israel to its ultimate generations. And from that memory flows duty and resolve. It is our duty and our resolve to ensure that such perils shall never recur. Never can we return to the political anarchy and the physical and territorial vulnerability which nearly brought about our doom. "Now two years and three months ago the United Nations, which had not been able to give Israel aid in its predicament, did rally its moral energies in order to give judgement on three central issues. It was a negative judgement, but of great significance. It refused to condemn the righteous resistance by which Israel had pulled itself back from the threshold of destruction. It repeatedly dismissed by its votes the ridiculous Soviet and Arab charge that Israel's refusal to perish should be defined as "aggression". And it rejected all proposals for restoring the situation which had led to one war and which would, if reproduced, lead inexorably to another. "Thus, the discussions held here two years ago amounted to an implied but incisive criticism of the Arab hostility which had beset Israel for two decades - and which has still not been renounced. World opinion rejected solutions based on a return to the explosive situation'of early June 1967. Voices from all continents echoed that rejection. An African statesman, the Foreign Minister of the Ivory Coast, summarized the issues in three short sentences: "To preach a return to the political status quo in the area is tantamount to adopting subterfuges which -11-

will lead us inevitably back to brutal reality. the conflict of Israel and the Arab vorld can be settled solely by negotiated solutions. Once the dialogue begins, solutions can be found". "Since then representatives of diverse traditions and cultures have raised their voices in favour of a new and stable regional order; against the illusion that there could be changes in the cease-fire lines except in the context of peace; in favour of establishing agreed permanent boundaries and other arrangements ensuring security from terror and war; against the ambiguities of an obsolete armistice; in favour of a permanent peace to be duly agreed and contractually confirmed.

"This then is our position. The road back to the explosive and fragile armistice situation is closed, but the path leading forward to peace is wide open. Our business is to ensure that a new story of co-operation and progress, never heard or told before, shall not be enacted in the history of the Middle East.

"But, unfortunately, the Arab policies in the past twelve months have been designed to close such horizons from view. If we ask ourselves why there has been no progress towards peace in the past year, we come back to the simple fact that there has been no negotiation. In international disputes the existence of negotiations does not ensure success; but the absence of negotiations is an iron guarantee of failure. The principle "no negotiation with Israel" proclaimed at Khartoum in 19&7, repeated ever since and maintained with total obduracy stands out as an in superable barrier to peace. -12-

(A/PV.1T57 at pages 86-103) "It was made clear in the Security Council that secure and recognized "boundaries have never existed in the Middle East or in any of the engagements of the parties towards each other. Therefore, they must be fixed "by the parties themselves as part of the peace-making process. "... Every possible substitute for normal negotiating procedure has been tried: special sessions of the General Assembly; regular sessions of the General Assembly; meetings of the Security Council; separate encounters of the United Nations Representative with some Middle Eastern Governments; talks between four permanent members of the Security Council; consultations between two permanent members of the Security Council - all these techniques and devices have been tried - and nothing has moved forward. Surely if those involved in all this activity have not found an effective substitute for negotiation, it is not through lack of perseverance or skill; it is simply because no such substitute exists. So after these twenty-eight months, I come back to repeat with increased conviction what I said to the Arab Governments at this rostrum in June 196?: "You have chosen repeatedly to meet us in the arena of battle. You cannot refuse to meet us at the negotiating table". "The absence of negotiation, of course, during the past twelve months is only the symptom of a wider alienation. Organized hostility towards Israel has been methodically intensified. It has taken three forms: First, the cease-fire concluded in pursuance of the Security Council's resolution -13-

of 6 June 196? has "been constantly violated and subsequently denounced. The formal denunciation took place in the address by President Nasser on 23 July this year, vhen he said: "The cease-fire cannot "be eternal ... and we now have to fight. We are now "beginning the work of liberation. The six- day war has not ended. The two-year war, the three-year war, the four-year war has begun". "Second, the Arab Governments which have not denounced the cease-fire consider themselves in some cases entitled to pursue armed conflict through the terrorist organizations. The actions of terrorist groups are not a consequence of the 196? war; they were one of its main causes. The problem has nothing essentially to do with the fact that Israel is administering large areas under a cease-fire arrangement. The terrorist assaults came before the June 1967 war, and they would be renewed with far more devastating and perhaps fatal results if Israel were to move from the cease-fire lines before and without the establishment of peace, which, of course, it is under no obligation to do. The nature and quality of these groups are revealed by the methods which they employ: a bomb is thrown into a supermarket filled with housewives doing their shopping; a hand-grenade is diabolically placed in a university cafeteria; a car laden with dynamite is introduced into a crowded market place where humble people transact the simple business of their lives; civilian aircraft are kidnapped or attacked on the ground in exploitation of their incomparable culnerability. All this activity has no durable political effects. Israel's existence is not affected by it. Not a single -14-

inch of the cease-fire territory changes hands as a result of it. Thus the murder of innocent men, women and children becomes not a means to an end, "but an end in itself - a dead-end leading nowhere except to tdtterness and rancour. If anything, Israel's resolve never to change the cease-fire lines except by permanent peace and in favour of agreed boundaries becomes more passionate than ever. "What is threatened is not the existence of Israel but the prospects of peace. The ideal and objective of these organizations is that peace must be banished from the life and prospect of the Middle East. What they do is consistent with what they want. Their mission is not liberation but the destruction of the liberty which a small nation has already won, and the enslavement of the Middle East to a destiny of hate and war.

"Third, the repudiation of the cease-fire and the growth of terrorist activity have been crowned by a recent innovation: hostility to Israel has burst out of the limits which have restricted the techniques of war in all but the most hideous and extreme conflicts. After all, war with all its cruelity and inhumanity is unfortunately the work of human beings. It has only in rare cases been conducted without any inhibition. Today we find Arab organizations, supported by Governments, destroying these civilized restraints. They carry out revolting public hangings in Baghdad streets. They maintain an unbridled religious incitement worthy of the most bigoted phases of the Middle Ages. They involve neutral States in their own savagery and they add a new element by allotting a. role to children.

"When a million of our children were murdered two and a half decades ago, that was held to be the ultimate enormity. Today we see a new refinement: -15-

the training of children to be murderers in a cause remote from their understanding and judgement. "And so at the worst moments of rancour and alienation, we and others have hoped vainly for a future better than the past. We now find Arab leaders projecting their belligerency into the coming generation; a violent anti-Jewish racialism now dominates the Arab educational movement and it spills over into every street. "I stress these points because wars have their origin in the soil of ideas. When President Nasser speaks in August 19&9, a ^ew weeks ago, of the necessity to "purify" Palestine by armed force, he proves that his mind is still faithful to the concepts by which he disrupted the Middle Eastern structure in May 1967 - "to purify Palestine". He talks as though he is appointed by destiny to cleanse the Middle East from some defilement. Where does that language come from? Where have we heard it before? What memories does it evoke? "The military and diplomatic consequences of such virulent ideas are now evident. The military results have been the denunciation of the cease- fire. The indulgence and support of attacks by irregular units and the transference of the fighting to the soil of other countries. When Arab Governments shelter and sponsor those who carry out or plan violent actions in the territories of Greece, Italy, Switzerland, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, the Philippines, and the Federal Republic of Germany, or when those Governments fail to condemn and suppress those actions, they show contempt not only for Israel's sovereignty but for the sovereignty of European and -16-

and other countries as well. They also adopt methods and arenas of

combat in which Israel, in accordance with its own conceptions of international

civility, is unwilling to make any identical response. So much for the military story. "The diplomatic history can be more briefly told. In October 1968 the United Arab Republic, followed by other Arab States, broke off contact with Israel through the Jarring mission in New York. In April 19&9 *ne Arab Governments, led by the United Arab Republic, formally outlined their policies in written replies to Ambassador Jarring. In its text, the United Arab

Republic, while professing to accept the Security Council's resolution of

22 November 19^7, refuses to abandon belligerency unless the armistice lines

of 1967 are totally restored, whereas there is, of course, no resolution seeking the restoration of those lines. "The United Arab Republic's reply abstains from specifically acknowledging Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free

from acts or threats of force. Cairo accepts that right for what it calls "every State" - a phrase which in Egyptian practice and doctrine has never included Israel. "It will be recalled that In October 1956, and many times thereafter, Egypt agreed to give free passage in the Suez Canal for every State in the world. Now, what did that mean? "Every State in the world" has meant every State, except for the eternal exception. "The Egyptian reply ignores the injunction to seek agreement with Israel - although this is the operative part of the resolution - and the United Arab Republic says that the "secure and recognized boundaries" for -17-

Israel are those vhich Arab violence swept away in 19^7 and "The Egyptian reply declines to specify that the freedom of navigation prescribed by the Security Council resolution includes freedom of navigation

for Israel. Egypt deliberately avoids response to Mr JarringTs question whether it understands the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba to be

international waterways open to Israel, and not merely to what Cairo calls "all States". "Finally, the United Arab Republic declines to conclude and sign treaties with Israel establishing peace by reciprocal consent. It is prepared to conclude agreements with the Security Council - with which the United Arab Republic is not at war, with which it does not have a common boundary, and in which Israel's cause cannot be defended or sustained.

Nowhere is there any acknowledgement that the relations between the Arab States and Israel are governed not only by a Security Council text, which Cairo interprets as compatible with the Khartoum decisions, but also by the established norms and principles of international law relating to the duties of States and to the transition from war to peace. "Now, the suspension of the Jarring mission came in April this year. There has been no forward movement since then. Consultations between the permanent members of the Security Council have, predictably, given no

results. The Soviet Union has not been willing to deviate from the Arab position or to accept the view advanced by the United States that direct meetings between Israel and its neighbours are essential at some stage, if agreement is to be reached. -18-

"Thus the Arab position, in our eyes, amounts to this: that Israel should give up its security, without obtaining a genuine, normal, stable, irrevocable binding peace. "Wow, we shall do no such thing. After twenty-one years of siege, and thousands of years of struggle to maintain and preserve an identity, we cannot put Israel's existence under a mark of interrogation which hovers over no other nation^ least of all over the Arab nation, in its fourteen

States and its continental expanse.

"The question is whether we can now break out of the deadlock into a humane and rational order of relations. To this problem my colleagues and

I in the Israel Government have given renewed attention in recent days. I wish to take the General Assembly into the knowledge and understanding of our views. "The first priority belongs to the renewal and reinforcement of the cease-fire. Now, the cease-fore, as proposed by the Security Council was voluntarily accepted by the Arab States as well as by Israel in June 1967. Its acceptance served an Arab interest then, just as its renewal would be in their interest as well as in ours now. The cease-fire resolution was unconditional; it was not limited in time or scope. No diplomatic effort can prosper without a complete and unconditional cease-fire. United Nations observers, for all their effort and sacrifice, cannot help to maintain a cease-fire if the leading Arab Government regards it as null and void. "I propose on Israel's behalf that each of the Governments which accepted

the cease-fire resolution of 6 June 1967 should now pledge anew its strict -19-

adherence to its terms. But the maintenance of the cease-fire requires practical measures to give it effect. I therefore propose further that authorized military representatives of the forces facing each other across the cease-fire lines should meet in order to work out effective arrangements for strict and reciprocal observance. This proposal is in full conformity with many United Nations precedents. "But while the prevention of war is our most urgent task, this does not exhaust our duty. The consolidation of the cease-fire should be followed, and indeed accompanied, by a purposeful effort to promote a lasting peace. The States of the Middle East should declare their readiness to establish permanent peace, to liquidate their twenty-one-year-old conflict, and to negotiate detailed agreements on all the matters at issue between them. "In a communication to Ambassador Jarring on 2 April 1969 Israel included all these undertakings. It also declared that: "... it accepts the Security Council resolution 2^2 calling

for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace to be reached by negotiation and agreement between the Governments concerned. Implementation of agreements should begin when agreement has been concluded on all their provisions". "In disaussing the arrangements, the venue and the agenda for negotiations, we could make full use of the good offices of Ambassador Jarring. Twenty years ago Israel and the Arab States found it possible to devise -20- agreed arrangements for meeting in order to negotiate and sign peace treaties? Let us, the Foreign Ministers of Israel and the Arab States take advantage of our simultaneous presence, and that of Ambassador Jarring, here in New York in order to begin this work here - and in order to begin it nov. "Let me make clear that Israel is prepared to negotiate without prior conditions of any kind; it does not seek any advance acceptance by Arab Governments of its own proposals. And the word "non-negotiable" is not a part of Israel's vocabulary.

"You ask: What can be discussed and proposed in these negotiations? I answer: Everything.

"You ask: What is excluded from discussion? I answer: Nothing.

"In the negotiations, we shall of course define where our vital and indispensable interests lie. But once negotiations begin, the participants must commit themselves to its fortunes; and their task will be not merely to state positions, but also to try to bring them into harmony. "Israel does not claim exclusive or unilateral jurisdiction in the Holy Places of Christianity and Islam in Jerusalem, and is willing to discuss this principle with those traditionally concerned. There is a versatile range of possibilities for working out a status for the Holy Places in such a manner as to promote Middle Eastern peace and ecumenical harmony. In the meantime, our policy is that the Moslem and Christian Holy Places should always be under the responsibility of those who hold them sacred. This principle has been in practical effect since 1967• "Instead of cease-fire lines or armistice lines, we should establish secure, recognized and agreed boundaries as part of the peace-making -21-

process, and dispose armed forces in full accordance with the boundaries to be determined in the peace treaties. It is important to break away from the temporary territorial concepts vhich have prevailed since 19^8 in order to develop, for the first time, a permanent structure of boundaries and security agreements. "A central weakness of Foreign Minister Gromyko's assertion this morning is that he totally ignored the need - fully supported by international law - to reach agreement between Israel and each contiguous Arab State on the determination of secure and mutually agreed boundaries of peace. "Wow, there is no need to be apologetic about the doctrine that peace boundaries are different from armistice lines. The Arab Governments wrote into our 19^-9 Agreements a provision stating "... that the armistice lines may not be interpreted as political or territorial boundaries, and that these boundaries remain to be worked out by agreement in the transition to peace". "¥e are now embarked on that transition. Israel in this matter is not in a position of juridical defence. Indeed, in their letter to Ambassador

Jarring of April 19^9, the United Arab Republic and Jordan interpreted the term "secure and recognized boundaries" as something different from the armistice lines of k June 19^7. If they interpret the difference in one direction, others can interpret it in another; and the only solution is to submit the problem to the process of negotiation and agreement. "In conditions of peace, the people of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs on both sides of the Jordan would be living as citizens of sovereign States in accordance with the boundary agreed to and concluded under the peace. -22-

But the Inherent geogopolitical unity of this region argues in favour of an open frontier such as that now emerging within the European community and in other regional structures. The freedom of movement and commerce which has evolved in that area should be confirmed and broadened under the peace by applying the community principle to the peoples who live on both sides of the Jordan and to both of the negotiating States. It should be possible to reconcile our separate sovereignties with our common regional interests. "We propose that a. conference of Middle Eastern States should be convened, together with the Governments contributing to refugee relief and the specialized agencies of the United Nations, in order to chart a five-year plan under regional and international responsibility for the solution of the refugees into productive life. In view of the humanitarian urgencies, such a conference need not await the negotiation of any other issue.

"Those are our positions. Those are the positions to which Mr. Gromyko, in an unusual expression of humour, referred this morning as "Israel's obstruction of peace".

"Surely the States of the Middle East, by virtue of the independence which they have sought and won, must see the promotion of peace as their won autonomous responsibility. It is anachronistic for them to cast their eyes outward in the hope that a peace settlement can be manufactured and imported ready-made from outside. The peace must be built by Israeli and Arab hands, for it is Israeli and Arab lives which are at stake. We expressed out scepticism and reserve about diplomatic processes which were undertaken early this year with the effect of removing the initiative and responsibility of peace-making -25-

Mr. Pinera. Chile (A/PV.1T58 at page 1*8): "My specific motion was that the item to "be discussed in plenary meetings should include the problem of the Development Decade, side by side with the most important items taken up in plenary: the human environment, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, that great victory of mankind, whose tenth anniversary will be celebrated soon; the Middle East, a question which is of concern to us all; the question of Namibia, also a tragic problem because the Assembly, by a virtually unanimous resolution — with only two votes against — truly described its seriousness. "Therefore, together with these major issues in plenary meetings — independence of colonial countries, Namibia, the Middle East — there should also appear the item of the Second Development Decade."

Mr. Raouf. Iraq (A/PV.1T58 at pages 6k to 68): "I am not going to deal now with the travesty of facts and logic in his approach to the situation in the Middle East resulting from the Israeli aggression and occupation of the territories of three Member States of the United Nations, and from the Israeli persistent denial of the basic rights of the Palestinians to homeland and nationhood. There will be another occasion to expose this. I should like, therefore, to confine myself now to only two of Mr. Eban's assumptions and would express the hope that the totality of the membership of this Organization will not let them go unchallenged.

"Mr. Eban, in his now customary distortion of facts, attempted to project the genuine grief and concern felt by Muslims all over the world -2k-

in the wake of the "burning of Al Aqsa Mosque as a result of "incitement" by the Arab States. No more grievous insult than that could he levelled against the feelings of Muslims and the intelligence of an audience. Yet, in a remarkable application of double standards, Mr. Eban, in his usual flowery

language, attempted to arouse passions in his challenge of the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to prosecute some of its nationals in accordance with the law. In the course of his lengthy speech, he elaborated on what he called "the persecution of Jews in the Arab world", citing as

an example the execution of court sentences in respect of Iraqi nationals who, in due process of the law, had been found guilty of spying for Israel. He did not mention them all — only the Jews among them. Which brings me to his first assumption. His invocation of humanity can in no way hide the political motive behind his reference: and that is the extension by Israel of some kind of extra-territorial jurisdiction over Jews in other nations. Now, that is not a novel practice by Israel. In

fact, the whole concept of the foundation of Israel was based on the cabal- istic assumption of the Zionists that Jews, wherever they may be, owe

allegiance only to the State of Israel, and, accordingly, only Israel could

exercise sovereign jurisdiction over them. What would the principles of international law be if the United Nations allowed that assumption to pass? "It was natural for Mr. Eban to disown those Iraquis — Jews, Muslims and Christians — who had been found guilty of espionage for Israel. We did not expect him to admit the guilt of his Government — at least, not immediately. But in the face of his vehement denial of any connexion between them and Israel, and his categorical disclaimer of any responsibility, I -25- should like to remind him of what Dana Adams Schmidt wrote in the Sunday issue of The New York Times, of 31 August 19^9, "barely three weeks ago. I quote:

"The Israelis frequently boast about the excellence of their intelligence in the Arab ¥orld, and the accuracy of some of their

bombing during June 1967 war suggests that the boasts are not idle. "In 1955 Egyptian counter intelligence detected a group of young Egyptian Jews whom Israeli intelligence had employed to plant an incendiary bomb in the United States Information Center in Alexandria with the intention of undermining United States-Egyptian relations. The famous Lavon affair, which pitted David Ben Gurion against Pinhas Lavon on the Israeli political scene, ensued. "One of the members of that early group of young Egyptian Jews who escaped was Elie Cohen. Israeli intelligence carefully prepared him for an espionage role by sending him to Argentina where he posed as a Syrian immigrant. Playing the role of a 'returning' Syrian, he then established himself in Damascus, an eminently successful businessman, it seemed, with ample means, who penetrated the highest circles of Syrian society. Since his apprehension and conviction in 19&5 he has been celebrated in Israel as a hero.

"Before that, Lebanon had the Shula Cohen affair — a Jewish

woman who was convicted for running a spy ring and is now in prison.

"The problems of Iraq were probably complicated by the fact that until 1958 she remained a pro-Western State in which Israel and the Western powers found it easier than elsewhere to establish contacts." -26-

"Needless to say, in each of those and other cases, Israel, and Mr. Eban himself, denied at the time that those individuals were Israeli spies — only to come later and acknowledge them with boastful pride. The pattern has not changed this time. We shall await the time when streets in Israel are named after the Iraqi spies — or at least those of them of the Jewish faith. "In his attempt to exculpate the Iraqis who have "been convicted of espionage for Israel, and to deny any connexion between them and Israel, Mr. Eban does not only aim at exonerating his Government from any responsibility, but he also — and in a typically insidious fashion, attempts to give validity to his second assumption: that is, that Jews, by virtue of being Jews, must be above and beyond the due process of the law of any country. "It will be observed how those two assumptions of Mr. Eban are interdependent. Ey establishing the assumption that Israel has a particular relationship with Jews of other nationalities, and by extending Israel extra-territoriality to those Jews, Mr. Eban would establish that Jews all over the world are, sui generis, subject to no other jurisdiction except that of Israel — even the jurisdiction of their own countries. And by claiming that dual allegiance of Jews, Mr. Eban wants to give the impression that Jews all over the world are suspect in the eyes of the law of any country. "The international community should totally and categorically reject that. As far as Iraq is concerned, Iraqi laws do not recognize any distinction between Iraqis because of race, sex or religion; all Iraqis are equal under -27- the law, and, accordingly, no Iraqi can claim any particular exemption from the due process of the lav, whether he be Muslim, Christian or Jew. If Israel feels any particular responsibility towards Jews of other nationalities, especially the Iraqi Jews, then the least expected of it is not to expose them to the hazards of betraying their own country."

Mr. Rosenne, Israel (A/PV.1758 at pages 68 to 72): "In reply to the statement we have just heard, may I say — and I hope I will keep within the limits of the ten-minute rule which the General Assembly has just adopted — that incitement to religious hatred by Arab States has been adequately exposed in the recent debates in the Security Council, and I shall not take up the time of the General Assembly by repeating them here. In due course, however, we shall take this matter up in the proper context, when we shall also detail Iraq's part in it. I would say now, however, that Iraq's general record on the treatment of minorities, including certain Moslem minorities in that country, is well known and is amply documented in the public record, especially in that of the League of Nations. "If I understood what the representative of Iraq was saying, he was really complaining about the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel, when he yesterday enumerated how the prospects for peace in the Middle East were being threatened, referred specifically to the revolting public hangings which have recently taken place in the streets of Baghdad. With all that he has said, the representative of Iraq has not denied the facts. If he does not think that "revolting" is the appropriate way of describing public hangings — after secret so-called trials — of innocent victims of the dictatorial instability of the Iraqi regime, that is his -28- business. I have no doubt at all what all right-minded persons in this hall and the world over think about that.

"Now Iraq is encouraging mere youngsters in their early teens to train for and engage in indiscriminate killing and bomb-throwing in European cities far away from the Middle East. It is encouraging them and it is giving them asylum. This is the contribution of Iraq to the participation of youth in national development. This is the contribution of Iraq to the advancement of human rights, to the administration of justice and to the education and development of the young. This is the contribution of Iraq to the law of asylum. I am sure that the appropriate Committees and Commissions would wish to take note of this when they come to deal with the items on their agendas. "But above all, this is the contribution of Iraq to the restoration of permanent peace in the Middle East for the shattering of which Iraq bears such a heavy responsibility. "Here I wish to recall to the General Assembly that it is already a matter of common knowledge in the Security Council that the acceptance of the cease-fire ordered by the Security Council in June 1967 by Iraq was at best equivocal and ambiguous — if it was real at all — as we have pointed out several times in formal communications which have been circulated to the Security Council.

