UN Secretariat Item Scan - Barcode - Record Title Page 43 Date 22/05/2006 Time 4:37:29 PM

S-0865-0002-24-00001

Expanded Number S-0865-0002-24-00001

Title items-in-Peace-keeping operations - Middle East - envelope Number 3 - Israel/UAR/Secretary-General - Personal and Confidential - private and internal papers concerning the Middle East, 1967-1970

Date Created 17/10/1967

Record Type Archival Item

Container s-0865-0002: Peace-Keeping Operations Files of the Secretary-General: U Thant - Middle East

Print Name of Person Submit Image Signature of Person Submit IT October 1967

Note on a conversation between Hammarskjold and Nasser on T January 1959

"He /Nasser/ did not want UNEF to withdraw. The time might come when he had to ask UWEF to leave, "but he could assure Hammarskjold that he would go straight for it and not try to operate by a change of working conditions which would force us to take the initiative. He had nothing to gain once he reached the stage where he would have to ask for the withdrawal of UNEF, by going for the matter in a round-about way. Rather the opposite."

There is no record of any response on Hammarskjold's part to these remarks. Personal and Coafidential 7 Hay 1968

Bear Musa Alatnl, I acknowledge wLtfe thanks yoar letter of 2$ March and tbe enclosed aide-m®moire e»titleci M!ffe.e Arabs of I^leBtine" uhleh sets forth th-e gist of the views vhich you sxpressed when vlsited me last Beeeaiber. It is thoughtful ©f yoa to send this to ma.

Yours sincerely,

Timnt

Foundation of Jericho l?th Floor 880 15aird A^etme lew York, S.Y. 1^)22 as from: Musa Aland Foundation of Jericho 17th. Floor, 880 Third Avenue, New York 10022. Beirut: March 25th, 1968. H.E. U Thant, Se ere tary-General, United Nations, New York. Personal and Confidential

Dear Mr. Thant, Due to the recent events in the Middle East I thought it might be useful to put down in writing, as an aide-memoire, the gist of our talk of last December; and I have the pleasure in enclosing it herewith. As you already know, I do not represent any government or political party; but I think that I know what limits the Arabs of Palestine may be prepared to accept. This is therefore, a study by an international thinker and not an Arab proposal. It is based on history and geography and notnon the chances of victory or defeat which, in the long run, cannot possibly affect the basic rights of peoples or individuals, I wish you success in your arduous obligations and with kindest regards.