"The main argument — if that is what it can be called — which the representative of Iraq repeated today, not for the first time, was that these trials and public hangings were a domestic matter for the Government of Iraq. That is the same argument that we were hearing thirty and thirty- five years ago from Hitler and Goebbels and from the other mentors of -29- of modern advocates and practitioners of racial and religious discrimination and hatred, which the United nations is pledged to eradicate. "The United Nations is well aware of the fact that a legalistic and formal attitude on the question of domestic jurisdiction — to which defendant Governments so frequently have resort — is not what the Charter of the United Nations envisages. Nor is the position which the representative of Iraq just took consistent with an earlier position which he took this very morning in connexion with the adoption of the agenda. The Charter, learning from the Nazi experience, does not envisage the domestic jurisdiction argument when a Government's ostensibly internal activities constitute a threat to international peace. "My delegation will also deal at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place with all the other fantasies and canards which we have just heard and which do not relate to anything that Mr. Eban said yesterday." - 300-

Mr. Rifa'i. Jordan (A/PV.1759 at pages 16 to 30): "The Middle East is one such case. There, certainly as a result of twenty-one years of indifference, the United Nations finds itself today more impotent, more entangled, and more tragically remote from ensuring justice and peace than ever. For over two years now, the United Nations has been witnessing an unveiled and ruthless foreign occupation of the national soil of three Member States of the United Nations as a result of a premeditated armed aggression. For over two years, substantial parts of Jordan, the United Arab Republic and Syria have been under occupation. The occupied areas undergo physical destruction and changes, including

the holiest spot, where the world's most cherished shrines are located. Villages in the occupied areas have been bulldozed by the occupying forces and obliterated. Masses of people have been dispossessed, expelled from their homes, arrested, insulted, tortured or terrorized. The social, cultural and economic life of the civilian population under occupation has been disrupted and shattered. Israeli military arrogance has expressed

itself in daily shelling and bombardment against the civilian population

beyond the cease-fire areas. The Israeli authorites have deliberately defied all efforts of the United Nations to intervene effectively or use- fully on behalf of justice and peace. The mission of the Secretary- General's Special Representative, empowered and authorized by the Security Council, was fully obstructed by Israeli intransigence. The Security Council resolution attempting to outline a balanced solution to the problem was ignored and flouted. The attempt of the permanent members of the

Security Council to study the problem and prevent further deterioration into all-out war, was bitterly opposed. The rapid escalation of Israeli - 51 - demands went along with the escalating expressions of their determination to retain the occupied areas, and finalize their annexation. The continuing measures of absorbing or "de-Arabizing" the areas occupied proved "beyond any doubt that Israel -wanted the Jarring mission and the procedural dialectic it continued to propose to be a mere umbrella behind which expansion and annexation could be conveniently achieved. Professing peace verbally for propaganda purposes, Israel continued to sabotage peace on the ground. "In the meantime, a part of the international community has, unfortunately, fallen into the serious error of dwelling on how to work out a political settlement between the Arab States and Israel, but forgetting the fundamental issue, which violates the Charter of the United Nations and all rules and norms of present international life. The issue — the real issue — in the present Middle East crisis is Israel's military occupation of the national soil of three Member States and the Israeli armed aggression which continues to exist in defiance of world demands and pronouncements. To portray the problem as being the difficulty of how to arrive at an agreement between Israel and the Arab States is indeed a grave error which amounts to an endorsement of the state of aggression which continues to exist. "Yet, on our part, we have not been unaware of the sad facts in today's international life. ¥e have also been fully conscious of our own responsibility towards peace in our own region. ¥e have, therefore, respected the decision of the international community and accepted the Security Council resolution of 22 November 19^7 on the problem, and sincerely co-operated in the efforts for its implementation. We have understood it as it was intended to be: a resolution providing for ending the occupation, ensuring -withdrawal of the occupying forces, and establishing a just and lasting peace. Israel, on its part, has made every effort to distort the intent of the resolution and obstruct its implementation. Allow me to give you some instances of such attempts. "Israel has taken the position of conditioning withdrawal upon the establishment of so-called agreed boundaries, thus completely violating the terms and the spirit of the resolution, and suggesting clearly that it is attempting to gain Arab territory beyond the lines of h June 196?. What the Foreign Minister of Israel said in this regard in this hall on 15

October last, and repeated several times thereafter, represented a policy destructive to the hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement. "His theory about withdrawal — a word that he never utters — shows clearly that an establishment of the lines to which withdrawal may take place is subject to the agreement of Israel, or indeed to its veto. Since Israel is an occupying force, this means that it can stay in occupation in the event any proposed boundaries do not satisfy its territorial

designs. This Israeli position, which is a basic impediment to the achievement of any progress in the efforts towards peace, has repeatedly

been emphasized and affirmed by Israeli official spokesmen. "In this connexion let me stress that any interpretation of the No- vember resolution which confines Israeli withdrawal to boundaries to be established by an agreement of the parties introduces language and a meaning alien to the resolution. It serves to undermine the basic principle of non-acquisition of territory by armed force.

"As long as this position stands, there is no hope for success in achieving a peaceful settlement. Likewise, a clear commitment on complete - 33 - withdrawal is an essential and indispensable prerequisite for any construc-

tive future steps on the road to peace. It is unfortunate that this Israeli position has found a way into some other minds. The attitude of the United States, as far as we know, on this most important point has not made it possible for the talks of the four Powers to bear fruitful results. "I feel I should explain to this august body our position on one or two other subjects, compared with that of Israel, in order to show how positive our position has "been, and how negative and obstructive has been the Israeli stand.

"On 2k March 19&9 I sent to Ambassador Gunnar Jarring my written answers to his questions of 8 March on certain specific matters. Regarding

his question whether Jordan would accept the establishment of demilitarized zones as a guarantee of the territorial inviolability and political independence of the States in the area, I gave the following reply on behalf of my Government: "We do not believe that the establishment of demilitarized zones is a necessity. However, Jordan will not oppose the establishment of such zones if they are astride the boundaries." And I added:

"In case demilitarized zones are established, Jordan accepts that such zones be supervised and maintained by the United Nations." "Against this clear written reply, the answer of 2 April by the Israeli Foreign Minister, which was then made known, was vague and evasive. Mr. Eban said: "The effective guarantee for the territorial inviolability and political independence of States lies in the strict observance by the Governments of their treaty obligations. In the context of peace providing for full respect for the sovereignty of States and the establishment of agreed boundaries, other security measures may be discussed by the contracting Governments." "Here again, on this point, the position of the United States lacked objectivity. It offered a proposal to establish the demilitarized zones envisaged by the resolution exclusively on the Arab side. It suggested that demilitarized zones should be established consisting of the territory from which Israel withdrew. If this should mean anything, it should mean that military occupation is to be rewarded. "On the question of the 'refugees1, the people who own nearly every bit of the soil on which Israel itself has been established, and the people who were driven out by force of arms, Jordan took a very natural and reasonable position. ¥e made it clear that a just settlemtnt of the refugee problem was embodied in paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution

19^ (ill) of 11 December 19^8, which has been reaffirmed repeatedly at each and every session of the Assembly since its adoption. Every year the General Assembly has emphasized the right of the Palestinian Arabs to repatriation and compensation. In our reply to Mr. Jarring we added that if a plan on the basis of that paragraph were presented to the parties concerned, its acceptance by the parties and the declaration of their intention to implement it in good faith, with adequate guarantees for its full implementation, would make possible the implementation of the other provision of the resolution of 22 November 1967. "Israel's position was, in effect, that the successive and repeated United Nations resolutions on the Palestinian refugees should be dis- regarded and the problem reduced to one of international charity.

"We accepted each and every provision of the Security Council resolution of 22 November. We agreed to end the state of belligerency against complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from all territories occupied since

5 June 1967. And in view of our past experience with Israel, and its - 35 - renunciation of the Protocol of Lausanne of 12 May 19^9 and the four Armistice Agreements signed the same year by ti with the Arab States directly concerned, we maintain that the Security Council should be the guarantor of any instruments defining the obligations of the parties under the Security Council resolution. In view of our past experience with Israel, only such commitments as are guaranteed by the Security Council can be binding and irrevocable.

"So far, all our peaceful efforts have gone to waste. That is because

Israel does not seem to be after peace, but after territory. Every day it becomes clearer that Israel is after Arab Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Syrian Heights and substantial parts of the West Bank and Sinai. "Jerusalem is the best illustration of this fact. As early as h July 196? the General Assembly declared invalid all measures taken by Israel to annex the Holy City and called upon Israel to rescind them and to desist forthwith from taking any action- which would alter the status of

Jerusalem. This was emphasized time and again by the General Assembly and the Security Council. Both organs reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by military force.

"However, Israel chose to disregard all those resolutions. It razed to the ground whole quarters in the Holy City. It expelled secular as well as religious leaders. It forcibly evicted hundreds of Arabs to make room for Israeli immigrants. It established Israeli settlements on Arab lands. It took further legislative measures to complete its unilateral and illegal annexation of Jerusalem.

"The Security Council again, on 3 July 1969 (resolution 267 (1969) ) censured all those measures in the strongest terms. But Israel's attitude - 36 - did not change. It continued to disregard the will of the international

community and to defy the authority of the United Nations. "On 21 August 1969 the Arabs and Moslems, and the world at large, were shocked "by the news of the turning of Al Aqsa mosque. The Moslem world reacted with outrage, pain and indignation. Voices within Israel

called for the rebuilding of the Temple in place of Al Aqsa. The world today is witnessing a threat to the Holy Places in Jerusalem; a threat to a historical and cultural heritage; a threat to monuments of tolerance and faith and to international peace and security. "It was against that background that twenty-five Moslem countries Members of the United Nations asked for an urgent meeting of the Security Council, which last week adopted another strongly worded resolution against Israel (resolution 271 (1969) ). The twenty-five countries are meeting

today in Morocco at the highest level to consider the situation.

"Jordan, with the international community on its side, considers all

Israeli measures in Jerusalem invalid and illegal. Jerusalem is an integral part of my country. It is part of the occupied territory from which Israel has been called upon to withdraw. "For many centuries our people have protected and preserved, with tolerance and the utmost veneration, the Holy City and its Holy Places. Christians, Moslems and Jews enjoyed in the city of peace free access and free worship. Conflict and prejudice are new to Jerusalem. They have come with an invading and racist ideology which has disrupted the peace and tolerance of all the Holy Land in recent decades, in the name of religion, although completely alien to the noble spirit of all universal religions. When Israeli withdrawal has been effected, Jerusalem should regain its peace and tolerance. And we in Jordan will continue to make every effort to ensure freedom of access and freedom of worship to all religions and to all believers in God. "It may be asked: what are the motives for Israel's present policy? What is Israel's present strategy designed to achieve? "One can define two main features of Israel's present military and political strategy. The first is: opposing any United Nations or big- Power intervention in the problem while trying to keep the United Nations and world public opinion engaged in a game of deceptive slogans, procedural tactics and pretensions of readiness to work for peace without any genuine commitment to the requirements of peace. Im the meantime, while Israel continues to engage the United Nations in these prolonged delaying tactics, it: moves on as rapidly as it can in changing the situation on the ground, absorbing the areas under occupation and pre- paring to face the world with a new fait accompli, a new expanion. "That is why Israel has systematically avoided commitment on the substance of the Security Council resolution on complete withdrawal and on the recognition of the Arab people of Palestine. That is also why, in the meantime, it has annexed Jordanian Arab Jerusalem, planted its settlements throughout the occupied areas and gradually revealed publicly its claims to territorial expansion. With the situation as it is, the slogan of negotiations advanced by Israel is clearly meaningless. "Second, Israel's strategy has been to keep up continuous daily military attacks against the Arab countries on the other side of the cease-fire line, with no distinction between military and civilian targets. Israel has conducted daily heavy aerial and ground shelling against densely inhabited towns and villages in various parts of Jordan, killing - 38-

civilians, including women and children, using napalm and other destructive weapons. It has destroyed vital economic installations, irrigation pro- jects, canals, bridges and highways in a systematic and vicious way. The same tactics are applied against the other Arab countries directly adjacent to the occupied areas. The goal of these tactics is to put the greatest possible pressure on those Arab countries in order to force them to surrender their rights. "There can be no other analysis of Israel's strategy and policy in the past two years or more. We have ample evidence in what we see now. ¥e have ample evidence in Israel's record in the area from the days

when the Zionist nucleus in Palestine was the embryo of the would-be

Israel until this day. The present policies of Israel in the existing crisis have to be looked at in the context of years of these same tactics of phased expansion, of diverting attention within the United Nations while establishing one fait accompli after another by the use of force and at the expense of justice and the rights of the people of the area.

"Futile and unrealistic as this Israeli strategy may be, even in achieving Israel's own goals, it is only to be expected. It is not un-

derstandable, however, that some big Powers with primary responsibility for international peace and with vast interests in our area should support this Israeli strategy or find themselves powerless before it. Instead of bringing peace closer, this policy has driven peace farther away than at any time in the past. "I must refer in this regard to the recent delivery by the United States to Israel of the heaviest types of destructive weapons, the F-l*- Phantom jets after the Skyhawk fighter-bombers, at a time when Israel - 59 - occupies vast regions of the Arab countries, at a time when Israel enjoys superiority in the air and at a time when its air raids have become the order of the day. I must say that this measure on the part of the

United States can in no way be justified.

"Instead of bringing about acquiescence on the part of the Arabs — surrender of their rights under pressure — this policy has bred resistance, resentment and a revolutionary spirit engulfing all the Arab world. Re- sistance within the occupied areas and around them is vigorously growing and will not end short of restoring the rights of the people hit by aggression and occupation. The young men and women in the occupied areas who are offering their lives every day in resistance are young patriots who love their country and are willing to die for it. They have decided their ultimate destination; and, in their march to seek life through death, no authority could prevent them from reaching their destination, These gallant young men represent the spirit of the young in all the Arab countries. Occupation, injustice and outside encouragement to both do not breed surrender under the guise of realism but breed revolution. The popular explosions in the area and the increasing identification in the public eye of United States interests with Israeli aggression reflect that fact. "The outcome of the deliberations on the crisis of the Middle East during this General Assembly session may determine the future course of events in the Middle East.

"No one would claim that the Middle East nowadays enjoys a peaceful life; yet war has been averted so far only by the hope that the decisions of the United Nations will be effective and by the hope that the Powers primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace and security will see - ho - to it that a just and peaceful settlement is reached. Once those two factors collapse, then war becomes inevitable. It may possibly be one war or a series of wars — wars of devastation. The area needs peace and construction, now war and destruction. "The Israeli air raids that are daily launched successively against Arab positions, towns and inhabited areas are becoming a source of pride to Israel. My country and my people, partly occupied and partly a target for daily Israeli shelling and air attacks, are determined not to yield in the defence of their right. Moreover, a new-born nation is coming out.

It is coming from amidst the ruins of the past, from the darkness of the refuge and the exile and from the ashes in which a few sparks have been left and may cause a blasting fire. I speak of the emerging children of Palestine. "In keeping up their air raids against our lands and our people, the Israelis declare that they want to give the Arabs a "lesson". Indeed, the lessons which may be useful to Israel, not to anybody else, should be those given by similar people in similar conditions where might is dying every day on the soil of freedom. After all, there shall remain one eternal fact: that it is not the force of arms which will determine the issue, as an Israeli leader once put it, but the force of right. The lesson which

Israel, and nobody else, must learn is that its grasp over the occupied Arab territories will one day dissolve. One day its reliance on its armed superiority will prove useless. One day it will wake up to see that the chance of peace it was given at a certain stage may not be given it again." Mr. Stewart. United Kingdom (A/PV.1759 at page 35): "... I say this having in mind two problems which are not problems for the future but which hang round us today, unsolved and threatening. These are Rhodesia and the Middle East."

(A/PV.1759 at pages 37 to 38) "I turn now to another and even more urgent problem, that of the Middle East. Since we all discussed it a year ago, there has been much diplomatic activity and unhappily little progress. And meanwhile there has been continuing violence. The cease-fire has in fact broken down. There have been many acts of violence in which hundreds of lives have been lost and thousands of lives have been disrupted and distorted. All this violence makes future settlement even more difficult to obtain. Yet a comprehensive political settlement is essential.

"Let me say something about the method, the form and the content of a settlement. As to method, we had hoped that the patient work of Mr.

Jarring would succeed. Certainly through no fault of his, it has not brought success. So when early in this year it was proposed that the representatives of the United States, the Soviet Union, France and the United Kingdom should meet, we gladly accepted that proposal. Since then, there have been discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Wow the view of my Government is that we should not be dogmatic as to the method of settlement. Consultations of four Powers or of two Powers, the work, in co-operation with them of Mr. Jarring, may all be helpful — and if at any stage with the help of Mr. Jarring the parties to the dispute could get into discussion, so much the better. In our view nobody ought to say, "We rule out any particular method", and nobody ought to say, "¥e insist on one method and one method alone". If at any time one method proves impossible, we must all "be prepared to try other.

"Next, as to the form of the settlement: This must place inescapable obligations on all the parties to live at peace with each other and to respect each other's frontiers, and to these obligations all parties must be manifestly and irrevocably committed. "Third, the content of a settlement: here again, we must remember the importance of respecting Security Council resolutions. The content of the settlement must put into effect all the provisions of the important resolution passed in November 19^7 — withdrawal, just and lasting peace, and indeed everything in that resolution. The problem has been to fashion from that resolution a workable package, or programme or list of parallel actions to be performed by the parties — use whatever term you please — which would ensure that all the provisions of the resolution would be

carried out. Wow surely respect for the resolution means this. That when anyone,any nation, is attempting to frame such a package he must say to himself, "I will not reject any particular -proposal merely because I think it would be distasteful to any party to the dispute to whom I may be favourable disposed. I will rather ask myself about any proposal these questions: 'Is it fair, is it workable, will it be durable, is it

in conformity with the Security Council resolution?'" This is the spirit in which anyone who attempts to play any part in solving the problem must urgently approach his task. And the parties concerned must realize that this is so; they must not expect any nation whether in four-Power or two-Power talks, or any other forum, to act merely as an advocate. They must act more constructively than that." Mr. Freeth. Australia (A/PV.1T59 at page "Some problems are particularly intractable. In this regard one thinks particularly of the Middle East, where armed warfare has been waged twice in the last fifteen years, and where sporadic guerilla fighting, infiltration, and acts of sabbotage and violence have taken place over many years. A settlement will have to provide for the acceptance, in some way, of territorial boundaries, an agreed understanding about the rights and future of refugees, recognition of rights through waterways, and protection of areas of deeper concern to three of the world's great religions."

Mr. Amiama Tib. Dominican Republic (A/PV.IT^O at page 7): "The conflict in the Middle East still holds the attention of all peace-loving countries. We must recognize that efforts have been made to put an end to that situation that at times has been explosive — as it is for instance at present. The resolution of the Security Council of

22 November 1967 should suffice for the parties to enter into the final phases of the conflict. ¥e have frequently heard it said that that is an isolated situation circumscribed to a precise area, but we recall that at present there are many tensions in many parts of the world, that peace is put to such great tests in this era of atomic and nuclear weapons that it is impossible to say when an isolated situation might lead to the extension of the conflict."

Mr. Romulo (Philippines)(A/PV.176o at page 11):

"¥e share the profound concern for the deteriorating situation in the

Middle East, where the protagonists appear to be once again on the brink of open war. ¥e have pondered this intractable problem deeply, weighing carefully in our minds and in our consciences the various solutions proposed. Mindful of the claims, the interests and the aspirations of both sides, and considering them in the context of the common need for the restoration of peace with justice in that troubled area, we maintain our support for the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 as the basis for an equitable settlement."

(A/FV.1760 at page 12) "...This continuing impasse, reflecting a basic disagreement between thetwo super-Powers, fosters a global climate of insecurity which makes it more difficult to settle particular disputes like those in the Middle

East and Viet-Nam."

Mr. Chalmers, Haiti (A/PV.1760 at pages 58 to 59): "The war in the Middle East, following Israel's victory after six days of fighting, has degenerated into a war of attrition being carried on against the victor by the coalition of Arab countries, and into a dis- guised holy war following the unfortunate burning of the Mosque of Al Aqsa. "But here too the Powers concerned are watching jealously over the maintenance of the present balance of power. The forces of the United Arab Republic, having been put to such a severe test when the first blow was struck, withtheir air force destroyed on the ground, have been carefully rebuilt and trained by qualified experts. As for Israel, with the delivery of new combat aircraft it has regained all its striking power. The headings and sub-headings in the newspapers all stress the will to "battle of the adversaries. "Israeli jets," says a daily of 13 September, "launched a devastating raid along the Gulf of Suez at Ras Zafarana and at Ras Ghareb"; "flames and a holy war", says another paper; "One with the nation, the Israeli army exercises a decisive influence", states a widely-read monthly publication. All of which is so much more oil thrown on. I could not fail to applaud, this year once more, the noble efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to bring peace to the

Middle East. He deserves full credit for bringing together on the problem of the Middle East the Four great Powers, permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations. The Secretary-General, in an appeal on 12 September, having enjoined the four great Powers to intensify their efforts to resotre peace, has arranged for 20 September a working dinner for the four Foreign Ministers present in New York. May it result fruitfully." -46-

Mr. Awadalla, Sudan (A/PV.1761 at pages 5 to 6):

The concept of non-alignment in international relations is to us, as an Arab country, conscious of the historic unity and destiny of the Arab people, endowed with a positive element. ¥e do not stand in the middle of the road, maintaining a position of neutrality between the imperialist camp and the socialist countries. There can be no such neutrality for us.

"We, therefore, stand united with the progressive and revolutionary forces, not only in the Arab world, but also in the world at large, acting in full awareness of the role that these forces can play in working for the happiness and prosperity of mankind.

"Among such forces we count the Palestine Revoluntionary Movement whose struggle we are pledged to support by every means at our disposal, mobilizing our resources and our people for the cause of the liberation of Palestine.

"It follows from this commitment that our relations with other States have been redefined in accordance with their attitude towards that issue.

Thus we have recognized and applauded the courageous stand of the German

Democratic Republic, which has given full recognition and support to the

Palestine liberation movement. Thus we have recognized and applauded the support of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which has declared its solidarity with the people of Palestine in their struggle for national liberation.

"The Revolutionary Government of the Democratic Republic of the

Sudan has accorded full diplomatic recognition to those Governments and maintains with them the closest and most cordial relations, ever conscious of the fact that the unity of the progressive forces of the world will eventually triumph over the forces of darkness and reaction." Mr. Awadalla. Sudan (A/PV.1761 at pages 7 to 18): "The failure of the Organization to solve the situation in the Middle East is not of recent origin; and it will continue to plague this Organiza- tion so long as it persists in ignoring the essential nature of the question of Palestine. The struggle that the Palestinians and the Arabs have "been engaged in is a struggle of the indigenous population against alien domination. "Zionist propaganda often relates its title to the land of Palestine to a legendary doraicle, going back to biblical times. It is an incontestable historical fact, however, that for 3,000 years — prior to 19^8 —

Palestine had not been once under Jewish administration. There have always been Jews in Palestine, but they represented only 9 per cent of the population by 1918. "During the time of the partition, when Israel acquired by force of arms an area two-thirds in excess of the area assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution, there were still more Arabs than Jews in Palestine. This clearly represented an intolerable situation for the

Zionists, who coveted the land of the Arabs in order to establish the Zionist State — rooted in the concept of raeial exclusiveness and intoler- ance. The people of Palestine were evacuated through campaigns of un- mitigated terror and atrocity, and the homes and lands of the Palestinians were usurped by immigrants from Europe who had no better claim to the land than a worshiper in the Kowloon Mosque of Hong Kong could have to Mecca. "Thus it was estimated, as late as 195^-, that 350 out of ^00 Jewish settlements were established on lands that had belonged to Palestinians who subsequently became refugees — those refugees that the United Nations

has reaffirmed, year after year for over two decades, should be repatriated or adequately compensated. Those are the people who have the undeniable right to the land of Palestine. Those are the people that the United Nations has abandoned to the Zionist aggressors.

"The Foreign Minister of Israel is certainly not serious in trying to base a claim to Arab land on historical considerations going back 3,000 years — that is, to 1,000 B.C. He is certainly not so naive as to try to reshape the map of the world into the form it had in 1,000 B.C. If he really thinks that that is a basis for his claim; if he considers that any people 1hat have been where thay are for less than 3,000 years can be dis-

lodged with impunity, then surely the Foreign Minister of Israel would not only lose the rostrum from which he has been displaying his eloquence, but he would be looking in vain in this part of the world for the limitless military, monetary and moral support by which a people of only 2 million

have been encouraged to defy a nation of 100 million. "The question, therefore is essentially related to the continued existence of the Palestinians as a people and their right to struggle by every means in order to maintain their national identity and uphold their inherent right to stay in their homeland. No State, no international organization, can deny them that right or ask them to disperse, or for ever live on the charity of others, as refugees. "The Zionist leaders have often suggested that the Arabs were belligerent because they challenged the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognized boundaries: as if the existence of Israel was not

based on the dispersal of the Palestinians, as if the boundaries of Israel were not extended through aggression and forceful occupation. -49-

"The Foreign Minister of Israel has often derided the Declaration of the Arab Summit at Khartoum as signifying bad faith and intransigence on the part of the Arabs because it set forth the determination of the Arab nation not to recognize or negotiate with Israel or surrender the rights of the people of Palestine to their homeland. "Let me proclaim from this rostrum that this remains the Arab position. It has not changed. Nor will the twenty years of the Israeli usurpation of

Palestine or subsequent Israeli conquests endow Israel with any rights whatsoever. The Arab States were right — and within their rights — to declare at Khartoum on 1 September 19&7 that their basic commitment and conviction entailed non-recognition of Israel, no negotiation with Israel, and no surrender of the rights of the people of Palestine. "The Israeli leaders have since indicated that they intend to retain Arab territory occupied since June 19&7. As recently as June last, Moshe Dayan proclaimed: "This is our homeland and if I say homeland I mean also Nablus and Jericho.... We consider the Golan Heights as part of Israel.... We must treat the Palestinians living on the West Bank as a government treats its citizens. They will be our citizens for a very long time." "The Foreign Minister of Israel, who maintained in his address to this Assembly on 19 September that there was nothing which was not negotiable, expressed a different and contradictory position to the Knesset when he said, in reply to a parliamentary question on 12 May 19&9: "Three demands which Israel will not waive are a permanent presence at Sharm El Sheik, a unified Jerusalem... and a Golan Heights for ever out of Syrian hands."

"It appears, therfore, that Mr. Eban has a different mantle for every occasion, since his declaration in the Knesset excludes Sharm El

Sheik, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in no uncertain terms from even -50- the possibility of negotiation.

"In the face of his strong affirmation regarding the necessity of negotiations between the Arabs and the Israelis, one might indeed ask the Foreign Minister of Israel whether he does or does not consider himself or his State bound by the resolutions of his party congress regarding the permanent retention by Israel of the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and a considerable part of the eastern and southern Sinai Peninsula. "If he does consider himself bound by these resolutions, how is it possible for him to maintain that there is nothing that is not negotiable between Israel and the Arabs? How does he want us to believe that he or his State can wriggle out of the resolutions in the drafting of which he himself took a major part? "The Palestinians have demonstrated that they do not wish to be colonized by Israel, and they have a right, like arery colonial people, to wage a war of liberation against colonial domination by Israel. They aspire to live as a free people in a free Palestine. "The people of Palestine envision a country unlike present-day Israel, which is a colony of aliens supported by world Zionism and nurtured by the United States of America and its imperialist satellites. The Palestinians entertain no claim of racial exclusiveness. They do not envisage a State based on any single religion or faith. The Palestinians see the Palestine

of the future as a State in which the. citizens are equal, without regard to race or religion; a State in which the Jewish community would be given the right to live as equal citizens, as they had always lived amongst the Arabs, free from that abominable state of persecution to which they had been subjected in Europe throughout the ages. -51-

"If this position is construed as being incompatible with the existence of the State of Israel, the fault lies with the State of Israel, which was established by an act of illegality fostered through aggression and unlawful occupation, a State in which the Arabs are treated as second-class citizens who are made to pay for sins that they never committed. "The Palestinian struggle is directed towards the achievement of a free and democratic State that does not exlude the Jews of Palestine. This

surely is an endeavour that is worthy of support, not only by the Arabs but by the United Nations itself. It is a sad reflection on this

Organization that is has not seen fit to view this dispute in its proper perspective, in order to be able to discharge its primary responsibility

in bringing about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. "The President of the United States of America declared on 27 January 1969 that he considered the Middle East "a powder-keg" that needed to be defused. He stated that he was "open to any suggestion that may cool it off and reduce the possibility of another explosion". Yet, we have witnessed during the last few months that the Government of the United States has bent every effort to support the Israeli position of continued occupation and provocation, even to the extent of supporting its defiance of the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations. "In major declarations of policy on the Middle East issue, four successive Presidents of the United States have pledged that their country would defend the right of every State in the area to peace and security and the maintenance of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. -52-

"The United States has not fulfilled that pledge. Its commitment has "been one of unreserved support of Israeli aggression. Its commitment has "been just one-sided. At the beginning of the present administration, it was proclaimed that a more even-handed policy would be followed by the Government of the United States on this issue, but in actual fact, this has been the period when Israel was enabled by the United States to maintain and even extend its aggression. The territorial integrity of all States that the United States Presidents have pledged to uphold is being violated, with the active help of the Government of the United States, in the Israeli occupation of the Arab lands.

"In this connexion, it is interesting to consider that over the past twenty years the volume of economic aid, both private and public, that has flowed from the United States into the Israeli coffers exceeded a total of $^,000 million, or about $1,200 for every one of the citizens of Israel. "Further, in the conditions that prevail in the United States of America, where the Zionists wield such an inordinate influence in business and government circles, the attempt at the adoption of an even-handed policy towards both the Zionist State and the Arabs was bound to come to grief. "Mr. David Nes of the State Department, in an address delivered on 8 April 1969 at the Conference on ¥orld Affairs of the University of Colorado, entitled "Our Middle East Involvement", revealed the extent of this influence. He stated that 20 per cent of key positions in the State Depart- ment were held by Jews, most of them presumably sympathetic to the Israeli policies in the following terms: -53-

"In this country, any question of Israel's right to exist, or of her actions today in any field, is immediately targeted as anti-Semitism... anything short of total commitment to the Tightness of Israel's cause is interpreted as anti-Semitism.... In our country, this is a characterization which I would say, certainly in government, is considered far worse than being a communist." "In these conditions it is idle to suppose that the Arab cause, no matter how just, would receive the support of the United States Government.

This has been demonstrated time and again, during the last two decades. "We heard the President of the United States proclaim from this

rostrum last Thursday, l8 September, that the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967 "charts the way to that settlement". (1755th meeting,

P.23) "Our understanding of that resolution differs from that of the President of the United States. We consider a resolution of the Security Council not as a working paper but as a solemn decision that requires only

implementation, especially in conditions where the threat to the peace

is so palpable. We expect the United States of America, which is a major Power and a permanent member of the Security Council, to bring its prestige and influence to bear so that the dangerous situation in the Middle East does not develop into what President Nixon, in his statement of January 1969, feared would be "a major explosion" that could very well involve "a confrontation between the nuclear Powers". "The President of the United States in his speech before this Assembly on 18 September 1969 stated that in case of failure to reach agreement on

a settlement in the Middle East the Great Powers should endeavour to contain the conflict by limiting the supply of arms to the belligerents. Yet the United States, through its delivery of the Phantom Jets and other weapons of aggression to Israel, has helped to spur rather than deter the armaments -5U- race in the area. The seriousness of that action will be fully realized when we consider that Israel has nuclear capability "based on nuclear reactors such as that at Demona, which is capable of producing enough plutonium for the manufacture of several nuclear weapons. It is an open secret that Israel possesses this capability as well as the means of delivery. "We have no doubt of the ultimate purpose of Israel's nuclear capability, nor do the Israelis themselves leave any room for doubt in the matter, since they have rejected the application of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system and have not accepted the agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. "The suggestion by the President of the United States for arms limitation if Security Council resolution 2k2 (1967) — providing for the withdrawal of Israel — is not implemented amounts to an endorsement of the Israeli position and a sanction of its continued occupation of the Arab land in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations and specific resolutions of the Security Council. It did not come as a surprise to us that that should be the position of the United States on this issue, since it is part of the declared policy of the United States that Israel should maintain a clear superiority in armaments over the Arabs. The suggestion that there should now be some arms limitation convinces us that the United States is now assured that it has provided Israel with the means of maintaining that superiority. "Let me say here that we reject that suggestion that seeks to impose on the Arabs a permanent position of inferiority and subservience. -55-

"We, as a part of the Arab nation, are convinced that our struggle against the colonial occupation of Palestine "by the Zionists will be long and arduous. The United States, in supporting injustice and upholding usurpation has irrevocably identified itself with the immorality of the Israeli occupation. Ultimately, it will be the loser since the Arabs are inexorable moving towards the full attainment of their inalienable right to live in freedom in the Arab homeland; and while the United States supports the cause of foreign domination and reaction, the Arabs have come to realize that their destiny lies in the solidarity of the progressive forces in the Arab nation supported by all the peace-loving countries of the world. "Let it be clear to the Government and people of the United States of America that the policy pursued by the United States Government in the Middle East can lead to nothing but the alienation of the Arab people. The

United States Government has maintained some traditional friendships with certain ruling circles in the Arab world in the mistaken belief that such a course of action is sufficient to give it that grip over affairs that is necessary for the protection of American interests in the Middle East. "Let there be no misapprehension about the fact that such a course of action is pregnant with considerable dangers to those very interests that the United States Government seeks to safeguard. "Nor have the Arab peoples everywhere any illusions ..about this. It is for the United States to choose between amity with a nation of 100 millions in an area of great strategic importance and animosity to that nation. It is for the United States to choose between a foreign policy dictated purely by domestic considerations and one pursued in conformity with the exigencies of foreign realities. -56-

"Finally, we reject the implication in the policy declaration of the President of the United States before this Assembly when he said: "We are convinced that peace cannot be achieved on the basis of substantial alterations of the map of the Middle East." (1755th meeting, p.25) "Let us sound the warning here that peace cannot be achieved on the basis of any alterations of the map of the Middle East; to maintain a position that contradicts this is to contravene the provisions of Security Council resolution 2^2 of 22 November 19&7, which calls for the complete withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the occupied areas. To maintain a position that Israel should extend its territory in the Arab lands that it now occupies is to support the contention that armed conquest is capable of supporting rights or concessions. It is regrettable that the President of the United States should hold the position that the map of the Middle East has to be modified in order to appease Israeli ambitions. It is lamentable that he saw fit to declare this before the Assembly."

(A/PV.1761 at page 21) "Yet one is heartened and encouraged to see that in Viet-Wam and in Korea, as well as in the Middle East, the tide is turning and the era of imperialist domination is constantly receding. One would wish that the United Nations had played an active role in bringing to an end this unhappy state of affairs."

Mr. Salem, Lebanon (A/PV.1761 at pages 33 to 37): "... Of all these evils, may I touch upon the one that most directly

concerns my country, the conflict in the Middle East. "In 19^9 already, in order to fulfil the "Messianic destiny of the people of Israel", more than a million Palestinians were expelled from -57- their homeland through terrorism, violence and fire. For more than twenty years these "refugees" have been living in misery, bitterness and a yearning for their usurped homeland. And today some people are scandalized at seeing them revolt, at seeing resistance to oppression being organized and becoming an essential factor of the problem, a new factor which cannot and must not be underestimated in any way. "In 1967 the June war led to the total occupation of Jerusalem, the

West Bank of the Jordan, Sinai and Goaln. And on 21 August 1969 we had the burning of the Al Aqsa Mosque, which was deeply felt by Christendom as well as by Islam. Was not this burning, as was stated repeatedly by the representative of Algeria in the Security Council, "the tragic result of the abdication of the international community"? "It would take too long if I were to recall the decisions of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Security Council which remained dead-letters for Israel. This contempt for the United Nations seems to represent the policy of Israel. The peaceful statements of its leaders were designed solely to lull the vigilance of international opinion. Behind them, appetites for territorial expansion appeared, an ambitious mystique of greatness and domination inspired the policy of force of Israel and dictated its behaviour. "Among all the Israeli leaders, General Dayan seems to be the one who best illustrates this policy by the statements he makes from time to time, which at least are frank. One might compile a most enlightening anthology of those statements. I shall, however, quote only two of them which seem particularly significant.

"The first was found in the Israeli paper Ha'olam Haze dated 8 July

1968. General Dayan said, verbatim: -58-

"Our fathers reached the borders recognized in the partition plan of 19^7. Our generation reached the borders of 19^9. But the generation of the six days was able to reach Suez, Jordan and the Golan Heights. This is not the end, for beyond the present cease-fires lines there will be yet new lines beyond the Jordan, perhaps to Lebanon, and perhaps also to Central Syria." "The statements of General Dayan were translated into deeds by Israeli attacks which have been multiplied against our territory since the attack on the Beirut International Airport on 28 December 1968.

"Israel unilaterally denounced the Lebanon-Israel Armistice Agreement of 23 March 19^-9• However, contrary to the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel in this Assembly, Lebanon considers that convention to be 'still valid. Article 8 of the Agreement provides that it will remain in force until the attainment of a peaceful settlement and that it can be denounced only be agreement between the two parties. "In another statement, quoted by the Israeli newspaper Maariv on 30 April 1968, the Israeli Defence Minister said: "It may be possible to arrive at peace treaties between us and the Arab countries, but the Arabs are asking a very high price. I pray to heaven that that day will never come." "It is utterances of that kind by Israeli officials which are at the basis of the evolution of internal and foreign policies in the Near and Middle East. It is that policy of aggression and conquest, carried out by Israel with the arrogance of someone who is sure of impunity, that accumulates victims and destruction and plunders the area into violence and insecurity. One must be blind or refuse to see, not to be aware of the fact that this policy can lead only to a general conflagration which would threaten to engulf the world. "However, an exceptional opportunity arose recently to settle the

Middle East problems in a peaceful and honourable manner, thanks to the -59-

Security Council resolution of 22 November 196?. The two Arab States most directly concerned in the conflict accepted this international instrument adopted unanimously by the Council and loyally co-operated with the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General to determine the general modalities for its implementation. The United Arab Republic and Jordan have furnished proof of their extreme goodwill towards the Security Council resolution; and Lebanon can only reaffirm its solidarity with these States and instantly demand the integral implementation of this text, ^y adopting a negative attitude, Israel deliberately sabotages all chances of peace and since has constantly defied international law and the decisions of this Assembly. Furthermore, it dares to demand, as the fruit of its military victory, secure boundaries to the detriment of the security of other States of the Middle East.

"In his statement to the General Assembly the President of the United States spoke of secure and recognized boundaries. However, representatives here are certainly aware of the fact that boundaries secure from threats and acts of force are no longer geographical and that no border today can resist the power of modern weapons. Secure boundaries are rather of a moral order; they are constituted by the spirit of peace, the will for peace and respect for international law. "To preserve peace, to promote the development of each nation and each human being, we must try to overcome bad instincts and to ensure the triumph among men and peoples of the love for peace, justice, tolerance and the feeling of brotherhood. Such is the moral code of Lebanon. Thus, recently, Mr. Helou, President of the Republic of Lebanon, stated:

"The role of Lebanon, in the Arab world and in the world at large, is so important and so necessary that any aggression against our territory and against our -6o-

national and human mission is an aggression against the values without which there could be for the whole of mankind neither life nor progress. "Any sign of indifference on the part of any State, large or small, towards our just cause would lead to the condemnation of the State guilty of it. History will "be severe towards those who are indifferent or hostile, whoever they may be, and they will be overtaken by the inexorable march of future events."

Mr. Riad. United Arab Republic (A/PV.l76l at pages 58 to 56): "The conflict which engulfs the Middle East today is between aggression manifested in Israel's occupation of Arab territories aimed at expansion in these territories and between the will to achieve peace based on the United Nations Charter, which condemns aggression and expansion and ensures the territorial integrity and the political independence of all States. "Israel's policy of continued occupation of Arab territories to achieve its expansionist aims by usurping more Arab lands, and expelling more Arab citizens, is only comparable in modern history to Nazi aggression based on the fiction of racial supremacy as a justification for aggression against other peoples and the usurpation of their rights and homeland. "The crime of the arson of the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem stands in repulsive contrast to'man's progress towards the unity of his civilization and faith. The guilt of this crime weighs heavily upon racist Zionism, which occupies Jerusalem by the force of arms, destroying the houses of God as well as the houses of the Palestinians and undeterred in fulfilling its dreams of expansion and domination by any law, be it of God or -man.

"The crime of the arson of Al Aqsa Mosque is not the first crime by Zionism on the land of Palestine or other Arab lands, nor will it be its last crime, so long as it believes that the international community is incapable of standing up to enforce on it the rule of the Charter. -61-

"Every day that passes without the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the occupied Arab territories is, in itself, a new aggression. It is an aggression whose dangerous and criminal character is constatnly aggravated with every raid Israel commits against the Arab countries and every attack it commits against Arab civilians, civilian targets and Arab economic achievements.

"The crimes which Israel commits daily against the Arab citizens in the occupied Arab territories reaches, in the case of Israel, the same level of criminality practised by Nazi Germany against the peoples of occupied Europe. Israel deludes itself when it believes that by throwing thousands of Arab citizens into the camps of torture, by expelling more Arab citizens, by the destruction of Arab villages and houses, and all other measures of police terror against the people of the occupied territories, it can ultimately achieve its aim of forcing Arab citizens to submit to occupation and to give up their legitimate resistance. But Israel is as hopelessly blind as were all other occupiers to a fundamental fact — that the struggle of all peoples against occupation and aggression is ultimately more powerful than all the armies of occupation, and that the faith and the will of liberation inevitably overcome forces of usurpation and aggression. "This is the fourth time the General Assembly has convened under the shadow of Israel's occupation of the territories of three States Members of the United Nations since it committed its aggression on 5 June 1967.

"The General Assembly first met in an emergency session, especially called in June 196?, to consider the situation arising from Israel's aggression against the Arab countries. • -62-

"The diversion of views "which characterized the deliberations at that session nevertheless did not deny the fact that there existed one fundamental point: the absolute necessity for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories they have occupied. Every Member State of this Organi- zation voted for this principle in the General Assembly, whether those who supported the non-aligned draft resolution or those who supported the Latin American draft. There was not a single proposal submitted to the emergency session which failed to provide for Israel's withdrawal from all of the occupied territories. At its emergency session, the General Assembly also adopted, by an overwhelming majority, resolutions stating the illegitimacy of the Israeli measures for the annexation of Jerusalem. This continued to be the United Nations position in many resolutions which it has constantly adopted and which Israel has, persistently and with arrogance and defiance, continued to reject; the last of these was adopted by the Security Council on the 15th of this very month. "With regard to the citizens of the occupied territories, who have been forced to leave their homes behind as a result of Israeli aggression, the General Assembly adopted unanimous resolutions which provide for their return to their homes in the occupied territories. Israel expresses its continuous rejection and defiance of these resolutions in terms and in a language heretofore unheard in the international society.

"In the fall of 196? intensive consultations were held among the members of the Security Council, in which the Permanent Members of the

Security Council played a principal role. These consultations resulted in the adoption of Security Council resolution 2k2 (196?) of 22 November -63-

•which provides for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. In accordance with this resolution, the Secretary-General appointed a Special Respresenta- tive for the implementation of the resolution.

Ever since his first visit to Cairo, in December 19&7, "tne United Arab Republic informed Ambassador Jarring of its acceptance of the Security

Council resolution and of its readiness to implement all its obligations arising from this resolution. ¥e also proposed to him, in the course of our contacts, that he set up a timetable for the implementation of that resolution. "Furthermore, ve have informed the Special Representative that we consider it necessary that the Security Council undertake the supervision of, and guarantee the implementation of, the resolution of November 22. This necessity stems from Israel's record of aggression and unilateral denunciation of the international agreements it has signed with the Arab States. Israel has rejected the Security Council resolution. Israeli spokesmen in the United Nations have desperately attempted to conceal this fact, through semantics and deceptive abuse of words. The official statements which Israeli leaders have been issuing, in competition with one another, have served in revealing, beyond any doubt, Israel's plans for territorial expansion, as well as its policy of defiance and rejection of the Security Council resolution.

"There is not a single principle in that resolution which has escaped

Israel's rejection, either by deeds of by words. It has already taken measures for annexing Arab territories, and its leaders have reiterated their insistence on territorial aggrandizement in the occupied territories. -6k-

Thus, Israel rejects and challenges: the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war; the principle of the sovereignty of States over their territories; the principle of territorial integrity and political independence of the States in the region. Furthermore, Israel,

"by its continued occupation of Ara"b territories, is obstructing the termination of the state of belligerancy. "Throughout 1968 and in the first few months of 1969 the Special Representative of the Secretary-General pursued his contacts. These contacts vere destined to come to a standstill, however, as a result of the collision between Israel's policy of expansion and the provisions of the Security Council resolution. It was impossible for Israel, no matter how clever its spokesmen were in the abuse of words, to conceal this one fundamental contradiction. This has resulted in the fact that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General was forced, early this year, to

suspend his contacts.

"In the early spring, France took the initiative to hold talks among the four Permanent Members of the Security Council with a view t> implementing the 22 November Security Council resolution, and to assist the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the pursuit of his. mission. "On our part, we have welcomed the initiative by France, whose Middle Eastern policy has been consistently motivated by a consciousness of its responsibilities and its commitments arising from the Charter — a stand which has been greatly appreciated by the Arab peoples. Ve have also welcomed the talks by the four Powers for the special responsibility on

their part in the maintenance of international peace and security, and

for the fact that these consultations have taken place within the framework of the Security Council resolution and for its implementation. Once again, -65-

Israel stood against this step and declared its opposition to this nev attempt aimed at the implementation of the Security Council resolution. "Today the entire world is a -witness to Israel's plan of expansion, as revealed by its actions in the occupied territories and the declarations

of its leaders. "First, there is the West Bank of Jordan. The Prime Minister of Israel

stated in February of this year that "The Jordan River must become a

security border for Israel with all that that implies" and that the Israeli army shall be stationed "on the strip along that border". "Second, there is Jerusalem. Israeli spokesmen here and outside the United Nations have wasted no opportunity to assert that the process of annexation is irreversible and unnegotiable. "Third, the Golan Heights: Israeli leaders have emphasized, time and again, that Israel will retain the Syrian Golan Heights.

"Fourth, the Gaza Strip: Israeli leaders have also declared that they will continue to retain the Gaza Strip. "Fifth, the Sinai Peninsula: Israel has declared that it would continue the occupation of the eastern and southern parts of Sinai. "Mr. Yigal Allon, Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, declared in August last that a part of Sinai, which stretches sixty-four kilometres from Rafah to El Arish on the Mediterranean coast down to southern Sinai, has been added to "municipal Israeli adminstration" by annexing it to a newly- formed municipal region, namely, the "Eshkol region in the Wegev desert".