Yours sincerely,

Musa Alami. personal and Confidential

The Arabs of Palestine

I. History The Arabs have been in Palestine from time immemorial and it is an historical mistake to think that the only connection that the Arabs have with Palestine is since Islam. They are mentioned in history under different names according to what tribe or Arab personality was prevailing at the time, but basically the inhabitants of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria and other territories in the Middle East, were of Arab stock. It is just as today when Arab countries are referred to as the Hashemites, the Saudis, the Yemenis, etc., etc., so in the past were the Canaanites, the Nabateans, the Phoenicians, all Arabs; just as, much later, were the Amawis, the Abbasids and the Fatimis. II. Zionism and the Palestine Arabs Ever since the Zionist movement became international in 1897, Zionist leaders deliberately treated the Arabs of Palestine as negligible and irrelevant in their struggle to obtain control of the country. They therefore started negotiating with the Sultan endeavouring to get his approval for mass immigration of Jews into Palestine; but he refused. III. Great Britain and Zionism a. When the First World War broke out, the Zionist movement had already gained powerful support in Great Britain. It is interesting to note that as early as 1915 Mr. Herbert Samuel, (a member of the Cabinet and one of the influential British Jews in England, who later became the First High Commissioner for Palestine), wrote a memorandum to the British Cabinet suggesting that the whole of Palestine should be a Jewish home for the Jews of the world, and that Great Britain would be serving her own interests if she supported such a policy. This was at the time when Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire. 2. b. On November 2, 1917, (again while Palestine was still in the Ottoman Empire), the British Government issued what is now historically known as the Balfour Declaration in which they supported the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. c. The League of Nations in 1920-22 approved the terms of the mandate for palestine--the operative parts of which being the implementation of the terms of the Balfour Declaration—and entrusted the mandate to Great Britain. d. In all these efforts since 1897, neither the Zionist leaders, nor the British Government, nor the League of Nations ever cared to consider what the attitude of the Arabs of Palestine would be. They did not consult them, they did not take any steps to satisfy them that their political, civil and other rights would be internationally safe-guarded and recognized. It is true that in 1915, after the Arab revolt of Sharif Hussein, the British Government sent him with emissaries certain communications from their Commander-in-Chief in Egypt, which were deliberately vaguely termed, in an attempt to allay the fears that the Arabs may have regarding the future of Palestine. It is also true that in 1919 at the Versailles Conference Prince Faysal was allowed to make some broad statements about the aspirations of all Arabs including Palestine. But it is equally true that the British Government, with their various channels of influence, tried but failed to get Prince Faysal to agree to their Zionist policy regarding Palestine. During the mandate period, the British Government tried to get the Arab States involved in the Palestine question in the hope that they might in- fluence the Arabs of Palestine to accept their Zionist policy. The first important occasion when the Arab States were brought in was in the London conferences of 1938-39. As a result of these conferences, the Arab States, far from influencing the Palestine Arabs, were on the contrary influenced by them, and they adopted the Palestine-Arab resolutions regarding the present and future status of the country. During the war from 1939-45, the British and American Governments tried to get the Arab States to use their influence on the Palestine Arabs, but again failed. It was at the encouragement of Anthony Eden, the then British Foreign Secretary, and for the same purpose, that the Arab League was created in 1945. Again the British insisted that Palestine should be out of it, and that the Palestine question should not be dis- cussed in it. But again the British policy failed because the Arabs of Palestine had gained so much ground in influencing general public opinion through- out the Arab world that the Arab States had to go against their original agreement with the British Government, and accepted the Arabs of Palestine to be represented in the League; and ever since 1945 the Arab League has been sponsoring one resolution after another in accordance with the wishes of the Arabs of Palestine, IV. The U«N. and Palestine In 1947, the British Government surrendered their mandate to the United Nations, The U. N. appointed a committee (UNSCOP) to investigate, plan and report on the future status of Palestine. It recommended partition, and the U. N. passed a resolution partitioning Palestine and creating two independent states—one Arab and one Jewish. The latter was created at once under the name of Israel, but the Arab State of Palestine has not been created. In 1948, Israel occupied important parts of the area that had been allotted to the Arab State. The remaining section of the West bank was temporarily incorporated in°Jordan and the section of Gaza was also temporarily occupied by the Egyptian army. After partition, Palestine thus ceased to exist and its Arab people have become the victims ^f a new diaspora. To all intents and purposes they were broken up as a community. They are at present either