"The Deputy Prime Minister of Israel announced, in the celebration made for this purpose, the following: "It benefits Eshkol's memory that

this should be the first regional council to include an area beyond the former demarcation lines". -66-

"That is Israel's plan for expansion in the occupied Arab territories. It operates on the basis of two complementary components: annexing Arab territories and expelling Arab citizens. This is the same policy which turned 1.5 million Palestinians into refugees living in camps for the past twenty years and caused the displacement of another half million people as a result of Israel's latest aggression.

"3y persisting in its policy of expansion against the Arab States,

Israel not only commits a crime against the rule of the Charter, but it also undermines the peaceful settlement adopted by the Security Council and threatens world peace. "It is the duty of every Member State of this Organization to stand up to IsraelTs aggression against the Charter and the decisions of the United Nations. The obligation of every State positively to oppose Israel's aggression is rooted in each and every principle upon which the international order, as laid down in the Charter, has been built. Forcing Israel to withdraw its aggressive forces from the occupied Arab territories and to abandon its policy of expansion, in confomity with the norms of the Charter, is not only a sacred national duty, whose responsibility falls on the countries victim of aggression, but is, at the same time, a collective duty to which all Members must subscribe, if we are to preserve the integrity and, indeed,the very existence of the United WaUons order. "I wish here to refer to the just stand taken by the Heads of African States and Governments, in their meeting" held in Addis Ababa some days ago,

concerning Israel's acts of aggression. They have adopted the following resolution: -67-

"Ve, the Heads of State and Government, meeting in Addis Ababa this day 9 September 1969, "Deeply moved by reports that a further aggression has been perpetrated today by Israeli forces against another part of the

national territory of the United Arab Republic: "(l) Condemn this act of aggression like all other acts of aggression directed against a sister country, "(2) Desire to reaffirm in these circumstances our unwavering solidarity with the United Arab Republic, "(3) Demand the immediate withdrawal of the foreign occupation forces, "(U) Appeal to the conscience of mankind to do everything possible in order to spare our continent, which has suffered all too often from invasion by foreign forces, from becoming afresh a scene

of tension and conflict, with unforeseeable consequences for Africa

and the rest of the world".

"The Heads of African States and Governments also issued another resolution in which they declared their soldiarity and support to the United Arab Republic and called for: "the withdrawal of foreign troops from all Arab territories occupied since June 5, 19^7, in accordance with the resolution taken by the the Security Council on the 22nd of November 1967". They also: "appealed to all Member States of the Organization of African Unity to

use their influence to insure a strict implementation of this resolution",

"There can be no question that the implementation of the decisions and resolutions adopted by this world Organization, in matters of direct bearing -68- on international peace and security and the safeguarding of territorial integrity and political independence for all States, is the most imperative among all collective duties shouldered by all Member States., The Permanent Members of the Security Council bear a special responsibility within the framework of this collective obligation. "In this connexion, I wish to refer specifically to the position of the United States, which continues to supply Israel with war planes and other weapons while Israel continues its occupation and declares its expansionist plans. The Skyhawk and Phantom planes which Israel receives from the United States are the same planes which every day raid the Arab peoples, kill Arab citizens, and follow the Palestinian refugees in their tents and camps with napalm bombs and other instruments of death and destruction.

"The United States policy of support to Israel in the military, political and financial spheres, while Israel occupies Arab territories, is a policy which could at least be described as in violation of the provisions of the Charter and against peace in the Middle East.

The United States support to Israel, and its share of responsibility in the present state of aggression and denial of peace in the Middle East, acquires a more serious character when we recall that this support runs contrary to the commitments which the United States had previously undertaken upon itself. The United States has continuously affirmed the absolute necessity to respect the Armistice Agreements, its support for the territorial integrity and the political independence of all States in the Middle East, and its firm opposition to aggression in the area. "Today, we are entitled to ask the United States whether it does not

see in Israel's occupation of the territories of Arab States a violation of -69- the territorial integrity and the political independence of these States; and whether its supply of warplanes and other weapons to Israel, while Israel occupies the territories of Arab States, does constitute an opposition to aggression, or rather, is a support of aggression.

"I wish, further, to refer to the United States position with regard to the implementation of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967. That is a resolution which the United States voted for and declared it would support. ¥e are entitled today to ask the United States how it can reconcile its support for that resolution with its supplying of Skyhawks and Phantoms to Israel at a time when Israel has already declared its annexation of Arab territories, in full violation of the Security Council resolution, as well as its unqualified rejection of the United Nations resolutions on the Palestinian refugees.

"It is within our right to ask the United States to follow in the

Middle East a policy of justice compativle with the Charter and with its own commitments, and to proceed from the principle that the right of an Arab man to peace, to his land and to his home should not be sacrificed to satisfy Israel's dreams of territorial expansion. "We also believe that the United States is capable of casting its weight behind peace and the implementation of the peaceful settlement adopted by the Security Council. We believe that when the .United States proceeds along that road, prospects for making peace in the Middle East will be greatly improved. "The Israeli leaders want the world to believe that the Palestinian people, who lived in Palestine for thousands of years, never existed. The Prime Minister of Israel declared this to the world inthe course of an -70- interview published "by the Sunday Times of London on 15 June 1969. She stated: "It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering themselves as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist"

This statement reveals the extent of Israel's attempt to suppress the truth. The Prime Minister of Israel imagines that by such a statement she will "be able to conceal the crimes which Zionism has committed against the people of Palestine in Palestine. "The struggle that the Palestinian people are waging today, in conditions which no other people have ever faced, is a struggle for their right to exist, to return to their homes, and to exercise their right to self- determination. Ey virtue of this fact, the Palestinian people's struggle incontestably attains the highest degree of legitimacy and deserves the

support of all forces that have faith in the right of every man, regardless

of his race, coulour or religion, to live on his land, to defend his existence and to determine his future. "The United Nations was brought into existence for the very purpose of never allowing a situation similar to that existing today in the Middle East to exist. That situation cannot possibly continue unless it is assumed that the international order on which this Organization is founded has finally collapsed, and that the principles of the Charter have been completely shattered with Israel's aggression on 5 June 196?. "For our part, we refuse to submit to aggression. History is a witness

to the fact that the wil to peace, in mobility and in action, is far stronger than the will to war and aggression. In this our faith has no limits. ¥e -71- thus refuse to believe that the international community can possibly allow Israel to continue a policy that is destined to undermine and ruin the rule of the Charter.

"In the history of this Organization there is no example, apart from Israel's aggression, more indicative of the serious hazards to international peace and security resulting from the refusal of one Member State to abide by the decisions of the Security Council and other resolutions of the United Nations. "In this connexion, I wish to express our appreciation for the positive initiative taken by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to include in the agenda of the twenty-fourth session of the General Assembly a new item on strengthening international security. The Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, in his important address here some days ago, presented to us various constructive ideas, among which is the need for the implementation by Member

States of the Security Council decisions, and the necessity of respect for the provisions of the Charter. "My delegation, together with other delegations, looks forward to the deliberations that will take place on this item. We are confident that those deliberations will lead to positive results for the future effectiveness of the United Nations system. "In the Middle East, faithful implementation of all the provisions of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 19^7, under the supervision and guarantees of the Council, is the road to peace. Israel's call for direct negotiations vith Arab States while it still occupies their territories is a call for capitulation by those States. At the same time that Israel calls for direct negotiations with Arab countries, it continues to occupy their territories and attack Arab cities. At the same time that -72- it calls for those direct negotiations, Israeli leaders declare their insistence that the annexation of Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights is non-negotiable.

"In this connexion, I wish to refer to the annual report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the work of the Organization, submitted to the twenty-third session, in which he states that his personal representative on Jerusalem stated "... that Israeli leaders had made clear to him beyond any doubt that Israel was taking every step to place under its sovereignty those parts of the city not controlled before June 1967". (A/7201, P. 15) "In an interview published by Newsweek magazine in its issue of 17 February 1969, the Prime Minister of Israel stated: "As for the Golan Heights, we will, quite simply, never give them up. The same goes for

Jerusalem. Here there is no flexibility at all." "In the same interview, the Israeli Prime Minister referred to Jerusalem in the following words: "There is no possible way to compromise on Jerusalem. "Wo matter how much Israel's representatives in the United Nations resort to the use of semantics and the deceptive abuse of words, they will.'inevitably collide with the truth. The truth here is that Israel's call for direct negotiations from the position of its occupation of Arab territories aims at imposing its policy of expansion and fait accompli upon the Arab countries. This has been clearly affirmed by Israeli words as well as

Israeli deeds. "These are the same negotiations that Nazi Germany sought to impose upon the occupied countries of Europe. These negotiations are inherently in contradiction to peace. Indeed, they would be but the continuation of aggression and the instrumentibr consolidating the results of aggression, -73-

in complete denial of all the values of the Charter and in an attempt to return to an era when international society was subject to the law of the

jungle.

"The only alternative to the present state of aggression and was prevailing today in the Middle East is the faithful implementation of all

the provisions of the peaceful settlement adopted "by the Security Council in its resolution of 22 November 19^7. The implementation of that resolution requires the fulfilment of the following three points: "First, the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from all the territories they have occupied as a result of the aggression of 5 June 19&7. That withdrawal would "be the practical implementation of terminating the state of belligerence in the Middle East.

"Second, the recognition t) the Palestinian people of their legitimate

rights, and the implementation of the United Nations resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to receive compensation. Those resolutions constitute the formula which the international community has adopted for the achievement of justice for

the people of Palestine. x "Third, the undertaking by the Security Council of adequate guarantees for peace and security in the Middle East, and for the implementation of

all provisions of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 19&7.

"The struggle of our people falls within the framework of the univeraal struggle to establish just international relations which vould ultimately flow into the current of manTs progress and advancement. The people of the United Arab Republic have been carrying out the movement for industrial- ization and increasing their arable land. They have already begun to use -7k-

the electric power provided by the Aswan High Dam, destined for completion

in the course of next year, which will "be erected on the Wile as a monumental

example of the creative co-operation with the friendly people of the Soviet Union, to whom I wish to express here the deep appreciation of the people of the United Arab Republic for their firm stand against Israeli aggression, for their efforts to establish peace based on justice and the rule of the Charter and for their support to the peoples of Asia and Africa in their just struggle against colonialism and foreign domination."

(A/PV.1761 at pages 57 to 58) "It is my duty to cnnvey to you the state of mind prevailing among the

people of the United Arab Republic concerning the aggression on their

territory. Our faith is absolute in the inevitable freeing of every inch

of Arab territories occupied as a result of Israel's aggression on 5 June 1967. Failure is the ultimate destiny of Israel's invasion. "This faith is part and parcel of every beat of life in the heart of every man, woman and child in the land of Egypt. No matter how much military assistance the occupying Israeli forces receive, they never will overcome the will and the determination of the people of Egypt to recover the occupied territory, nor will they ever be able to impose on the people of Egypt, or any other Arab peoples, any capitulation.

"Our refusal to submit to the diktat of aggression P"* our faith in its

inevitable failure not only give expression to our national commitment, but also carry the conviction of and give honour to all human sacrifices made throughout history to establish an international society capable of the maintenance of peace and the realization of justice." -75-

Mr. Jonsson. Iceland (A/PV.1762 at page 7):

"The clashes between Israel and the Arab States seem to become sharper and more serious every day and, consequently, all indications are that again -war may break out soon. Without doubt it is considered possible to maintain peace in the Middle East if the great Powers whole-heartedly support the measures of the United Nations to prevent the outbreak of hostilities, which, it seems, could have unpredictable consequences once started. But it is also clear, as the situation is today, that the tiny United Nations forces in the area are altogether powerless."

Mr. Mudenda, Zambia (A/PV.1762 at page 32): "It now remains for me again to refer briefly to yet another conflict, this time in the Middle East. We stand solidly behind the November 19&7 resolution and would call upon both parties to create an atmosphere in which an honourable settlement could be reached. We do not believe that these conditions of peaceful negotiation are possible outside the terms of the November 1967 Security Council resolution. The world has witnessed continuous violations of cease-fire pledges and ether forms of violent actions cultimating in wanton destruction of sacred edifices. Surely it is time the parties to the Middle East conflict moved positions in order to bring peace to that disturbed area. -76-

Mr. Schumann, France (A/PV.1T63 at pages 31 to 32): "However, it is in the Middle East especially that the establishment of a just and lasting peace, taking account of the legitimate interests of all the parties, would appear "beyond our reach if we were not determined to overcome sadness and apprehension. France's policy there, as elsewhere, finds its inspiration in the principles that my predecessors have already evoked from this rostrum: the right of peoples to self-determination; respect for international law; the equilibrium of forces and the maintenance or restoration of peace. The strict application of these principles constitutes the only means of ending the growing deterioration of the situation which prevails in that region. "Nearly two years have elapsed since the adoption of the resolution of 22 November 1967, which is our law. My Government, drawing the lesson from events which have shown that only concerted international action would allow the formulation and implementation of a satisfactory solution, proposed last January that the four permanent members of the Security Council — taking into account their special responsibilities — should meet in order to study the means of facilitating the implementation of resolution 242

(1967) of 22 November 1967 and should examine at the same time the measures necessary to avoid a worsening of the situation. As that proposal was accepted by our three partners, it became possible to examine in detail the different aspects of the conflict and the possibilities for settlement consistent with the spirit of the Charter and the resolutions adopted by the United Nations.

"I thank the Secretary-General for having allowed, through a successful and recent initiative, the four to resume their task, which must now be -77-

pursued unrelentingly. To thwart or to contest it would "be to assume the heavy responsibility of impeding the application of the only method that can lead to a general, equitable and lasting settlement in the respect of "the inalienable right to existence as independent and sovereign States" of all the States of the Middle East, according to the very words of our

joint communique" of last Saturday, 20 September. Weed I add that this settlement will have to include measures of an international nature making it possible to ensure the preservation and the protection of all the holy places as well as free access to them by all? Mankind is awaiting this necessary symbol of the start of a new era of reconciliation and co-operation."

Mr. Tepavac. Yugoslavia (A/PV.1763 at page 14-2): "¥e are seriously disturbed by the persistent deterioration of the situation in the Middle East, which continues to be explosive owing to the intransigent position of Israel. I feel that I am not overdramatizing the

situation if I point out that it could easily get out of the control of the great Powers and of the United Nations, unless energetic and effective

steps are taken as a matter of urgency. Israel, ev.en to this date, has not

accepted the resolution of the Security Council of 19^7, it has not ceased to insist upon the annexation of occupied Arab territories, and it continues to maintain a ruthless attitude toward the Palestinian population. Should the United Nations fail to prevent the aggressor from keeping the territories it has acquired by force, there is a serious danger that, in the future, our Organization will be even less capable of taking any action in a similar case. Ey supporting — while it is still possible —

every action designed to find a political solution, my delegation will do

its utmost to ensure the implementation of the resolution of the Security Council of 1967." -78-

Mr. Mhando, Tanzania (A/PV.1763 at pages 66 to 6j):

"Before I conclude the survey of those African problems which are the day-to-day preoccupation of my Government, may I now turn to the situation in the Middle East?

"A little over two years have now passed since the June war of 1967.

During that period the world as a whole, and the United Nations in particular, must have seen the danger which results from the continued occupation by

Israel of Arab territories occupied in that war. The uneasy peace in that area has been getting closer and closer to another conflagration — and one which will almost certainly be greater and more disastrous than that of

1967. Yet Israel, in spite of the United Nations November 1967 resolution, has not only maintained its occupation of Arab areas, but has also acted to strengthen its hold on them. Israel has ignored the United Nations, and also the appeals of nations — like my own — which support its right to exist in peace and security within its own borders. Its leaders have said openly that there is no question of its returning to the boundaries which existed on k June 1967.

"This intransigent attitude and the incessant violation of the cease- fire agreement by bomb and commando attacks must be deplored. The Israeli authorities must be seriously discouraged by this Assembly from intensifying their aggression. Tanzania has made its position very clear on this issue.

The United Nations must not be flouted; its Peace Force must not be subjected to injury and death.

"The November 1967 resolution must be respected by both sides, and the search for a permanent peace must go on. Only when the Arab peoples are relieved of this humiliating occupation of their territory, and the - 79 -

conquerors are deprived of their ill-gotten gains, can there "be hope of

any lasting peace in the Middle East, in which the needs of Israel can be accommodated by peaceful means. Firstly, therefore, Israel must

stop its expansionist designs and return the Arab territories it presently

controls. Only then can it be expected that its own right to sovereignty,

and to peace and security -~ rights which Tanzania has consistently supported --• will be respected by the Arab States."

Address by His Excellency Sir Seretse Khama President of the Republic of Botswana

President Khama, (A/FV.176U at page 26):

"Botswana shares the general alarm at the prolonged impasse in the

Middle East and the dangerous military escalation that has marked the

last months."

Mr. Grimes, Liberia (A/PV.176U at page 26):

"Day after day in the Middle East there are reports of incidents

and tensions indicating that the cease-fire is no longer being observed

by either side.

"On 22 November 1967 the Security Council unanimously passed

resolution 2^-2 (1967), which provides a reasonable basis for a settlement.

It appears that the explosive situation has been complicated by a web of

tangled interests, the adjustment of which calls for extraordinary selfless

• efforts. Great expectations and hopes have rested on the initiatives of the

big-four meetings started earlier this year. If a catastrophe is to be

avoided, keener attention should be focused on the dangers this problem

engenders, and we hope that the big four and the parties involved will discharge

the heavy responsibility which a peaceful settlement binding on both sides

involves. In any case all of us should use our best efforts to assist in

bringing peace to that area." -80-

Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, Mauritius (A/PV.1765 at page 6): "In a world of so much goodwill and understanding where people can live in freedom, peace and plenty, it is a paradox that in the Middle East, in Viet-Nam and in Africa there are interminable conflicts bringing ruin and misery in their trail to millions of innocent human beings." "... On the war in the Middle East my country abides by the resolution of the Security Council which provides a sufficient basis for negotiations for an honourable settlement between the United Arab Republic and Israel."

Mr. .Martin. Argentina (A/PV.1765 at page 17): "Argentina continues to follow with deep concern the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East where present tensions can at any moment unleash a war of greater and more irreparable consequences. This disquieting process, with its successive crises, affects the authority of the United Nations and particularly that of the Security Council. "We are not unaware of the complexity of the problem: we know what sequels of the past and passions of the present weigh upon the populations concerned and their leaders. We are, however, convinced that nothing can be gained unless the facts are faced: we are absolutely convinced that only a true act of political determination can open prospects of peace for the Middle East, and this act must be strict compliance with Security Council resolution 2h2. (1967) of 22 November 1967. Argentina, then a member of the Security Council, laboured hard and hopefully, first to achieve a cease-fire and then in the drafting of a resolution that might make feasible an elimination of the real and profound causes that had led to the conflict." -81-

Mr. Harmel, Belgium (A/PV.1765 at page "For us, the only hope for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East lies in global negotiation, with the Security Council occupying a central position. Only this can bring the belligerents forward to peace. "In this connexion, the resolution of 22 November 1967 was indeed a remarkable and exceptional event, for in it the Security Council succeeded, unanimously, in laying down the general conditions for an equitable political solution. However, since that time nearly two years have passed, but the Security Council has not been able to work out a programme under which one of the belligerents, having taken a first step toward the restoration of peace, would have the assurance that the other party would, in its turn, take a similar step, so that thus, stage by stage, all the goals set by the resolution of 1967 might be attained. "To this end, the four-Power negotiations suggested by France, and more recently, the conversations between the United States and the Soviet Union, constitute, in our view, the only approach by which the Security Council will be able finally to propose to the belligerents the lines of a fair settlement."

(A/PV.1765 at page U5) "... Today, at the time when the three great States have undertaken essential action, I wish to state that if that action fails, a fatal blow will be dealt to the United Nations, but that if it succeeds, the Middle East will not be alone in benefitting from it."

Mr. Waldheim. Austria (A/PV.1765 at page 60): "... But at this time we can, unfortunately, see no encouraging development in the Middle East. On the contrary, it appears that over the past year the positions of both sides have only become more inflexible." -82-

"In my speech to the General Assembly last year I expressed the concern of the Austrian Government that belligerency had not come to an end and that tension along precarious cease-fire lines persisted. We must note today that, as our Secretary-General remarked only recently, a virtual state of active war now exists along much of these cease-fire lines. "We had hoped that the Security Council resolution of November 1967 would bring about within a reasonable period a generally acceptable and lasting solution to the Middle East crisis. Unfortunately, those hopes have not teen realized. All endeavours inside and outside the United Nations to produce a settlement have so far failed. "Austria, which like other Member States provides military observers for UNTSO, will continue to support all United Nations efforts to facilitate a peaceful solution. "We support the continuation of the mission entrusted to Ambassador Jarring. We welcome the efforts by the major Powers and hope that they will find an appropriate basis on which Ambassador Jarring's mission can be successfully completed. At the same time, however, we must be aware of the realities of the situation. A lasting solution, we are convinced, can be achieved only if the nations of the area have the wisdom and determination to agree to a settlement of their deep-rooted differences by peaceful means, and if they have the political will to implement it."

Mr. Medeiros Querejazu. Bolivia (A/PV.1766 at page 6): "... Noble and beautiful promises — yet nuclear weapons proliferate and men die in Viet-Nam, in the Middle East and in Biafra." -83-

"... In the Middle East we have to take as our point of departure the existence of Israel as a sovereign State recognized by the world community and a Member of our Organization. Any independent nation has the right to protect its security, but on the basis of our own historic experience Bolivia strongly maintains the principle that conquest gives no rights."

U Maung Lwin. Burma (A/FV.1766 at page 18): "Regarding the Middle East situation, which has disturbed us profoundly by its persistent violence and bitter strife, we sincerely hope that the United Nations and Powers primarily concerned will continue in their efforts to avert the eruption of another devastating conflict. The delegation of Burma, like a great many other delegations, considers that the basis for a peaceful settlement has been established in resolution 2^2 (1967) of 22 November 1967, adopted unanimously by the Security Council. Even if the implementation of the provisions of the resolution has so far proved difficult, the delegation of

Burma would Eke to think that the parties to the conflict are not unaware of the need for reaching an early settlement in the interest of each and every nation in the area, or of the fact that the bitterness of the continuing conflict ensures that any advantage accruing from military action will be of only a temporary nature." Mr. Gallimore, Jamaica (A/PV.1767 at page 7): "The conflict in the Middle East continues to escalate and to consume the time and energies and negotiating talents of Member States. Continued hostilities are most unlikely to hold the answer, and yet the multiplicity of activities taking place in the Middle East are tending in the futile direction of a full-scale war. Resolutions and condemnations, warnings and pleadings, appear to dwarf the will to arrest the growing seeds of hate. Security Council resolution 2^2 (1967) of November 1967 remains the best foundation for a just and lasting settlement. Jamaica once again repeats its call to all parties to accept that resolution and to seek a solution within its terms. It appears that in the final analysis the chief participants in that continuing struggle will need to demonstrate more directly their determination to bring peace to the Middle East, thus releasing needed energy and resources for development.

"In view of the major handicaps to advancement imposed by the conflicts which I have mentioned, I would suggest that this Organization set out to find the true solution that the world body needs and that the Middle East itself is crying out for."

Mr. Jedrychowski, Poland (A/PV.1767 at pages 2h to 26): "Too often we witness flagrant violations of the principles of the United Nations Charter, sometimes of a directly demonstrative character. The behaviour of the present Government of Israel can hardly be evaluated differently. Contrary to the unanimous decisions of United Nations organs, Israel continues the occupation of the Arab territories, produces faits accomplis and states openly its expansionist tendencies ir official declarations. It carries out more and more provocative military actions and prevents commissions established by the United Nations from fulfilling their functions in the occupied territories. -85-

"Could one expect such behaviour on the part of that Government if it did not enjoy economic, political and military support from outside, the support of certain Powers? Can one be surprised, in these circumstances, that the efforts of Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, have not so far yfelded results? Let us hope that the talks of the four Povers on the subject, and also the parallel Soviet- American exchange of views will, as soon as possible, lead to a change in that situation. "The Polish delegation, as it has hitherto, still stands firmly in favour of an urgent solution of the Middle East conflict on the basis of the

Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967. This is one of the few resolutions which the Security Council has adopted unanimously. It provides a good basis for a.1 peaceful, political elimination of the consequences of Israeli aggression. However, the decision of the Security Council, if it is not to remain a paper resolution, should be supported by a corresponding attitude on the part of all States towards the aggressor. The aggressor must be made to feel firm pressure and not be permitted to count on silent moral support and on open financial and material support."

Mr. Bourguiba, Tunisia (A/PV.176? at pages kl to 50): "Africa is not the only continent still suffering theevils of colonialism, nor the only one which is determined to pay a heavy price for freedom. There are other men, also brothers of us Tunisians — men indeed, brothers of all peace-loving people: the Palestinians — who, despite all obstacles, have undertaken to force the hand of destiny, and, spurred on by their miraculously restored dignity, make sacrifices which astonish not only their oppressors but the entire world. -86-

"Israel, however, has spared no effort in its endeavour to achieve the total Zionization of Palestine, on which course it has "been em "barked for the last twenty years; in its responsibility for the Holy Places as occupying Power, it even made circumstances propitious for the attack. What a sacrilege for a people which claims to be the partner of God. "Aware that the God of the Palestinians is also their past and their identity as a nation, Tel Aviv, taking it upon itself to undertake a classic act of colonialism, has not hesitated to disfigure everything in Jerusalem that had kept alive the values and traditions of its inhabitants, both in memory and in actual existence. It was also to be expected that little by little, Zionism's pernicious plans would lead to the fire which seriously damaged the Al Aqsa mosque; it was in the logic of things. And things being what they are, one is entitled to fear that the rest of the Palestinian, Muslim and Christian heritage is likewise in danger. "What is worse, there is good reason to fear that the Middle East conflict, because of its Palestinian and Arab dimensions, already a grave threat to peace, has, since the criminal act of 21 October last, acquired a third dimension — that of religion — which, in extending the conflict to

other regions of the world, can only make it even more tragic.

"The debates in the Security Council, which had been convened at the

request of twenty-six Muslim countries — one of them my own — to consider

that question, and resolution 271 (19^9) adopted by the siipreme organ of the United Nations, have clearly demonstrated the correctness of the view- point of the President of the Tunisian Republic on the news of the disaster, as expressed in messages addressed to Secretary-General U Thant and to the Chiefs of State of the ibur great Powers. -87-

"No responsible, serious policy -can fail to recognize that the Zionist military adventure which began in Palestine in 19^7 has since broadened its horizons in incredible fashion, as witness the fact that Israeli troops today occupy the banks of the Suez Canal and of the Jordan, and the Golan

Heights, and the settlers of the "chosen people" are busy setting themselves up in the very heart of the Arab World, in new territories conquered by force. "More than two years have elapsed since the last expansionist push by Israel, and each day brings us more alarming news: Israeli raids on what remains of the military and economic potential of Egypt, Jordan and Syria; devastating reprisals against Lebanon, which is supposedly responsible for the exemplary courage of the Palestinian fighters; the destruction of entire Arab villages; provocative remarks by various leaders of the Jewish State — in a word, challenges to the world, one more exasperating than another — challenges nurtured by the military arrogance of the occupier, whose only peer is the arrogance of the South African, Rhodesian, and Portuguese settlers in southern Africa. "Yet the rule of law could have been established in the Middle East. A formal and precise framework, marked with the failure of universality which would promote justice for all parties, has existed since 22 November 19&7. Inspired since its victory in the June 1967 war by a delirium of omnipotence, and following the example of other conquerers whose tragic fate is recorded in history, Israel has blindly preferred the fascination of territorial expansion and the delights of a policy of fait accompli.

"Who, then, however favourable predisposed to the United Nations he may be, can justify this shocking reality? How can one keep one's faith in our Organization when Israel — the State which was to set an example of the -88- respect for law — has grown in size, and intends to continue to grow, by- means of fire and bloodshed and faits accomplis? Small countries like mine, whose only force until then had consisted of a solid belief in a really operative and protective international order, are today in the throes of anguish on seeing the scandalous degradation of the system of rules on which civilized nations had hoped to see a new society built after the Hitler era. The situation created by the Israeli occupation of Arab territories opens the way to international anarchy in which force would replace the rule of law."

(A/PV.1T6? at pages 53 to 55) "In the Middle East peace depends essentially on the unequivocal acceptance and the total implementation by Israel of the resolutions of the United Nations, particularly resolution 2k2 (196?) of the Security Council. Let the leaders of Zionist Israel abandon their fantastic dreams, let them achieve well-being for the approximately 2 million Jews whom they have involved with them in their adventure, whose fate through war will never be definitely sealed, so that tomorrow, instead of occupation, of wars of position, of reprisal raids, in a word instead of the infernal cycle of violence, an atmosphere favourable to a just and honourable peace will have a chance to be born and to develop in the Middle East, which has suffered only too much. Or must we draw the lesson which seems dictated by the failure of the Jarring mission and conclude that because of the arrogant intransigence of the Israeli leaders and their narrow interpretation of the role of the Swedish diplomat — an interpretation which has been explicitly rejected by Secretary-General U Thant in the Introduction to his Annual Report — there remains no genuine chance for peace in the Middle East -89- except in concerted, direct and immediate — and, as we hope, effective — action by the four great Powers,members of the Security Council, who are •ultimately responsible under the Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security? "Tunisia, which has always stressed the necessity and urgency of an initiative by the Four to resolve the crisis, welcomes the French plan for quadripartite consultations which was recommended and approved by the United Nations Secretary-General and welcomed by all peace-loving men as a contribution to the restoration of peace, and was finally taken up by the United

States Government. However, these consultations do not seem to have achieved the anticipated result. Our wish is that, faced with the resumption of violence in the region and the threat of a general renewal of hostilities, the Four — and above all the United States and the Soviet Union — will once again seriously take up the consideration of the question. It has become obvious today that left to itself the Middle East will sink once again into catastrophe, a catastrophe that this time could such the entire world into chaos."

Mr. Budo, Albania (A/PV.1T6T at page 65): "... The flames of the armed struggle for liberation are expanding and becoming stronger; they embrace vast regions in various parts of the world and are extending from the Pacific and Indo-China to the Middle East, to Africa and to other areas."

(A/PV.1767 at page 6?) "That is confirmed by, among other things, the agreements and the plans of these two Powers in the field of nuclear armaments, including the present dealings which are under way between their Foreign Ministers with regard to -90- strategic arms; by the many deals, swindles and pressures of all kinds concerning the question of Viet-Nam and the question of the Middle East."

(A/PV.1767 at page 71) "... In the Mediterranean, the Soviet fleet is in competition with the United States Sixth Fleet, and is playing the same role: it is threatening the security and freedom of the independent countries of that region. We should stress that the naval bases of those two fleets constitute a serious danger both to the countries where they are stationed and to the other peace- loving countries of the Mediterranean. We energetically denounce here the serious threat constituted by those bases to peace and security in the Mediterranean and in Europe."" (A/PV.176T at pages 72 to 77) "Two years have now elapsed since the imperialist Israeli aggression against the Arab countries, and the tragic and intolerable situation in that region as a result of that aggression remains unchanged. The United States and the revisionist leadership of the Soviet Union bear primary responsibility for this monstrous crime against the Arab people. Those two imperialist Powers are attempting, each on its own account, to derive beniefit from this situation by every possible means and with odious cynicism in order to assure for themselves a dominating position in the Middle East, which is rich in oil and of great strategic importance, and in order to earn as much profit as possible at the expense of the Arab peoples. In the meantime, the Israeli aggressors, encouraged by this particular situation, are insistently applying in the occupied territories and against the neighbouring Arab countries their policy of aggressive expansionism. They are carrying out their acts of aggression and they are constantly conducting attacks -91-

and acts of armed provocation against the United Arab Republic, Jordan, Syria

and Lebanon. A reign of terror continues against the Arab peoples in the

territory occupied by the Zionist aggressors. "The Arab peoples are becoming more than ever aware of the fact that the two great Powers are opposed to a just solution of the problem of the Middle East. While the United States of America openly supports Israel, arms it constantly and uses it as an instrument for the realization of its plans against the Arab peoples, the Soviet revisionist leaders are benefitting from the situation thus created to carry out their own designs for hegemony, calculatin that the Arab peoples threatened by Israel will need them and

will thus be obliged to defer and sutanit to them. The objectives of those two great Powers are to stifle the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people and the other Arab peoples, to eliminate the Palestinian problem and to maintain the tense and tragic situation which has been created and which is detrimental to the Arab peoples, all in order to ensure for themselves a position of dominance in which they can pillage the resources of the countries of that region. Those are the same objectives which are also served by the resolutions of the United Nations, like to one of 22 November

1967 /2U2 (1967J/, a product of the plot of the American and Soviet Govern- ments, or the other plans which they have been hatching in the course of bipartitie, quadripartite and other negotiations that have been taking place in the United Nations or in the corridors of Foreign Ministries. "The old and the new imperialists and the Zionists imagine that they will easily be *>le to impose their criminal plans on the Arab peoples. They forget with whom they are dealing. The Arab peoples have never accepted and will never accept the idea of submitting to pressure, to intrigue or to -92- naked force on the part of open or camouflaged aggressors. They are brave and peace-loving people, with glorious cultural traditions and traditions as warriors and as humanitarians which go "back for many centuries and which have illuminated the history of all mankind in all fields. They have given to the world writers, historians, philosophers and sages of the most eminent kind ever since ancient times. Their universities have "been celebrated; they have opened to Europe the treasures of ancient Greek philosophy.

"These peoples, who have struggled heroically through the centuries against foreign invaders, will never submit either to intrigues or to tanks or to aircraft of American make or of any other make. They are invincible; their power is great and it will inevitably triumph. Their enemies should tremble. "The heroic and glorious struggle of the Palestinian partisans is the best proof of what I have said. From this rostrum I should like, on behalf of the Albanian people, to salute our Palestinian brothers who, with weapons in their hands, are raising high over the battlefield the banner of liberty and independence.

"Imperialism and international Zionism have striven for scores of years to introduce into Palestine Jews coming from different parts of the world and to establish there a bridgehead of domination and aggression. Jews from different countries in the West, as well as from the Ukraine, Poland, Romania and so forth, have penetrated there. They have come to your territory, my Palestinian brothers, financed by international Zionism, and they have forced you to live in tents in the desert, after having usurped your land. And as one, you have risen up and are fighting valiantly for your sacred rights.

But with regard to your struggle, the imperialists and the modern revisionists are applying the law of silence. -93-

"As the representative of the Albanian people and as your loyal "brother, I shall raise my voice here in the United Nations, I shall speak of your rights and of your heroic struggle, and, as always, I shall do so incessantly, even if this upsets the world. You are accused of terrorist acts. But you are a people possessed of great ideals, a people of lofty, noble and pure spirit. You are warriors who, under the threat of oppression, have for years been struggling for your dignity and honour, for the honour of your women- and for a happy future. Your policy is one of brother hood towards all fraternal Arab peoples, towards all progressive peoples of the world. You have also, with regard to the Israelis, shown a truly humane attitude. But you are not slaves in spirit; it is those who oppress you who are the slaves in spirit, and they will be defeated, today or tomorrow, they will succumb to your heroic struggle, which is an integral part of the struggle of the entire Arab people. "There are some who claim that Israel is strong. But this is not true.

It is impossible for a State that is rapacious to be strong, a State that represses other peoples and drowns them in blood. The truth is that the so-called strength of Israel stems particularly from the temporary difficulties of the Arab peoples. No one, however, should cherish any illusions, and as for us in Albania, we are firmly convinced — and to use an expression from our own country, we believe in this as we do in the air we breathe — that the Arab people, rising with ever-growing energy and strength, will surely overcome the enemies of their freedom and sovereignty. "There are some people, perhaps, who nourish the hope of a political settlement of this question of such vital importance to the Arab people — a political settlement resulting from deals "between the American imperialists and. the Soviet revisionists with the direct or indirect assistance of

Israel and international Zionism. But no settlement vill come from that source; it will come as a result of the freedom struggle of the Arab peoples themselves. These pseudo-mediators and pseudo-defenders know very well this truth and they are frightened of the settling of accounts. This is why not only is it wrong to cherish hopes for a so-called peaceful settlement; those Powers, also, must not even be permitted to continue their negotiations amongst themselves, because the facts show that so long as this bargaining goes on, the horizons will remain dark. This is easily understood, because what American imperialism wants above all is to strengthen its positions of domination in the Middle East, in Africa and in the Mediterranean area, while the Soviet revisionists — those new imperialists — turning the temporary difficulties of the Arab peoples to their own profit, likewise, in their turn, are seeking to reinforce their positions in the same areas. "In conclusion, the question of the Middle East can serve only, in the hands of the two imperialist Powers, as a kind of currency to be used in bargaining between themselves, in order to smooth over their differences in various parts of the world. This is something that should be evident to all; it is another matter if some people recognize it and others do not, or if some people think that in these equivocal circumstances they can extricate themselves from a difficult situation resulting from different circumstances. We Albanians, however, think and act with free expression of our points of view. ¥e are sure that our friends will never hold it against us if we speak the truth and show our sincerity, for we love them with all our hearts, especially in times of difficulty, and if our enemies are annoyed we could not care less. -95-

"The popular partisan struggle is part of the great liberation struggle of the peoples, that struggle which the occupiers and enemies of free countries and peoples so terribly fear. The imperialists and revisionists are striving, through pressure and demagogy, to hinder and stifle your heroic partisan struggle, my Palestinian brothers; but even here at the United Rations, your Arab brothers who are fighting at your side, together with ourselves,your Albanian friends and brothers, express the unshakable conviction that you will overcome all your difficulties. You are fighting in a just cause; the final victory will inevitable be yours."

Mr. Budo, Albania (A/PV.1767 at pages 83 to 8U): "The people of Viet-Nam, the people of Czechoslovakia, the people of

Palestine and the peoples of the other Arab countries, victims of imperialist Israeli aggression, ... and all the other peoples suffering from imperialist, colonialist and racist oppression, are waging a great struggle; they are dealing furious blows, in each continent and everywhere, against the old and the new imperialists and their colonialist allies, as well as their agents."

Mr. Barakat. Yemen (A/PV.1T68 at pages k to 5): "Small nations placed great hopes in this Organization and, though the United Nations and its various agencies have realized great achievements, those nations have been greatly disappointed because this Organization has not been effective in quelling aggression or punishing and isolating the aggressor. That is clearly manifested in the case of the Israeli aggression of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. "When we think of the United Nations Charter, which embodies those noble aims and principles, we cannot fail to realize that those principles -96-

are constantly violated by Israel, which has shown that is has neither

respect for the Charter nor any regard for the world community. "Israel was established at the expense of the indigenous people of

Palestine. Wot only did the Israelis usurp the land, houses and property of the Palestinian people but they also conducted an aggressive and expansionist campaign against the neighbouring Arab countries." "History has shown us that no matter how long the colonialist Powers occupy and exploit the usurped land, the rightful people always regain their land and freedom. The Palestinians are now conducthg a war of liberation against the Israeli colonists. The struggle will be bitter and long, but right will triumph as it has triumphed in other parts of the world where

colonialists had to evacuate the occupied countries under popular pressure."

Mr. Lopez Michelsen, Colombia (A/PV.1T68 at pages 12 to 15): "We have before us, however, armed conflicts which have been unsolved for years, in the face of the impotence of the United Nations and of the super-Powers themselves. The cases of Viet-Wam and of the Middle East, no less than civil or racial wars are prime examples... In like manner, we have seen how the Middle East conflict, concerning which a rare unanimity was

recorded in the Security Council resolution of 22 November 19&7, nas "been delegated to the so-called Big Four, with alast hope of reconciliation, in view of the failure of the regular organs of the Organization to make their own resolutions effective."

Mr. Hillery. Ireland (A/PV.1T68 at pages 27 to 28): "This is the third regular session of the Assembly whose agenda contains an item on the situation in the Middle East arising out of the hostilities of -97- the hostilities of June 19*57. That no substantial progress should have been made in resolving that situation is most disquieting, having regard to the possibility of a recrudescence of major hostilities in the area. In that event there would clearly be a risk of the big Powers being drawn in for various reasons, including the traditional strategic importance of the Middle East. It is therefore discouraging that the Secretary-General should record a marked deterioration in the situation; and my Government noted with concern the anxious appeals he felt obliged to make in recent months for the exercise of restraint by the parties directly concerned and for the cessation of the many grave incidents which have unnecessarily exposed the safety of the Military Observers along the Suez Canal. As the Secretary- General has well said, the whole situation in the area creates "a crisis of effectiveness for the United Nations and for its Members" (A/T6oi/Add.l, para. 65). The Irish delegation sincerely hopes that the mission of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the Middle East, Ambassador Jarring, will bear fruit worthy of the patient and persistent efforts on which he has been engaged, and that the Big Four, who have been seconding those efforts for the past six months, will enable him to bring his mission to a successful conclusion at a very early date." -98-

Mr. Nkundabagenzi. Rwanda (A/PV.1T69 at page 7):

"... But colonialism and racial segregation, unfortunately, are not the only moving problems of our time. There is also the civil war in Nigeria, the problem of Viet-Nam, not to speak of the thorny and difficult problem of the Middle East."

(A/PV.1769 at page 8)

"I come now to an equally painful question, namely, that of the Middle

East. My country, which maintains true ties of friendship and co-operation with both parties to this conflict, has never concealed its concern in the face of a situation in which violence seems to have become the only manner of living. That is why, from this lofty tribune and in similar circumstances, we have never ceased to believe that only dialogue between the parties concerned can lead to an honourable solution.

"In the eyes of my Government, there is no theory so fragile as that of "those States" which continue to ignore the existence of the State of

Israel, although the latter is a Member of the United Nations, and a full fledged member. There can never be a holy war; can there be perhaps a

just war when it is justified by the state of self-defence? Thus it is appropriate that Israel and the Arab countries should try to meet to discuss directly, face to face, the dispute which divides them."

Mr. Sharp, Canada (A/PV.1769 at page 25):

"Let us remember, too, that the founders of the United Nations provided in the Charter procedures for the pacific settlement of disputes designed to stop the insane pattern of fighting and bloodshed which disfigures our globe from time to time and today particularly in Viet-Nam, the Middle East, and

Nigeria. It is a sad commentary on the state of the world community that it -99- has no capacity to order the cessation of hostilities, except to the extent that the combatants are influenced "by world public opinion. The current tense situation in the Middle East perhaps illustrates most graphically the nature of our dilemma. The Security Council unanimously adopted in November 1967 a resolution which imposed an equitable balance of obligation on all

the parties to the dispute. Its full implementation could have restored peace to the Middle East. Yet today the conflict continues to rage."

(A/PV.1T69 at page 26) "... Meanwhile, Canada is continuing, in the face of discouragingly slow political progress in Cyprus, to participate in the peace-keeping operation there, as well as in the United Nations peace-observation missions in Palestine and Kashmir."

Mr. Usher, Ivory Coast (A/PV.1769 at page 36): "As to the Middle East, it is drifting into a war of attrition which is a matter of great concern. The Governments responsible are no longer in control of the situation, which has been taken over by the Palestinians themselves. War operations go beyond the borders of the Middle East --in

the air and on the ground — and create deep apprehension among innocent peoples far removed from the theatre of the conflict. His Holiness Pope Paul VI sees in that situation the roots of a general conflict.

"In a collective statement, dated 26 September 1969, the great Powers state that all States of the region have the right to exist; yet they

continue to furnish weapons for them to destroy each other. It is high

time that the great Powers responsible for the situation in the Middle East made renewed efforts to lead the parties towards a search for a peaceful -100- solution; military means having proved useless, dialogue "becomes a dire need.

It may take different forms — either direct or through intermediaries — as long as the parties act in good faith. The Ivory Coast affirms its belief in a negotiated settlement based on the statement of the great Powers and on the implementation of the Security Council resolution of 22 November

1967."

Mr. Thorn, Luxembourg (A/PV.1?69 at page k6):

"Above all, in the Middle East the lack of success in the efforts undertaken heretofore to find a way out of the impasse seem to us fraught

•with serious danger for the future. All the efforts displayed and deployed tirelessly both by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General,

Mr. Jarring, and by the four great Powers still have not led the parties concerned to comply with the whole body of directives contained in the resolution adopted two years ago by the Security Council."

(A/PV.1T69 at pages k6 to 1$)

"On this occasion, the time lost clearly does not work in favour of peace. In order to emerge from the present vicious circle, it will still be necessary one day to renounce the acquisition of any territory by force and to recognize actually the political independence and territorial integrity of all States established in the Middle East. Inflexibility which is met only with intransigence would inevitably entail suffering for those who live in that part of the world.

"Daily experience shows us increasingly clearly that repeated recourse to force, the progressive escalation of violence, successive declarations of intransigence, serve only further to kindle passions and emotions, strengthen -101- the position of extremists of every hue and threaten to vrest control of a situation from responsible political leaders. "It is my duty to condemn terrorist undertakings which increasingly are spreading in "third countries" not parties to the dispute. How do the leaders of these movements venture to hope to win over to their cause the support of public opinion by acts of piracy in countries which have always pleaded in favour of the peaceful settlement of a dispute?

"We fully endorse what the Secretary-General said on this subject. Not only should these acts of terrorism and piracy — and how indeed could I describe them otherwise? — be formally condemned by our Organization, but every Member country should undertake severe sanctions against the authors of such crimes and. above all. should refuse to draw the slightest advantage> direct or indirect, from such acts of piracy. "Who in this hall could still ignore the scope of the problems, particularly that of the Palestinian refugees? Considering that our goal should not be to confine ourselves to ensuring a cease-fire and the recognition of frontiers or lead to the opening of the Suez Canal, but, on the contrary, should tend to attack the very causes of the unrest and the disease we believe that to attain this goal we must inevitably come to a solution of the problem of the

Palestinian refugees; and to do this it would seem necessary to ensure direct dialogue with the valid interlocutors who are duly qualified spokesmen of these refugees. "If today antagonisms are unduly exacerbated if it is clearly manifest that time is no longer on the side of the dialogue so long desired between Israel and the Arab States, in the face of the inability of the world Organi- zation to enforce respect for its resolution of 1967, we still have hope that the parties will rely on the good offices of the great Powers. -102-

"It seems to usttiat the four great Powers have the imperative duty to persevere in the course which they have sketched out by tirelessly continuing their efforts to bring about a rapprochment of points of view, which so far have divided the opposing parties so deeply. Without imposing from the outside

some ready-made solution, it is up to them none the less to act in such a way that their initiatives will result in the restoration of calm in that troubled area. We fully endorse what the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium said on this point, and we can only congratulate ourselves that on this occasion the four great Powers, which enjoy a privileged place in the United Nations, should also assume special responsibilities, and we hope that through their intermediary and in the absence of direct contact — which we also wish could become a reality — we shall see undertaken at least an indirect confrontation of the various parties involved in this dispute.