refugees dispersed in various Arab countries, or are under Israeli military occupation. V. Arab Resistance The Arab peoples of Palestine, whether the refugees dispersed all over the Middle East, or those who remained in their original homes, have consistently refused partition with all its implications; and the Arab States went with them all the way in that refusal. The resistance of the Arab governments and people since 1948 was the best proof, if proof need be, of the solidarity of public opinion on this matter throughout the Arab world. There have been two wars between the Arab States and Israel since the Armistice of 1949 and there have been innumerable cases of aggression by Israeli forces upon Arab territories in the hope of breaking their will to resist the creation of Israel and to bring about a state of mind to accept her as she is, in her artificially created and non-recognized boundaries. The United States have taken an open stand since 1947 in their support of Zionism and Israel and they have used their influence to cajole and threaten many states, not only Arab States, to go along with them in their policy. In spite of the very severe losses incurred by the Arab States because of their staunch support of the Arabs of Palestine, and in spite of the strong ties that some of them have with the Western powers, notably the United States, the original position that the Arab States have taken in opposing Israel and not recognizing her still stands. It is ironical, however, that the people affected by this tragedy, the Arabs of Palestine, have been deliberately put aside as if this were no concern of theirs. It is they who have lost more than two-thirds of their lands; it is they who have become mostly refugees living on the dole of the United Nations; it is they who are unable to return to their homes and their lands and who have not had any compensation at all for their lost properties or from the income that those properties have produced in the last 20 years. These people for whom deliberations are constantly taking place at the U. N. are not consulted, are in fact, not recognized. One excuse that is put forward for the inability to negotiate with Palestine Arabs is that they are dispersed all over the Arab world and not under one political sovereignty. But who is to blame for that 5. except the U. N. itself which brought about this dispersal as a result of its resolutions. Furthermore the U. N. has been unable to dislodge Israel from the territories occupied since last June. It is true that the U. N. allows certain persons to speak before it on behalf of the Palestine Arabs. These persons represent two or three Arab organizations which themselves do not represent the Palestine Arabs because they are self-appointed. This is also proved by the fact that these organizations do not recognize even each other and are opposed to each other. There is no evidence to indicate that the great powers, in particular the U. S., wishathe Palestine Arabs to be consulted. It is sad to note that even in the last resolution at the U. N. dated November 29, 1967, the representative of the Secretary General was urged to consult with the "States11 concerned, and no mention whatever is made of the "peoples concerned," or "the Arab people of Palestine." There is no necessity to refer to the Jews of Palestine because they have a state, but the Arabs of Palestine have no state and are completely shelved and deliberately put aside. In dealing with the future of a people and their country, the U. N. and the great powers have failed to bring about peace in the Middle East. Until these great powers , in particular the United States, accept this conclusion and deal with the people concerned rather than with the states on the perimeter of the country of these people, there does not appear to be much hope of settling the question in the future. Therefore, the Arabs of Palestine should be brought back to what remains of Palestine and given the chance to reorganize themselves into a political community which would determine its own destiny and could be internationally recognized. VI. The Future The failure in the last fifty years to get any form of settlement which would be acceptable to the Arabs of Palestine was because they have always been set aside and neglected. The time has now come to change this international attitude. The great powers must realize that in dealing with the future of a people they must discuss that future with those people. The problem of Palestine is not insoluble. In fact, there are resolutions in the books of the u. N. which have not been implemented nor have they been rescinded, and which have been confirmed many times since 1947. They can and should form the basis of a solution. They are: a. Firstly, that Palestine be partitioned in accordance with the resolution of 1947; and b. Secondly, the repeated resolutions affirming the right of the Palestine Arab refugees to return to their homes or to be given full compensation if they do not wish to return. These resolutions have been endorsed and accepted by the Arab States since 1948. It is also significant that the Arab States have publicly and officially stated that they will endorse any settlement that the Arabs of Palestine themselves will accept. There is therefore a way out of the present impasse if the U. N. will revive these resolutions and appoint a representative of the Secretary General with the mission of finding ways and means as to how these resolutions should be implemented. The representative will have something concrete in his hands to discuss with the Palestine Arabs. But how can this be done and what are the first steps to be taken to bring it about? 7.