"For its part the United Nations, whose observer groups in the past on various occasions have competently and devotedly discharged their delicate mission, could by its presence again make a valid contribution to the restoration of a state of calm and thus finally facilitate the establishment of a just and lasting peace. Let the success of the concrete measures taken for the pacification of the situation in Cyprus serve henceforth as an example. To provide the machinery for peace operations — which now functions on the basis of voluntary contributions — with a.n institutional and solid financial basis and to make of it an effective and undisputed instrument free from last minute improvisations would seem to me to constitute one of our priority goals."

Mr. Pazhwak, Afghanistan (A/PV.17TO at pages 16 to 1?):

"... But now it appears that we are about to suffer a serious relapse into history. Claims to the Old City of Jerusalem have been made on a basis -103-

of biblical law and. quasi—religious narratives. On 3 July I appeared before the Security Council on behalf of my Government, along with representatives of other delegations, in the Council's deliberations on the occupation of

Jerusalem. I raised the warning that the claims made to Jerusalem on so-

called religious grounds, apart from any other aspects of the issue, dangerously

opened up the flood gates for a reversion to religious war. I stated that

if such a; war took place, Israel would be responsible.

"On 20 August the world heard with dismay and grief of the burning of the

sacred Al Aqsa Mosque, one of the holiest of shrines to the Islamic peoples in all lands and historic landmark to all religions and all faiths. This tragic occurrence ignited the hearts of Islamic peoples everywhere. "My point here is to draw some lesson from this unhappy development for the future peace and security of the world. Religious claims are one category

of war into which the United Nations must now allow itself to be dragged as

an arbiter — and for a very sound reason. Even in political and ideological

tensions the world Organization has its obvious limitations and, within them, has achieved much in the prevention of conflict and in halting its spread. It has been able to exercise restraints where governments are concerned. But wars involving the most precious convictions of man run beyond the control of governments and become the crusades of peoples on the highest level of reckless emotions; and this kind of war may not be amenable to the usual

United Nations restraints. "The United Nations must nip in the bud any attempt to revive this kind

of war by eliminating its causes."

Mr. Adoula. Congo (Democratic Republic of) (A/PV.1770 at page 27): "With respect to the Middle East, the Democratic Republic of the Congo -101*- endorses the considerations stated by the Secretary-General in the introduction to his annual report. Indeed, in that part of the world the resurgence of violence and the increase in tension further remove any prospects of peace. "We encourage negotiations among the Four great Powers interested in the conflict in the Middle East to the extent that those negotiations might lead to a solution resulting in lasting peace between the belligerents. We nevertheless ask those great Powers to be honest with themselves and to stop encouraging the parties to the conflict through the supply of arms and ammunition. "The delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo firmly believes that an objective application of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967 would inevitably lead to the establishment of a lasting peace in the Middle East." -105-

Mr. Odaka, Uganda (A/PV.1771 at page 11): "The situation in the Middle East could also be quickly solved if all the Big Powers were firmly committed to finding a peaceful and just solution. Again, it is most regrettable that some of the members of the Security Council are not devoid of self-interest in this matter and are for selfish reasons actively arming the warring parties. How then can these Powers help to find peace? We patiently wait to hear of any success that may be achieved through the talks of the Big Powers now taking place."

"... The tragic civil war in Niegeria, the Middle East conflict and the war in Viet-Nam, all clearly point to one lesson. In Nigeria, as in the Middle East and Viet-Nam, the major Powers who are the permanent members of the Security Council, and who should be on the side of peace, are actively involved with one party or another in all these wars."

Mr. Marko. Czechoslovakia (A/PV.1771 at pages 22 to 25): "Likewise, negotiations on ways to liquidate the Israeli aggression in the Middle East have so far had little success. Vast Arab territories continue to be occupied by Israeli troops; the rights of the Arab populations living in those territories have been violated and their plight has been shocking indeed. Under those circumstances, how can any one be surprised that in that region there prevails an explosive situation that threatens every hour to grow into a new conflagration of war with unforeseeable consequences? "The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic considers the adoption, and more particularly the implementation, of all provisions of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967 as a way out of the current crisis. It is now up to Israel whether it will accept the requirements of the peace-loving -106-

nations; whether, in particular, it will withdraw its troops from the occupied Arab territories; whether it will assume full responsibility for continued dangerous developments in that region."

(A/PV.1T71 at page la) "... War and hostilities, with their inescapable consequences of human suffering and destruction, are raging in South East Asie, in the Middle East, and in West Africa."

Mr. Hartling. Denmark (A/PV.1771 at page 1*6): "The situation in the Middle East continues to be a cause for concern. There has been no progress towards a political solution, and military actions and counteractions as well as acts of violence inside and outside the area are causing death and destruction and are a constant source of tension. In order to promote constructive developments it is essential that this vicious circle of violence be broken, and all the parties to the conflict should, therefore, direct their urgent attention to this end. "We deeply regret that a political solution on the basis of the Security Council resolution of November 1967 has not yet been achieved. It is the duty of all parties to the conflict to co-operate actively and in good faith with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Ambassador Jarring, in the performance of his task under the resolution. In this context we welcome the consultation between permanent members of the Security Council with a view to strengthening Mr. Jarring's hand. "Turning to the humanitarian aspects of the situation in the Middle East, I should like to stress that my country considers it highly important that international human solidarity be translated into practical and humanitarian action." -107-

Mr. Valde's. Chile (A/PV.1J71 at page 6l): "The state of war in Viet-Nam and in the Middle East is intolerable at present not only for what those conflicts mean in death a.nd suffering, but also for the effect of moral and psychological degradation that they produce among men."

(A/PV.1771 at page 65) "Nothing has been accomplished in solving the conflict in the Middle

East, where a realistic and gradual formula should be forthcoming during the course of this Assembly, one starting with an agreement to halt the accumulation of armaments, which, by themselves alone, will destroy the economic capacity of those countries."

Mr. Bashey, Bulgaria (A/PV.1772 at page 22): "The development of the international situation clearly indicates that it is impossible to solve such serious and burning problems as those of Viet-Nam and Korea, or of the Middle East, without a complete withdrawal of the American troops from South Viet-Nam and South Korea, and of the Israeli troops from occupied Arab territories."

(A/PV.1772 at pages 26 to 27)

"Our delegation fully shares the conclusion of Secretary-General U Thant that the situation in the Middle East has continued to deteriorate. The danger of the resumption of military action on a large scale is real and may lead to the extension of the conflict beyond the Middle East area. "Why has the crisis in that troubled area not only not subsided but has even become worse? What are the .obstacles which frustrate the efforts to achieve a political settlement of the conflict? -108-

"It is sufficient to examine the positions and attitudes of the two sides involved in the conflict ~ the Ara"b countries and Israel — to find an answer. "The Arab countries, which bear the heavy burden of the occupation of large parts of their territories, have accepted the Security Council resolution as a basis for a political settlement of the crisis and have shown that they are ready to act in conformity with that resolution in spite of the new sacrifices which it requires of them for the sake of peace. Their attitude towards the mission of Ambassador Jarring, Special Representative of the Secretary-General, and towards the quadriparite talks on the Middle East is positive. The position of the Arab countries — victims of Israeli aggression - has created favourable conditions for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in that area based on the principles of national independence, territorial integrity and mutual security. "The statements made from this rostrum by representatives of Arab countries — the United Arab Republic, Jordan, Lebanon and others — confirm the reasonable and constructive course pursued by their Governments. "And what of the position of Israel? The Israeli Government persists in its total contempt of the Security Council resolution and has done nothing to implement it. Israel refuses to withdraw its troops from occupied Arab territories. The occupation is accompanied by military actions on land and from the air against the United Arab Republic, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Israel never ceases to erect new obstacles to a just and humane solution of the problem of the Palestinian refugees. It has declared that it will not accept the results of consultations between four permanent members of the Security Council and it undermines the mission of Ambassador Jarring. What the Israeli Government is seeking is not a peaceful solution of the Middle -109-

East crisis, but the surrender of the Arab countries, radical modification of the map of the Middle East and annexation of large parts of Arab territories. "What further aggravates the situation in the Middle East is the extensive support by the United States for Israel's intransigent and provocative attitude.

This biased and unjust position of the United States constitutes a negative factor which does not facilitate the settlement of the crisis but rather hinders it.

"There is, however, a feasible and just possibility of reaching a lasting political settlement of the Middle East crisis. This is the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occupied Arab territories and the recognition of the right to an independent and secure existence for all States in the area, including Israel. "The Bulgarian Government considers that nobody has the right to demand from the Governments and peoples of the Arab countries that they yield to the aggression and give up their rights. It supports the just struggle of the

Arab peoples against aggression and occupation and is' for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, as well as their efforts aimed at peaceful national development and social progress."

Mr. Ayoune. Gabon (A/PV.1772 at page "It is equally true in the Middle East, where far from dying down, the crisis which broke out two years ago is worsening today, and is compromising the security of adjoining countries which, despite themselves, are involved in this whirlpool of death and ruin." -110-

Mr. Ayoune. Gabon (A/PV.1TT2 at pages 51 to 52):

"In the case of Israel and the Arab States the problem is different, but here again the solution depends upon honest application of a fundamental principle of the Charter of San Francisco, namely that of the peaceful settlement of disputes.

"Ever since the creation of the State of Israel, the United Nations has never stinted its efforts to restore peace in that part of the world constantly in a state of heated tension. This was the case as early as the first confrontation with the dispatch of a control mission; it was the case in 1956, with the ssbting-up of an international emergency force; it is still the case today, with the mobilization of the common goodwill and the tireless activity throughout all parts of this building seeking an escape from the impasse and that easing of tensions on which future negotiations depend. Be that as it may, nothing solid can be built so long as the parties involved remain intransigent. It is for them to silence their weapons and accept the reciprocal concessions that can lead to final compromise. It is necessary for each to overcome the narrow-minded approach that limits it and recognize the other's right to existence and dignity. This presupposes that the Arab Governments must abandon all xenophobic feelings and undertake direct negotiations for the purpose of granting to the Hebrew State secure and lasting frontiers as well as the rights due to it under international law. In return, the other party, Israel, must learn how to use its victory, must avoid offending national or religious sensibilities, and must withdraw from the occupied territories. "But instead of this, the conflict has evolved into a stage where the positions of the belligerents are farther apart than ever and the impasse seems complete. On the one side, Israel agrees to applythe terms of the resolution of 22 November 19^7, but only on the condition that direct -Ill- negotiations with its opponents guarantee to it secure and lasting frontiers.

On the other side, the Arabs are divided into two camps: those who do not even wish to hear anythingabout a State of Israel and who think only about its disappearance, pure and simple; and those who advocate a greater Palestinian State in which the State of Israel would be merged, with the Israelis forming only one community of citizens enjoying the same rights as the Arabs. It can easily be understood, of course, that faced with these two possibilities, Israel should react with desperate energy and that, with the bitter memory of similar experiences in the past, it should not be willing to go through them again. How then can there be any escape from this inextricable situation, unless through faithful application of the terms cf the 22 November 196? resolution? That, at least, is our view in this case."

(A/PV.1772 at page 60) "... It is this will which inspires the action to restore peace in the Middle East, Viet-Nam, and Nigeria, to fight colonialism, imperialism and neo-colonialism for the freeing of all Territories still under colonial domination, to eliminate racism and racial discrimination from the society of man."

Mr. Koinange. Kenya (A/PV.1772 at page 70):

"I should like to turn to the Middle East, an area which is currently trapped in a cycle of human conflict and suffering. Our contacts with this area date from ancient times. It is therefore out of a sense of deep sadness that we see the spectacle of great, fierce fighting engulfing our friends there.

"Commendable peace efforts have been initiated since the war of \ June 1967- The Security Council Ipassed the resolution of November 1967, -112- which was intended to be actually a basis of settlement. It is most disappointing that the resolution was not implemented. The Jarring mission, which was entrusted to bring a dialogue, peace and conciliation to the Middle East, has not achieved any concrete results. The talks between the big Four

Powers in New York and all other efforts, though covering important ground, have not been successful.

"The policy of the Government of Kenya remains unchanged: that of a peaceful settlement on the "basis of the Security Council resolution of November 1967, which is still a very important act. Kenya welcomes any constructive effort intended to bring about immediate peace and stability in the Middle East."

Mr. Caglayangil, Turkey (A/FV.1772 at pages 85 to 87):

"I hope I will not abuse the patience of the Assembly if I dwell at some length on the situation in the Middle East where the evoltion of the conflict has recently taken a clear turn for the worse. Indeed, we are witnessing a growing tension along the cease-fire line which has given rise to great uneasiness among all of those who hope to see peace achieved as soon as possible in the region. The frequent clashes between the armed forces of both sides have tended to acquire the dimensions of full-scale military operations. "It would be wrong to view the violence in the region as a mere violation of the Security Council's cease-fire resolution. I do not think that appeals to moderation can really suffice to maintain or to preserve the calm as long as the efforts aimed at facilitating a solution of the conflict do not provide grounds for hope of a forthcoming settlement.

"The fire in the mosque of Al Aqsa has added a very critical element to -113- to a situation which was already providing cause for alarm. This sacrilegious act left the Moslems of the world in a state of great emotion and deep sorrow and has emphasized the need to do everything to solve this conflict which makes the Middle East an explosive region. "At this stage it would not be appropriate to make any accusations. But it is difficult to absolve the country that occupies the Arab portion of Jerusalem of the responsibility for an act committed in a place under its military occupation. It is all the more regrettable that this country continues to ignore the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly as well as the Security Council demanding that it rescind all measures aimed at modifying the status of the city of Jerusalem. "In this connexion, I think it will be useful to recall here the Declaration adopted by the summit conference which took place in the capital of Morocco barely one week ago. That Declaration not only reflects the emotion of the

Moslem world as a result of the fire at the Mosque of Al-Aqsa. but it also points once again to the urgent need to find a just and equitable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"A year ago, I stated before the General Assembly that the continued occupation of Arab territories and the non-implementation of the resolution of the Assembly regarding Jerusalem posed a serious danger both to the stability of the region and to world peace. Today I will repeat this with even greater emphasis. If the main objective is the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which would pave the way to normal relations among the countries of the region, it is obvious that the fait accompli and the acquisition of territory through the use of armed force are not the methods for attaining this objective. Let us hope that the recent deterioration of the situation in -lilt-

general and the arson committed at the Mosque of Al-Aqsa in particular will induce us to redouble our efforts to bring to an end the deadlock in the Middle East conflict. "Fortunately, we have a valuable basis for a political settlement in the resolution of the Security Council dated 22 November 1967. I wish to express here the support of my Government for the initiatives taken by the Governments of the four countries which are permanent members of the Security Council. These two-Power and four-Power talks are for us a source of hope and proof that the possibilities for arriving at a solution are not yet foreclosed. We have noted with satisfaction that the United States and the Soviet Union are making a new effort to facilitate a settlement of the Middle East conflict. These initiatives may ensure the success of Ambassador Jarring's mission provided the countries directly involved also lend their support." -115-

Mr. Elbeidh. Southern Yemen (A/PV.1773 at pages 6 to lj): "The question of the people of Palestine did not fare better in the United Nations than in its predecessor, the League of Nations. The people of Palestine were exposed to mass murder and violent expulsion from their homeland by force of arms; and were replaced by a scattered group of nationalities from the four corners of the world that share nothing in common "except their desire for domination and exploitation and their belief, which is unjustified, in their superiority, based on racist and religious fanaticism, The United Nations has not been able to enforce a just solution of this a ominable crime, because of its impotence and the support and encouragement by some of the great Powers of the crime committed."

"The Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Sudan has eloquently stated, in detail, the historical background and the development of the Palestinian question. His explanation has undoubtedly refuted the imaginary claims of international Zionism in Palestine that are based on racist and religious fanaticism whose goal is the domination and exploitation of the economic resources of nations, through its influence on major capitalistic and monopolistic corporations which embody the political interests of world imperialism and Zionism. "The Palestinian people have been forced to take arms and to sacrifice their lives to regain their usurped homeland from the Zionist colonialists. ¥e cannot but salute their just and honorable struggle as a national liberation movement, because one cannot deny the right of expelled people to fight in order to return to their homeland. We support the armed Palestinian struggle and its call to return to a normal life in the Holy Land and the co-existence of the adherents of the three religions, Judaism, Christianity -116- and Islam, as equal citizens in a free and democratic Palestine. This is the only fair civilized and humanitarian solution. Any other solution would be uncivilized, barbaric and racist. Nor would it be lasting. History has taught us that only just solutions are lasting solutions. "Our support for the Palestine question is a manifestation of our belief that all peoples have the right of Belf-determination and the right to live freely and peacefully in their homelands. Our "belief in this will never be shaken, even though world Zionism enjoys tremendous influence and control over the imperialistic news media, which persistently distort facts and prevent honest information on Palestine because of Zionist intimidation and bribery. The news media are attempting to conceal one of the most horrible crimes committed against humanity today, one that even surpasses the well- known Nazi crimes. We shall continue firmly to support the armed struggle of the Palestinians for the liberation of their homeland from Zionist occupation. We also firmly believe that the Palestinian people alone possess their right of self-determination. "The Middle East problem arose in June 1967 as a result of Israeli aggression and occupation of the territories of three Arab States which are Members of the United Nations. We are also all familiar with the well-known

Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967, which was adopted unanimously. Israel is still defying that resolution by continuing to keep its army in the occupied Arab territories and by its repeated provocative raids which are intended to escalate into a new and devastating war. "By its continued occupation and provocation, Israel defies the Charter of the United Nations and the world community at large. Its de facto occupation is in defiance of one of the agreed-upon principles of international law, which is the non-acquisition of territory by force. Israel has done this with the -117- open encouragement of imperialist circles. The United States has not hesitated to supply destructive arms and weapons to Israel. The most recent were the Phantom jets. The United States obviously has never seriously contemplated the following facts:

"It was Israel which started the aggressive war in June 1967 against the

Arab States; "It is Israel that still occupies the territories of three Member States of the United Nations; "It is Israel -that has not yet complied with Security Council Resolution 2k2 (1967) of November 1967; "It is Israel that has declared its intention to annex the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, while ignoring world public opinion;

"It is Israeli planes supplied by the United States that daily bomb and raid peaceful cities and villages, economic establishments and civil airports;

"It is Israeli napalm bombs that daily burn refugee camps, and innocent women and children who were expelled from their homes by Israel.

"One wonders what the Arabs have done to make the United States have this blind malice against them? "Statements are often heard concerning the establishement of peace in the Middle East, but rarely is a voice raised concerning the establishment of justice in Palestine, as if peace can ever be established on the basis of injustice. "In his speech in the General Assembly last month, we expected President Nixon to announce the position of the United States that Israel should withdraw its military forces from occupied Arab territories in compliance with the

Security Council resoltion of 22 November 19&7, "which "the Security Council adopted unanimously and for which his Government also voted. However, he ignored the resolution and suggested instead a limitation on arms shipments to -118- the area, after he had already ordered the shipment of Phantom jets to Israel in a manner far from even-handed. Thus the United States Government has acted first to achieve Israeli military superiority by shipping the Phantom jets and then called for an arms limitation to maintain and ensure that superiority over the Arabe. "The world conflict that we witness today, in which the United States plays a major role, represents the attempt of the imperialist Powers to dominate the destinies of small, developing nations by limiting the independence of such small countries, which they had achieved by their sacrifice and blood."

"The People's Republic of Southern Yemen, which recently emerged from the ashes of colonialism and has taken its place among the free and developing countries, bases its domestic and foreign policies on the same principles adhered to by the developing and struggling nations that we have mentioned above. Mien we achieved our independence, the Arab nation was already suffering from the consequences of the June 1967 war, and the world was preoccupied by this crisis which threatened world peace and security. Britain took advantage of those circumstances and relinquished its responsibilities to the people of Southern

Yemen. Those responsibilities were based upon its 129 years of occupation, during which it exploited our resources for its own interests and without any regard to local interests. Britain did not establish a unified administration, nor an adequate road system linking the entire country, nor a single factory, nor did it complete one significant project. It based local development on an economy of services linked to its econlmy and its military base. It inflated the local budget, in the last years of Britain's reign, to the unrealistic level of more than £30 million, whereas the State's revenue does not exceed £8 million.

"It appears, therfore, that Britain made deliberate plans in Southern -119-

Yemen on the eve of our independence. It took advantage of the economic dislocation and the Middle East crisis which affected one of our major sources of income, the port of Aden, after the closure of the Suez Canal following the June 1967 War, so as to cause a financial and economic crisis and thus reduced the significance of our independence,which our people had won after a bitter and heroic struggle."

Mr. Luns. Netherlands (A/FV.1775 at pages 2J to 26):

"Since we last met the situation in the Middle East has changed for the worse. We cannot "but share the feeling of gloom of the Secretary-General in the introduction to his annual report. And we do agree with his conclusion that Tit is imperative and urgent that some way be found to reverse the present trend towards catastrophe'. Ve ask ourselves: 'What way?'. Have the numerous approaches so far not turned out to "be "blind alleys?

"Surely both parties should show the utmost restraint. The way to arrive at a lasting settlement is not on the battlefield nor on the demarcation line or far behind these lines, but at the conference table, whether through Ambassador Jarring, through the four big Powers, or through other procedures. Whatever the procedures, it is clear that a final settlement should be based on clear and unequivocal agreement between the parties. "In this respect, I would like to remind the Assembly of the contents of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 19^7, which clearly out- lines the conditions for a settlement. It is not only the important wording of this resolution, but even more its spirit which should guide the parties. -120-

11 If a settlement should "be reached and if it should provide for a renewed United Nations military presence in the region, I repeat, this time publicly, our willingness to provide the Organization with specially trained units for that task. "It is not only because of the great dangers to peace inherent in the present tense situation which prompts our active interest. It is also — and no less — because of our deep sympathy for the Jewish people, so cruelly decimated during the Second World War, and our strong links of friendship with the Arab nations, links existing for many centuries and which are based on admiration for their unique culture and proud traditions.

"I cannot end my few remarks on the situation in the Middle East without recalling the sad fate of the many refugees. It has really become a problem which should finally and by the common effort of all the countries, directly or indirectly concerned, be brought to a lasting and just solution. The relevant part of the Security Council resolution of November 1967 stresses that need."

Mr. Khoman, Thailand (A/PV.1773 at pages 42 to Vf): "In the Middle East the conflict is still smouldering while frequent clashes and outbursts threaten to erupt at any time into a more prolonged and widespread conflict. Meanwhile, even places of worship have not been spared and the burning of the El Aqsa Mosque by fanatics should be deeply deplored." "The situation in the Middle East still offers a gloomy picture on the international scene. A series of violent and prolonged skirmishes which the Secretary-General has qualified as a virtual state of war continues to inflame passions, and a new round of hostilities does not seem too remote -121- a possibility. Furthermore, the quiet and patient efforts of Ambassador Jarring and the flurry of political consultations, both multilateral and bilateral, between representatives of the major Powers here in New York and elsewhere appear to have produced little, if any, concrete result. No significant headway has in fact been made towards uncovering a procedure for defusing the explosive situation. In our view, prompt adherence to the spirit and letter of the United Nations resolutions, particularly that of the Security Council of 22 November 1967, would seem to afford the only plausible way out of the present dangerous impasse."

Mr. Arikpo, Nigeria (A/PV.1773 at pages 62 to 65): "Nigeria is attached to the Middle East by authentic bonds of history and culture. It was primarily because of these considerations that Nigeria, then a member of the Security Council, spared no effort and time, first, to achieve a cease-fire during the June 1967 war between the Arab States and Israel and, subsequently, to assist in the negotiations which led to the adoption of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. My Government remains convinced that the resolution clearly points the way towards a fair and just solution of the problems of the Middle East. "As reported by the Secretary-General in the introduction to his annual report there is at present a marked deterioration of the situation in the Middle East. My delegation agrees with the Secretary-General's remarks that the: 'situation also creates, to a considerable extent, a crisis of effectiveness for the United Nations and its Members.' (Ibid., para. 65} And that:

•A vm to attain peace by the parties thenselves is the decisive -122-

factor.' (Ibid., para. 69) "It is the considered opinion of my Government that Israel would not be unduly handicapped if it took the first step within the framework of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 196? towards a settlement, particularly of the questions of the termination of its continuing occupation of Arab territories and of the amelioration on humanitarian grounds of the living conditions of Arab refugees. "Nigeria recognizes the existence of Israel as a fact, and has diplomatic and economic relations with it. It is therefore as a friend that we counsel it that the occupation by force of the territories of Member States of our Organization is incompatible with the Charter of that Organization."

Mr. Mashologu, Lesotho (A/PV.17TU at pages 7 to 10):

"The importance of the need for negotiated settlement either within or outside the framework of the United Nations is further stressed by the situation in the Middle East. The continuation of fighting across the cease-fire lines, which the Secretary-General has also referred to as confrontation lines, is ample evidence that the tensions in the area cannot be permanently solved through a military victory by one side over the other. We reiterate our conviction that lasting peace can only come as a product of negotiations based on the honest recognition of political realities. That Israel is a political fact cannot be contested. That it has the right to transform occupation based on force into legal annexation must be denied. Israel must, however, have the assurance that it can continue to exist without fear of attack. It must also be assured of secure and recognized boundaries. Lesotho hopes that Israel and its Arab neighbours will bear in mind the serious -123- plight of their populations who must live under the cloud of war until a permanent settlement is found. It should, however, be pointed out that the reaching of a permanent settlement has not been allowed to lie entirely within the discretion of the parties to the conflict. Interference by the big Powers has delayed the realization of this goal* It is to be hoped that these Powers will realize the futility of their intervention and will co-operate with this Organization in urging the parties to the conflict to reach a negotiated settlement based on mutual trust,"

Mr. Hambro. Norway (A/PV.1774 at pages 16 to 21): "The tragic events in Viet-Nam, the Middle East and Nigeria, as well as the stalemate situation in the southern part of Africa, have a direct bearing on the political climate in general, and influence our ability to deal with other urgent problems of the day," "There are certain questions where we feel the great Powers must take the lead. The question of limiting strategic armaments is such a case, So is the situation in the Middle East, But that does not free the rest of us from responsibility," "Another situation which fills us all with concern and anxiety is the Middle East, where we do not seem to have had any progress in the last year, A solution to the conflict must be found within the framework of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967, which constitutes the basis for Ambassador Jarring's mission. Ve appreciate his efforts in carrying out the Security Council resolution, and we welcome the increased involvement of the big Powers in finding a solution. As we see it, it is -124- not a question of imposing a solution, but rather of defining the elements that go into a solution and broaden the common grounds for its acceptance and thus strengthen the position of Ambassador Jarring, "While encouraging the big Powers to assume their responsibilities for the maintenance of peace and international security we should all, even the smaller States, do our utmost in searching for and pointing out solutions. Above all, we should pledge our readiness to assume our share of the burdens and responsibilities in connexion with a settlement of the conflict. The Norwegian Government has already declared its willingness to contribute to an economic development plan for the whole Middle East region if that should be agreed upon* "One of the key elements in the whole Middle East situation is the refugee problem. This is not only or primarily a humanitarian problem* It is -- as recent developments in the area have shown — above all a political question which must be solved if a lasting settlement is to be found of the Middle East conflict."

Mr. Rabemananjara. Madagascar (A/EV.177^ at page 32): "In the Middle East the war of usury has followed armed peace, and tomorrow, if vigilance is not kept, war itself will again enfulf that region, with the risks that that entails for the peace of the world."

(at page 1*9) "With respect to the problem of the Middle East, Madagascar is in favour of the continuation of the Jarring mission0 ¥e recognize the tact, patience, caution and wisdom of Ambassador Jarring. -125-

"Furthermore, we Relieve that together the great Powers, which have a major responsibility, whether they wish it or not, under the Charter that they signed, should support that mission in the quest for a just and lasting solution which would lead to negotiations among the parties,"

Mr. Malik. Indonesia (A/PV.1TT^ at pages 53 to 57): "During the last year the Government and people of Indonesia have also been greatly concerned over the discouraging course of events in the

Middle East and in southern Africa, Both questions have been the focus of

United Nations attention since the early years of its existence. Both areas are still the source of conflict involving Members of the United

Nations itself." "With regard to the Middle East, my country is alarmed and deeply concerned with the deteriorating situation, especially of the last few months. Explosive as the situation has become, we are afraid that it may lead to a larger war endangering the peace and security of the world. "The behavior and designs of Israel since the last session have given us little cause for encouragement or grounds to entertain hope for improvement of the situation. The arson committed against Al Aqsa Mosque — so sacred and dear to Indonesian Moslems as well as to the entire Moslem world — under the responsibility of the illegal military occupation by Israel, has made the situation even worse and demands immediate action before it develops beyond all hopes for a negotiated settlement. "Our position on the central issue remains unchanged and I can only repeat what I said last year to the General Assembly, We cannot condone acquisition of other people's territory by military force. We believe that a just solution can be reached on the basis of Security Council -126- resolution 2k2 of November 196?. The withdrawal of Israeli forces to the lines they occupied before the war of June 196?, constitutes an essential element for a negotiated settlement. "As a country with the largest Muslim majority in South-east Asia, we feel that our vital interests are involved with the outcome of the struggle of our Arab brothers in the Middle East, "We also regret that the unarmed members of the United Nations Observation Group now find themselves in the grip of virtual war. My Government fully agrees with the Secretary-General's assessment of the seriousness of the situation, and hopes that adequate safeguards will be provided for the lives of those men of peace, "That virtual state of war in the Middle East is a grave setback for the United Nations and a continued threat to international peace and security. Both the Security Council and the General Assembly have adopted resolutions in clear language regarding the situation. Only firm action now to implement those decisions can save the situation from getting out of hand." "The continued defiance of both South Africa and Israel of Security Council decisions has brought the United Nations to a crisis which must be faced squarely and firmly. If we miss the opportunity to demonstrate our determination to uphold our principles, we will undermine our Organization." -127-

Mr. Coulibaly. Mali (A/FV.1775 at pages 16 to 17): "As a country situated on the cross-roads in the centre of West Africa whose history and future is to maintain friendly relations with States which

respect its sovereignty and international morality, the Republic of Mali is very much concerned with the maintenance of peace which constitutes a decisive

factor in progress and fruitful co-operation between Governments. We are following, therefore, with a good deal of concern the development of situations

throughout the world where there are conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. Although the Republic of Mali is a secular State, its population is 90 per cent Moslem. We were therefore profoundly troubled and concerned by the fire in the Al Aqsa Mosque, one of the most holy places of Islam, a fire which is only one aspect or more precisely one of the regrettable consequences of the explosive situation existing in that region ever since the creation of the State of Israel.

"While being sincerely and profoundly sympathetic to the Arab peoples, the Government of Mali, nevertheless, wishes to be realistic. We would express our whole-hearted sympathy and our support for the Arab refugees of Palestine

because like other peoples they, too, have the right to a country, a home and a national existence as a human community. But the reality is that the State of Israel exists and that its creation was organized and recognized by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations, particularly by the permanent members of the Security Council. Moreover, Israel is a Member of the United Nations.

"We are sincere supporters of a policy of peaceful coexistence between

Arabs and Jews, and the Government of the Republic of Mali is unreservedly

hostile to the annexation of Arab territories by Israel. Consequently, we shall work with determination to see to it that all Arab territories occupfed -128- by Israel following the hostilities of June 1967 are restored to the Arab

States concerned. The Government of the Republic of Mali disapproves of and condemns vigorously all acquisition of territory through war and force. That is why we call upon the Security Council to demonstrate its authority and impose upon the parties to the conflict in the Middle East the application of its resolution of 22 November 1967. The United Nations Charter which has "been approved by all Member States gives the Security Council the authority and the necessary means to apply its decisions. Whatever the interests, passions and alliances, at stake, the Government of Mali considers that the resolution of the Security Council of 22 November 1967 should be imposed upon all the parties concerned, otherwise, the Security Council will lose prestige, which would be a very prejudicial to the international community."

Mr. Manescu. Romania (A/FV.1775 at pages 36 to 37):

"In another area of the world, in the Middle East, a hotbed of conflict still persists, with grave implications for the peace of the entire world. Military incidents and the material destruction and loss of human life which they entail inflict great harm on the people in that region and can only serve the interests of the imperialist circles, which seek to stir up disputes and to heighten tension in order to maintain and consolidate their domination. "The entire expreience of international affairs in modern times confirms that any attempt to settle disputes by means of the policy of force cannot lead to a viable solutions. It is only political means, in a spirit of justice and respect for the legitimate rights and interests of all the parties concerned, that can bring about a lasting settlement. In order to create a climate which may help to promote such solutions it is necessary to avoid any action that might increase tension and add to the gravity of the situation, making even more difficult the solution of problems in the Middle East. -129-

"Romania has consistently opposed military operations in the Middle East

and it stubbornly believes in the need for a peaceful settlement of the

conflict, in accordance with the legitimate interests and rights of all the

peoples living in that region. My country has consistently favoured a solution of the Middle East conflict in the spirit of the Security Council resolution of November 1967, which provides a reasonable basis for the settlement of the situation in that area. In line with that resolution, we believe it is necessary that Israel withdraw its forces without delay from the occupied territories and that it renounce any territorial claims. At the same time, we believe that the integrity of the frontiers and the security of all States in that part of the world should be ensured and that the problem of the

Palestinian refugees should be settled with due consideration for their

legitimate interests and rights.

"¥e would express our conviction that all the members of the international community are able to make a contribution towards a peaceful solution for the Middle East in the spirit of the principles and goals enshrined in the Charter. We believe that it is absolutely necessary to take into account the nefarious influence of the time factor on the opportunities that exist for settling

conflicts and that courage and responsibility should be demonstrated in approaching existing problems and stepping up the efforts of all States,

great and small, with the aim of establishing a just and lasting peace in that area."

Mr. Dinesh Singh. India (A/FV.1775 at page 6l): "In West Asia, Israel continues to be in adverse possession of large

areas of territory it over-ran by force in June 1967. The human problem of large numbers of Arab refugees is an element in that tangled situation to which we must not and cannot close our eyes. -ijo-

"Almost two years ago, on 22 November 19&7, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2^2 (1967). The Security Council and its

Permanent Members have a special responsibility to ensure the faithful implementation of the 22 November resolution. "The first thing should have been to get the aggression vacated so that the aggressor would not retain the fruit of aggression and use it as a bargaining counter. However, we are given to understand that, in the interest of mutual accomodation, a wider solution of the West Asian problem

is being attempted. Even as such, there is no movement forward towards a peaceful solution, and the hostilities continue to flare up from time to

time, with even more dangerous consequences.

"There is further an unfortunate attempt by some interested parties to give religious overtones to a problem which is essentially political. This could only 1 play into the hands of those who wish to confuse the issues in ¥est Asia and fan religious emotions, making the quest for an objective political settlement even more difficult. "My Government has welcomed the initiative of the Permanent Members of the Security Council to engage in negotiations amongst themselves on this question. We have no desire to prejudge or to prejudice the outcome of those efforts, especially as those efforts continue to be made, albeit at a

leisurely pace. We feel, however, that the responsibility cannot be of the Permanent Members of the Security Council alone. All States Members of United Nations have a collective responsibility in all such matters."

Mr. Sher Ali Khan. Pakistan (A/PV.1775 at page 75): "The answer is not only that the great Powers are divided and unable to make use of the provisions laid down in the United Nations Charter for -131-

enforcing compliance with the decisions of the Security Council. The answer is also that they are reluctant to assimilate these decisions in their own policies. Were they to make these resolutions the cardinal principles of their policies towards the countries concerned, their combined resources of pressure and persuasion would not fail to ensure the fulfilment of the decisions of the United Nations. The experience of the Suez crisis in 1956 is an example in point. No sanctions were applied; yet, by the combined efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union, the Israeli forces were made to withdraw from the territory they had overrun.

(A/PV.1775 at page 76) "...Let us not forget that in both the Middle East and Viet-Nam only conventional weapons have been used. Therefore, the reduction of conventional armaments is no less imperative than measures of nuclear arms control and nuclear disarmament if the security of all nations, and not only of a few, is to be strengthened. (A/PV.1775 at page 78) "Pakistan is both in South East Asia and to the east of the Middle East. When a fire rages in the Middle East, we feel the heat A general survey of these issues, whether originating in southern Africa, in Viet-Wam, in the Middle East or in our own sub-continent, reveals a characteristic common to them all. This is that the root of the disease in all cases is the denial to a people of their right of self-determination. Wherever a people's self- determination is thwarted, conflict inevitably follows. (A/PW.1775 at page 8l) "The Middle East, the cradle of civilization, continues to be a theatre of conflict. Its origin also lies in the historic injustice done to the peoples of Palestine who are a nation no less than any other and whose -132- right to national existence in their own homeland is inferior to that of none. It is neither justice nor realism to consider the forced diaspora of the Palestinians as extinguishing all their rights. Pakistan "believes that no approach to a solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict will be creative unless it recognizes the right of self-determination of the people of Palestine. "The problem of Palestine is the basic stratum of the Middle East question. Superimposed on it is the other problem which has been created by the invasion of the territories of Jordan, Syria and the United Arab Republic by Israel in 1967. This involves the territorial integrity of three Member States of the United Nations. Though the conflict is local, the issues that it raises are universal in their scope. The issues are the following. First, can a Member State resort to force and can such resort be condoned and considered to have strengthened its claim? Second, should a Member State have the right to refuse to withdraw its forces from the territory of another State or States until it imposes peace terms according to its own will? Third, can the acquisition of territory by military conquest be admissible? "It is those questions which have to be answered if a just and lasting solution is to be achieved to the Middle East conflict. The only answer to them must be an emphatic negative, if the Charter of the United Cations has any meaning.

"The situation in Jerusalem is one aspect of the Middle East conflict which causes universal concern. We are grateful to all Members of the United Nations, except Israel of course, for their appreciation of the fact that the problem of Jerusalem transcends the rights and claims of the parties to the Arab-Israel conflict. Both the General Assembly and the Security Council have called upon Israel not to tamper with the status of the Holy City. -153-

Israel has treated all relevant resolutions vith contempt. The gravity of this situation was underlined by the horrifying occurrence of arson in the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque on 21 August. This event, which would have "been unthinkable in

the civilized world, caused an emotional upheaval among the followers of Islam, which is unexampled in the modern age. Pakistan was overwhelmed "by sorrow and seethed with indignation. "The Security Council, we are gratified, reacted to this event by making a solemn determination. It is that the abominable act of arson in the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque emphasizes the immediate necessity of Israel desisting from acting in violation of the previous resolution and rescinding forthwith all measures and actions taken by it designed to alter the status of Jerusalem. We will naturally await Israel's response. Should that response be negative, the Security Council is committed to taking the measures necessary for bringing about the de-annexation by Israel of the Holy City and the withdrawal of the Israeli forces.

"Whatever be the measures the Council will take or fail to take, one

thing should be clear to all concerned. It is that the Muslim countries, containing a population of more than half a billion people, extending from Morocco to Indonesia, will not countenance any solution of the Middle East conflict which contemplates the transfer of the Holy City to Israeli sovereignty. Any such proposal will sow the seeds of a permanent hostility focussing on Jerusalem. Any doubt on this score should be dispelled by the Declaration of the Islamic Summit Conference at Rabat. We cannot conceive that the great Powers will fail to take into account the deep attachment of the followers of Islam to Jerusalem and the resolve of the Governments participating in that Conference to strive for its liberation. Mr. Yifru. Ethiopia (A/PV.1776 at page 21):

"In Viet-Nam, the Middle East and Nigeria the guns have not been stilled; even as we deliberate here at the United Nations, in all those places men are killing one another. "With regard to the Middle East, I said last year: "It almost seems as if the preservation of the fragile cease-fire arrangements is consigned to a blind interplay of incidents rather than the dictates of international obligations or even of self-interest." (l68jrd meeting, p. 8) Since that time, such has been the extent of deterioration of the situation that I regret I cannot even repeat those words this year, for the fact today is that the cease-fire arrangements have collapsed in many sectors. Instead premeditated, highly planned and large-scale violations of the cease-fire have become daily occurrences. Along the Suez Canal and the Jordan-Israeli cease- fire sector the violations have assumed the dimensions of continuing warfare. "My Government believes that the main impetus for a solution of the problem of the Middle East should come within the framework of the United Nations from the big Powers. The problem in the immediate sense being one of reversing the course of this continuing warfare, the big. Powers have under the Charter of the United Nations inescapable responsibility to act. Secondly, because of the fact that the big Powers are vitally involved either economically or as suppliers of arms to the parties to the conflict and because of the danger in this situation of big-Power confrontation, as permanent members of the Security Council those Powers have also the added responsibility to act urgently and forthrightly. "The basis for both the immediate and the long-term solution to the conflict

is contained in the Security Council resolution of November 196?• As I said -155- last year, that resolution contains a delicately "balanced mutual set of obligations. The problem has been with regard to the timing of the

implementation by the parties concerned of -the various components of those obligations. If the big Powers were to give a guarantee under the umbrella of the United Nations, that problem, we believe, should pose no insurmountable difficulty. "However, time seems of the essence in the situation; the more the solution is delayed the more intractable will the problem become. Foreign occupation of a territory cannot help generating resistance from the occupied people; the longer the occupation lasts the stronger will that resistance be.

The prolonged occupation is already bringing into the Middle East situation unpredictable and uncontrollable elements.

Mr. Tomeh. Syria (A/PV.17T6 at pages 28-30):

"...I shall have more to say about one Middle East manifestation of this phenomenon later. But for now it may be merely noted that the expanding resistance and liberation forces, whether it be in the Middle East or over the world, are a revolt against the misunderstanding of man. This revolt is in essence one and the same as the revolt, let us say, of the American youth, and indeed of the world at large, against the immorality, barbarism and inhuman war in Viet-Nam against a heroic people that has decided to live in independence and dignity. "This phenomenon, then, in the Middle East is symptomatic of the youth movement everywhere. In our maturity we would do well to read the world-wide phenomenon carefully and correctly, unflattering as it may be to our pre-occupation with form. -136-

(A/FV.1776 at pages 33 to 56) "Allow me now to take up the explosive and tragic crisis of the Arab homeland, otherwise referred to among the agenda items of this session as the Middle East crisis. It is quite understandable that my delegation should devote the largest part of its attention to this matter. Let me plunge into the heart of the problem. Let me begin with an intriguing phrase from the address of the Foreign Minister of Israel. Referring to the past year in the Middle East, he said: "Nothing has gone as rational men expected." (1757th meeting, page 78-80). Now this is a particularly presumptuous statement, for what the Foreign Minister really means is that nothing has gone as Israel's militarists expected.

"Unfortunately for the Foreign Minister, the memories of other parties to the conflict are as operative as those of the Israelis, and those memories are even longer than the Foreign Minister tries to suggest. His country's present complaint is that there is no respect for what he calls "the cease-fire lines". And the Israeli Foreign Minister then seeks to justify the continuing Israeli occupation of territory by saying

"... representatives of diverse traditions and cultures have raised their

voices... against the illusion that there could be changes in the

cease-fire lines except in the context of peace". (Ibid., p.82)

"Now, I must say candidly that I do not know what this language means, or, at least, what the Foreign Minister of Israel thinks it ought to mean to this world body. "Who are "representatives of diverse traditions and cultures" and what is their competence here? And what is their status in the context of the enactments of this Assembly or those of the Security Council? "The meaning of the Charter is clear. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by conquest and war. And we have here a classic example, in the history of Palestine, of the kind of duplicity, the effort to cover substance -137- with form, which. Is at the root of the rebellion of "the peoples" of the vorld. For this "body has yet to hear from the Foreign Minister of Israel the solemn pledge of that State to yield the territories acquired by war. On the contrary, we, and the peoples of the world, are advised that because of the Israeli memory, Israel can "Never...return to the political anarchy and the physical and territorial vulnerability" (ibid.. p. 8l) which, so he says, obtained until June 19&7- AM I profoundly regret to say that the President of the United States gave aid and comfort to this Zionist Israeli expansionism. "We are convinced", President Nixon said, "that peace cannot be achieved on the basis of substantial alterations in the map of the Middle East." (1755th meeting, page 2J.) How substantial? And altered by what methods, if at all? Is the virtual annexation of Arab Jerusalem "substantial"? Is the planting of new settlements on the Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan "substantial"? Is the published plan for installing military bases in Sinai "'substantial"? Is the eviction of half a million people by force, after the Israeli aggression, "substantial"? "I do not wish here to indulge in mere polemics with either the President of the United States or Israel's Foreign Minister. But I would be performing less than my duty if I passed over these expositions of policy in silence. And this body would discharge less than its moral obligation if it were persuaded that either or both of those interpretations were consistent with the spirit and letter of the Charter or with the totality of scores of the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. In the plain language of the peoples of the world, the Israeli Foreign Minister is saying that peace must be assured before Israel agrees to terminate the Zionist practices which introduced the conflict into the area half a century ago. That is surely putting the cart before the horse. And this body, and the world, should see which is the cart and which is the horse. -158-

If the way to peace is, as Mr. Eban says, through negotiations, then it also

needs to "be said that negotiations cannot include how much of the inadmissibly

acquired territories Israel will restore to their rightful sovereignties. It is as simple as that.

"And it is a source more of hurt than of anger, of disillusion more than of indignation, that now the President of the United States has qualified the

inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war by saying that such acquisition is acceptable if only it is not "substantial". President Nixon, the President of the great Power which was party to the Tripartite Agreement in 1950, has now watered down that commitment to read only "substantial integrity". I am sadly

reminded that some three decades ago the sovereign of the speaker who preceded me, the Emperor of Ethiopia, stood as a lone and tragic figure before the

League of Nations pleading for the protection of the integrity of his realm. And the acceptance of aggression then, it is now realized, destroyed the

efficacy and the credibility of the League of Nations. "But there is a more technical aspect to the language used by Israel's

Foreign Minister. I address myself to it now, after having ventilated somewhat the moralities involved. The Israeli Foreign Minister referred to the "cease-fire line" and, in fact, the incessant stream of Israeli propaganda constantly employs the term. But the Israeli Foreign Minister, who is so scrupulous in his selection

of words, must know that by the findings of the Security Council there is no such thing as "a cease-fire line". "On 11 June 1967, the representative of Nigeria stated in the Security Council: "In the course of the debate....a new phrase has gradually come into circulation, that is the phrase 'cease-fire line'. Lest it be accepted merely by default, let me say....that we do not understand that there is a cease-fire line. There are the Armistice lines. There is the cease-fire order which means that troops should stay -139-

where they are and that any movement, north, south, east or west, except such movement as to return from the scene of battle to one's own home ground, is a violation of the cease-fire. (S/PVr.1357. page 87)

"That definition of the technical situation obtaining still today was emphasized at that same meeting by the representative of the United Kingdom.

There was no dissent in the Security Council, which means that the Security

Council unanimously accepted that legal definition.

"The question whether or not there was a cease-fire line was more than difficult in those turbulent days of 1967. That clarification took place in the context of a debate over which party to the conflict persisted in violating the cease-fire — until it reached a certain strategic point where it had wished all the time to establish a line. That is what is important. For it really reveals which party in 1967 welcomed the war and was motivated by territorial ambitions, and which party was really fighting in defense. "We have been lectured by Israel's Foreign Minister on the elementary role of negotiations in any transition from war to peace. Israel's insistence upon direct negotiations as the only way to any settlement must be judged as another of those diversions which try to substitute form for substance. It may sound plausible, but it is not constructive. It may.sound like generosity, but it is really arbitrary and authoritarian. "Once again I revert to the Charter. Article 33 expresses the earnest will of this Organization to pursue every means in realizing the hopes of the peoples to be free from the scourge of war. It lists eight recognized and accepted methods of seeking solutions to international problems. "The authors of the Charter must have had reasons for adding the other seven. Certainly they -were aware of the fact that they vere not putting together a book of synonyms. This Assembly and the peoples of the world need to know that in rejecting direct negotiations the Arabs have never either elected war over peace or asked anything that is not within the letter of the Charter. Again, form must not be confused with substance; and rigidity about form should be examined carefully so as to be sure it is not a pretext for more fait accompli diplomacy. Is Israel to be allowed to dictate what the Charter means, and does this body believe that Israel is subject to that

Charter, or, by some mystique which some of us do not understand, is Israel entitled to play the role of judge and jury at the same time?

"And then there is the ultimate question of "in whose interest" and for what peoples of the world are we to make peace in the Middle East? That crucial question raises for examination the important element of a vital interest in peace, which will make the peace a condition that both sides wish to maintain. President Wixon indeed paid deference to this indisputable element in any meaningful peace in his statement here of 18 September. He did not, of course, explain how the "minimal conditions" of the cease-fire resolution represented a vital interest for the Arab, although he said that those conditions must prevail if any settlement is to be reached. Nor did he explain how an invasion of the territorial integrity of three Arab States, Members of the United Nations, is a vested Arab interest if only the invasion is something less than "substantial". Mr. Eban is always somewhat clearer about the "vested interests" the Arabs will realize if they would only make peace on the basis of whatever happens to be Israel's latest bargaining position. He is always intoning the song of the enormous "benefits to be reaped by these poor, backward Arabs from

Israel's progress and enlightenment. "Mew stories of co-operation and progress never heard or told before", were his own words a fortnight ago. And we Arabs are supposed to be intoxicated with our own rhetoric and led to persuading ourselves to dream the impossible dream.

'Veil, that is what Israel's Foreign Minister says here for public consumption. A less than informed world will not cease to wonder how those backward and ungrateful Arabs can refuse this generous, open, uplifting embrace. But this is not what Mr. Eban says at home, in the privacy of the family. In Maariv, 19 December 1968, the "do-good" Mr. Eban is quoted as saying:

"The United States of America should acknowledge the fact that Israel is an acquisition for it and not a burden."

And a less authoritative spokesman echoed that sentiment — plus some embellishments — in Haaretz. another of Israel's major newspapers: "¥e must tell the United States of America, if you stop supporting us unconditionally....you will be the one to suffer; you will be squeezed out of the Middle East."

It is indeed too strong a temptation to resist plagiarizing the name of a popular American TV programme, to ask: "Will the real Mr. Eban please stand up?"

"Wow I shall allow for inaccuracies in the Press — even in the Press of Israel. But the evidence is rather impressive that something more than any objective inventory of America's present national interests in the Middle East motivates its unconditional support for Israel. Whatever happened to Mr. Nixonls "new initiatives" we were told about in his electoral campaign? And where has Governor Scranton been exiled, following his simple appeal for a more "even-handed" policy in the Arab world? Under what definition of even defensive armaments does -142-

the United States supply Israel with offensive Phantoms except to help Israel consolidate its latest conquests, and continue to terrorize the Arab homeland? I shall not dwell at length on this United States-Israeli collusion. The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Sudan, in his brilliant statement in this Assembly, has given an inventory of that unconditional United States assistance to militaristic Zionism and Israel. But one ominous fact must be added now. Mrs. Meir in her visit has already "shopped", we are told, 150 Sikorsky gun-ship helicopters, the same as those used by the United States in# Viet-Nam, for only $350 million? "What for? Is it to transform Israel, that "bastion of democracy", into some other "bastion" — when the Viet-Nam war is finished — known only to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the super-spies of the United States whose horrid crimes, from the little that has become known in Viet-Nam and elsewhere, are now every day filling the front pages of the Press all over the world? Do those things agree with the moral exhortations and preachings of international ethics that have been hypocritically heard from this rostrum? Or is it, I ask — and wait for an answer — for any horrid eventuality still in store for the Arabs and for the world at large from the loving United States and Israel? "Certainly, one question which both the United States and Israel need to answer is whether any given settlement is really in the vested interests of "the peoples" of the Middle East, including those Jews who have legitimate claims to life in Palestine; or whether a settlement is to be with an Israel which is "an acquisition" of the United States as the Foreign Minister of Israel has said? If it is the latter, then we authentic Middle Easterners ask:

What are the vested interests of the United States for which Israel serves as an "acquisition"? The effort for peace is not a game of poker in which we Arabs will gamble on a blind hole-card. We state our objectives clearly: the - 143 -

recognition and establishment of the already legislated rights of the Arab Palestinians, Those are "the peoples" to whom the Israeli Foreign Minister, in his passion for peace, casts the bone of a vague proposal for "some regional and international responsibility" to resolve the refugee problem in some "five-year plan". For this core of the Palestine problem, the basic one, the Israeli Foreign Minister is a hearty advocate for international involvement. But for the formulation of over-all peace proposals, the same Foreign Minister says that to look for help outside the region is "anachronistic", Well, that again is the kind of semantic gymnastics which casts suspicions upon the moral intent of the one who resorts to them. And any acceptance of such a proposal by this body will not elevate, it will derogate from its moral prestige in a restive, explosive world, I am reminded here of the eloquent words of the great French writer, Albert Camus, who once said: "There is no compromise with breach of faith. One has to reject it anfcfight it." And again on another occasion he wrote words which apply pointedly to so much that the representatives of Israel have said: "Some people progress without transition from speeches about the principles of honour or fraternity to adoring the fait accompli or the cruelest party." That is where the Palestine problem stands today, fifty years after its cruel, insensitive seeding and something more than two years offer Israel's latest, most cruel and inhumane aggression. -144-

For certainly, if there is any responsibility at all in the so-eloquently heralded "democratic" policies of Israel, then we Arabs are faced with being asked to accept another fait accompli which is in clear and arrogant defiance of the legislation of this international community. The world Press has indeed been so full of the proclamations of this fait accompli that it is perhaps unnecessary to recite them here. But repetition of them is more than mere rhetoric until the world, against this history, takes them at face value and in moral indignation and judicial impartiality together, imposes upon this robber-baron State the just desserts which it is within the power of the community of law to impose. So, for example, the supposed Biblically inspired colleague of Mr. Eban, Defence Minister Dayan, is reported in Le Monde on 9 July 1969 to have said: "The Israeli Government should reject outright the Security Council resolution of 22 November 196?, which demands, whatever they may say, the restoration of the occupied Territories, including the former Jordanian sector of Jerusalem". Well, that is at least a more candid and honest posturing than Israel's representatives to this body of world opinion, where they come and throw dust in the eyes of the world about their acceptance of the Security Council's and General Assembly's enactments while each day they further entrench themselves in the newest effort at fait accompli, in violation of all those enactments. We Arabs wait for the world's answer to this candour. Meanwhile, history justifies our tempering, our waiting with such resistance to the fait accompli as we can presently muster. -145-

Or, to submit another declaration which can hardly be called irresponsible, on 4 August 1969j The New York Times reported on its ffont page that Israel's dominant political party, meeting in convention, had determined "to hold" the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and a "large part of Sinai". Israel has also, apparently, coined a new language and a new concept of law. With respect to Jordan's West Bank territory, it has decided that the Jordan river will be its "security border". So, at least in that sector, we are to be treated to not one, but two borders if the Israeli concept is accepted.

Here is another example of Israel's concept of equality under the law. All are to be equal, except Israel, which, as George Orwell put it, is to be "more equal than others". It is to have two borders on a frontier, while the rest are to be satisfied with less than one. That is the programme of the political party to which the silver-voiced Foreign Minister of Israel owes his political career and distinction. If the Press reports are to be believed, that self-confessed linear decendant of the Old Testament prophets offered no substantive objection to his political patron's platform. Or listen to Israel's Prime Minister, speaking for the record in the London Sunday Times of 15 June 1969. Asked if Israel admits "a measure of responsibility" for "the Palestinians", that grandmother Prime Mirisier said categorically: "No, no responsibility whatsoever I do not know why the Arab refugees are a particular problem in the world". -146-

Memories on te 1940s, when the Zionists, including Israel's present Prime Minister, insisted not only that the abominable treatment of Europe's Jews by a madman called Hitler made them a special problem, but, with a logic never yet explained, insisted also that it was the particular responsibility of the Arabs of Palestine to provide them and all "the Jewish people" with a State, a land, and in violation of rights which those Arab Palestinians had already possessed for centuries. Small wonder that niw, from a position of conquest and power, the once entreating Zionist, now a Prime Minister, says, in effect: "Who are the Palestinians, and what are their rights to me?". And finally, I cannot withhold one more recorded declaration of Israel's hero-defence Minister. In the same edition of Le Monde, of 9 July 1969, he said: "People abroad ought to realize that quite apart from their strategic importance to Israel, Sinai, the Golan Heights, the Tiran Straits and the hills west of the Jordan lie at the heart of Jewish history; Nor has the restoration of historical Israel ended yet. Since the return to Zion a hundred years ago a double process of colonization and expansion of frontiers has been going on. We have not yet reached the end of that road: It is the people of Israel who will determine the frontiers of their own State". Well, again, that is refreshing candor. It is not, I think, out of order to ask the representative of Israel either to affirm or to deny that declaration by his fellow Minister. If he denies it, will he also say clearly, so the world and we can understand, that his Government, including Mr. Daya.n and his Prime Minister, accept all General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, with -147- their requirements of withdrawal ffom the occupied territories and their insistence that any party to it has responsibility for the refugees? And if he cannot reject or deny his associate's clear declarations, then I submit to this body searching for peace in the Middle East that nothing compels Israel to stay within that association. No other Member of this body has been found guilty of aggression as often as Israel; and those aggressions have all been committed in Israel's determination to surmount the laws of this body and to compel the world to accept its series of faits accomplis. Israel's defence Minister has said, and I have quoted him as saying, that " it is the people of Israel who will determine the frontiers" of that State. Here I publicly confess my inability to make further comments on the Arab tragedy. I leave the last word to the Russian-born former American citizen, now Prime Minister of Israel, Mrs. Meir. Only last sunday, 28 September 1969, she stated this:

"Withdrawal is not the issue. The Arabs don't think it's the issue. I think people do them an injustice when they say that's the issue. We're not so fortunate that the quarrel between us and the Arab countries is a question of territory - it's not true. The Arab countries are/n lack of a little_mor^_gand« That's the problem." Indeed rarely in the history of civilized peoples has man witnessed such a degradation of human values that millions of people do not count, that their plight is not equalled even with sand, and that all this smffering is tolerable, as long as it satisfies the "mew civilizing mission" of Israel to the Arabs. Thus the whole Middle East crisis and the whole Arab Palestine tragedy is reduced to "a little more sand" in Mrs. Meir's scale of values, and to "No substantial change" in President Nixon's dictum. The world must ponder this United States-Israeli-Zionist axis. "There was one other observation in Mr. Eban's statement which deserves careful analysis and which is highly relevant to his own stated relationship of Israel to the United States. It is, therefore, relevant also to the relationship of the United States to the Arab States. Mr. Eban referred to the "odious picture of Israel's spiritual heritage and Jewish solidarities". It is now time that that language, also be examined. In almost every place where the subject of Palestine is debated, any critical evaluation of

Israel's and Zionism's policies is greeted by the slander of "anti-Semitism" or "anti-Jewish". It is time, too, that that hypocrisy be ended.

"This is not a religious question. Let me quote you a few eloquent words of a young Jew, one of Mr. Eban's own constituents, who sees, and publicly proclaims the differences between the genuine spiritual heritage of people who are Jews and the much more recently fabricated Zionism-Israeli nationality policies, which are exclusivist, discriminating, and therefore in direct contradiction to any spiritual heritage worth the name. In Jerusalem, in August of this year at an international conference, that young Israeli, a philosopher and a student at the Hebrew University, spoke these magnificently eloquent and accurate words:

"... The Zionist ideologists in the nineteenth century believed that Palestine was vacant. When they came to realize that the promised land... was already occupied, they were faced with the most difficult dilemna that can face a human being. ... The Palestinian struggle against Israel today is not motivated by

the mere historical fact that Israel was initiated in sin, but because Israel has done nothing to expiate and atone for her sin. Wot only did Israel refuse to admit her sinful birth and atone for it in concrete practice, but this refusal has, as so often happens, led her to repeat it twice. Both after the 1956 war and after the 196? war Israel annexed territory. It is this, and not Israel's original sin, that has brought the Middle East conflict to such monstrous escalation." "And what of Mr. Eban's other phrase, "Jewish solidarities"? I need not go into detail. The Status Law of 1952, establishing the relationship between the State of Israel and the World Zionism Organization and all the other Jewish agencies is clear enough. And what of the United States? Why does it tolerate those operations? Why does it allow tax-deductible funds to be disbursed to the World Zionist Organization, which, in law, is charged with serving the national interests of Israel? "Surely, those who are victimized by Zionist money and political pressures are entitled to make their judgement. The fact is that the United States Government permits United States citizens to support acts of belligerency against the Arab States. And until better answers are given by the United States, we who are the victims of this permissiveness may be excused for accepting the explanation of Israel's Foreign Minister that "Israel is an acquisition of the United States" in the heart of the Middle East. "And so I conclude by returning to the theme with which I began and which you yourself, stressed, Madam President, in the address with which you opened this twenty-fourth session. Let us not "yield to the delusion that we are doing our best and that and that the world persists in misjudging us". You wish us Arabs to make peace over the Palestine problem.

Then let us here and now come to grips with the core-problems of that situation. - 150 -

"I have not wearied this Assembly with reminders of Israel's flouting of the collective will on Jerusalem. I have not dignified

"by rebuttal Israel' s rationalization of that defiance "by claiming a new "white man's burden". I have not supplied statistics of houses bulldozed, of villages demolished, of holy places defiled, of the burning of the Al Aqsa Mosque, of one-half million displaced persons. I have not brought here the detailed indictment of Israeli occupation now to be found in the testimony taken by the Commission on Human Rights. "The list is long and the spectacle of the world standing paralysed before this exercise in lawlessness, of arrogant defiance, of reliance upon sheer power is, to us Arabs, both electrifying and tragic. For there is today in all of our lands, the inevitable response to the Sionist stultification of world morality and law. By the tens of thousands our youth are disillusioned and have resorted to the only recourse open to them — in the absence of any apparent will or determination to enforce the law — the legitimate use of force. Palestine has come full circle. The Zionist apparatus in the JOs and kOs introduced organized terrorism into Palestine in an effort to thwart every attempt to install a political system which would safeguard Arab Rights. Now the decendants of that Zionism have compelled the decendants of those victims to the legitimate reaction of self-defence against annihilation. Let it not be forgotten that it is Israel which is in occupation of our territories. It is Israel which says — unilaterally — that it has no intention of withdrawing from them. It is Israel which says it wishes to negotiate directly for peace, but which has withdrawn from the agenda every Arab right and declared them non-negotiable. - 151 -

"You ask us to make peace, and I reply — unequivocally — we want peace. What we do not want, and never will accept, is surrender. For let me remind this Assem"bly that what is involved here, what has always "been

involved in Palestine, is not some geopolitical advantage which can "be facilely manoeuvred. "While we do not release a press report or a blueprint on the occasion of every tomato we grow, every dunam of land we reclaim,

every factory we "build, we, too, are "building our place under the sun of human environment. ¥e have our goals, as a people and as a nation, and we are determined to achieve them. So we cherish our lands and we husband

our resoxirces and we have our national self-interest. But the Palestine problem is, before all these, a matter of uncompromisable, inalienable human rights. The Zionist-Israeli answer to this core of the Palestine problem has always been formulated out of condescension, with a patronizing

air.

""When all the United Nations resolutions have been carried out then the way to peace can be paved. And so this body can bring the international

law-breaker to the bar of justice. It can give the victim that right, which

obtains in every civilized court, of confronting his assailant. Let the

Arab Palestinians be heard here, for they were, are and will remain the first

party to this tragic conflict. Establish the climate of justice, for only

in justice will peace be established.

"This is the way to peace. It is a way back, to bind the wounds and to straighten the devious path which has curved and twisted through thirty years of civil war and three international wars in twenty years. When that part of the road to peace is repaired, the design for its extension into - 152 ,- tomorrow will "become increasingly clear. In language which every literal soul should "be able to understand — without subtlety or deception or sophistry — the Arab resistance and liberation movements have suggested the broad character of the highway to peace: a Palestine nation like other nations, in which human rights are politically sanctified in law which respects all, regardless of faith or race, as equals.

"That is their prescription for peace. ¥e pray that those in Israel who believe much the same will be heard by that most "democratic" of all

Governments. We pray that all of you will heed their cry, for it is also our cry, as, indeed, it must be the cry of all civilized people everywhere.

The road to peace can at least be charted by this body if, for whatever racist or obscure reasons, Israel will not see the road itself. Or, failing all of these, I can say only that the Arab knows how to wait.

Our patience has sometimes been construed as resignation, but that is a misreading of our character.

"Let me close, using my voice to speak the words, the aspirations, the spirit of one of those who should be here because he and his colleagues are one of the two principals in the tragedy of Arab Palestine. Not many of you may know that there is a literature of exile written by suffering

Arab Palestinians. The fact in itself is important. It demonstrates the fallacy of those who think that the Palestinians can be dismissed by superficial formulations of diplomacy. There is among this people a deep, impassioned, abiding spirit, capable of poetry and songs of tragedy and bereavement. To them belongs the conclusion to this statement, for the cry for justice and recognition which these people send up from the depths of their hearts and beings is part of the legal evidence you must weigh if you are to legislate for peace." - 153 -

"Twenty-five hundred years ago, another poet stood in the land that so many call Holy and cried aloud to the world:

"Let justice well up as waters And righteousness as a mighty stream." "I call upon those who now stand astride that Holy Land by virtue of force and conquest, and who claim spiritual descent from that ancient poet, to heed his words. The two poets state the inescapable choice.

Forces are already in motion which assume, with the justification of history, that the older poet will be ignored. And we are all mature enough to know such forces feed on themselves as long as the basic conditions which brought them to life exist. In the wake of those forces will follow only more devastation, more violence, more human misery. We must believe man is master of his destiny and maker of his history, else we would not be here. "Let us seize the moment. Let us speak the truth. Let us separate the substance of diplomacy from its form. Let us add up the rights and the wrongs. Let us — without ambiguity or equivocation — identify the international brigand and as clearly identify the victim. Let us, each of us, sincerely ask himself and the nation he represents here how he, or

it, would act in similar circumstances. And then let us leave no stone unturned, no law we have legislated to be dissipated in casuistry, no tool at our disposal to remain unused to bring the fundamentally guilty party to justice. "That is the programme for peace that we Arabs offer; and, with the offer, our prayers that the spirit of the ancient poet of justice and righteousness shall prevail. That will make unnecessary the translation into still more violent action of the poetry of the despairing Arab freedom-fighter. To that task we pledge our support and we invite men of genuine goodwill and moral integrity to join in the fulfilment, by peaceful means, of the work of peace.

Mr. Zahedi. Iran (A/PV.1776 at pages 58-60)

"The search for peace in the Middle East remains "blocked.

"The situation in the Middle East has gone from "bad to worse and represents a grave threat to peace and security. At the turn of the year, some hopes were raised "by the prospect of talks among the four permanent members of the Security Council. It was hoped that the assistance which the four Powers were to render would break the deadlock and lead to a settlement of the present precarious and explosive situation. However, these hopes were soon to be dashed, while Ambassador Jarring has all but aToandoned his search for settlement. As a result, Arab territories are still under occupation. In its attempt to keep its hold on Jerusalem and parts of other occupied Arab territories, Israel is missing a central point: that lasting pea,ce cannot be built on a victor-vanquished basis. "I have on a number of occasions, from this rostrum as well as in other forums, urged the need for withdrawal of Israeli forces from Arab territories, which is essential to the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I have also stressed that we reject resort to force as a means of settling disputes and have reaffirmed our conviction that titles obtained by force could not be recognized as valid. No State must be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of war.

"We were filled with a sense of deep shock and repulsion at the burning of the Al Aqsa Mosque, one of the holiest shrines on the Moslem world. This criminal act has also destroyed irreplaceable relics dating back to - 155 - the "beginning of Islam. The anger and sense of indignation of people throughout the Moslem world were profound. In voicing the deep sense of grief of the Iranian people, caused by the calamity which has befallen the Moslem world, my august Sovereign offered Iran's assistance to meet the situation, particularly for the rebuilding and repair of the mosque.

At the same time, together with other Moslem countries, we tool^the necessary steps in the Security Council for the safeguarding of the holy shrines. "This act of arson, though deplorable, yet was the spark that led to the first Islamic Summit Conference, held in Rabat last week. The Conference ended with positive results and laid the foundations for future co-operation among the various Islamic nations. It also fostered solidarity among the Moslems of the world. My Government supports the Declaration of the Rabat Islamic Conference, which is in conformity with the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United

Nations to which we have already subscribed.

"Wow a word about Jerusalem. While restoration efforts must continue, we must also address ourselves to the root cause of the problem, which is the occupation of the old section of Jerusalem by Israeli forces. Efforts to change the status of Jerusalem have met with the strong opposition of the overwhelming majority of Members of the General Assembly and the unified stand of the Security Council. Israel has been instructed by those two organs to rescind all measures taken to change the status of Jerxisalem.

We believe that Israel should be made to implement those decisions.

We also continue to "believe that only through the implementation of the decisions of the Security Council, in particular the Security Council - 156 -

resolution of 22 November 196?, is it possible to reach a peaceful settlement. We further maintain that the four-Power negotiations could make valuable contributions to arriving at a settlement. Mr. Assemekang, Congo (Brazzaville) (A/FV.1TT6 at page 96) "Congo (Brazzaville) has never spared any effort to the limit of its resources to make a large-scale contribution to the defence of oppressed peoples. It will do all in its power to discourage any attempts of the forces of domination and enslavement and will serve the interests of proletarian internationalism and universal peace. Faithful. to this policy, Congo (Brazzaville) has always condemned in the most energetic manner any attempts at spoliation or oppression against any people. Thus it is that in the tragic conflict of the Middle East, which pits the state of Israel against the Arab States, our position has always been unambiguous. "My country demands the withdrawal of Israel forces from occupied Arab Territories, in keeping with the resolution adopted by the Security Council or 22 November 196?. This resolution, which, unfortunately has been flouted by Israel, was followed by other resolutions which also remain dead letters; among them resolution 2^8 (1968) of 2k March 1968, resolution 256 (1968) of 16 August 1968 and resolution 265 (1969) of

1 April 1969. "In view of this obvious failure the question legitimately arises whether the United Nations has not become merely a body manufacturing resolutions. Such is not the objective which we had in adhering to this Organization. Congo (Brazzaville) must draw the attention of international opinion to the danger to the whole of mankind if we remain passive. The position of Congo (Brazzaville) is clear and unambiguous. Expressing the wish that peace may speedily be restored to that part of the world,