VII. The Solution; The Arab State of Palestine The Arabs refused partition in 1947 and 1948, for several reasons, among which were the following: First: because as a matter of principle any partition would cut off part of their homeland and exterritorialize it; Second: they believed that the Arabs and Jews could still live together as they had always done for centuries past throughout the Arab world; Third: the territory allotted to the Arab State under the partition resolution was made up of four sections linked together by corridors and bridges through Israel and put the Arabs always under Israel's mercy. Fourth: the Arab State was not viable. Twenty years have passed and the Arabs still believe that there should be only one Palestine, which is consonant with the historical, religious and economic requirements of the country. But since the Jews insist on having their own State run purely for Jews and by Jews, in their own way, the Arabs would now take another look at the problem. To consider partition as a solution of this impasse, the Arabs of Palestine must be satisfied that the major obstacles that have caused the failure of the 1947 partition are removed, taking into consideration the following safeguards: a. The Arab State must be sovereign and independent. b. It must be economically viable and physically compact,, (as opposed to the four sections proposed in 1947). 8,

c. Its frontiers must ensure at least two accesses to the Mediterranean (in the 1947 plan there should have been three). d. Its frontiers must be contiguous with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt (the 1947 plan took this into consideration). e. Jerusalem must be the capital of the Arab State.

VIII. Advantages of this solution a. Israel will have, for the first time, something she has always been trying to have, but failed; viz. the recognition of her next-door neighbours and partners in Palestine. b. There will be non-aggression pacts between the two countries. c. This may eventually become the melting pot for future and more expanded Arab recognition. d. The refugee problem will basically be solved. e. The arms race will be curtailed and may eventually be unnecessary. f. The Arabs of Palestine will feel for the first time that they are "like all other peoples." Once their rights have been safeguarded, they will realize that they have responsibilities to meet. They equally want recognition and security in order to be able to build their country the way they know best. IX. The Plan The Arabs of Palestine, whose agreement must be obtained for any workable solution, are now dispersed outside of Palestine and in the territories occupied by Israel. To enable them to express their views in complete freedom and to negotiate with full authority without pressure or influence from any quarter, the following plan is suggested: a. The Arab States want Israel to withdraw from all the territories they occupied in the recent war. Israel says they will not withdraw until the Arabs come to the negotiating table, and then decisions would be taken as to what part of the territory should be evacuated. Hence the present impasse. "If, however, the principles of the U. N. Charter are to be applied, Israel should withdraw from all the territories occupied since June 5, 1967, and hand them over to the U. N. in trust until such time as a permanent settlement is made. b. The U. N. would then appoint a High Commissioner to do the following things: 1) Invite all the Palestine Arabs who have taken refuge since 1948, as well as those who have become refugees in the recent war, to return to the West bank and the Gaza Strip within a period to be fixed by him, e.g. six months or one year. 2) In making this invitation for their return, the High Commissioner will inform all the Arabs that a plebiscite will be held within a period of time, e.g. a year or two thereafter, and anyone who has not accepted this invitation would forfeit his right to the plebiscite. 3) Whatever services and relief the U. N. was giving these refugees before their return will continue to be given to them after their return until the whole problem is solved. 10,

4) The plebiscite will ask two questions: Firstly, do you accept an independent viable Arab Palestine as demarcated by consultation (see "VII The Arab State of Palestine"). Secondly, do you wish to be independent within that territory or would you like to federate or confederate with any of your neighbors. 5) As a result of their plebiscite on the first question, a Constitutional Assembly will be elected and a government will be formed, which would then decide on the second question, i.e., whether to federate or confederate with any other adjacent State or States. 6) Upon the establishment of this Arab State and its recognition by the U. N., the U. N. Trusteeship would automatically come to an end. It would be desirable, however, to have U. N. token forces on the boundaries of this State for a period of say five years. G-eneral situation: 1. The psychological state of the Arab world remains unchanged. The traces of 'defeat are still predominant, and the will for revenge is strong. It is said here that what is taken by force can only be recovered by force. The situation is one of waiting. Any failure will expose the security in this region to the danger of terrorism and 'assassi- nation. 2. On the official level there are several noteworthy points: a - The meeting of the foreign ministers of Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt. After Dr. Jarring's first tour the foreign ministers of the three countries he visited saw that it was necessary t« hold an urgent meeting to discuss the UN Envoy's talks in the three countries, b — It was decided t« exclude the subject of the Security Counoilts resolution from the agenda of the Summit Conference, and confine the discussion of Dr. Jarring*s mission t« the three countries. c - It is probable that the Arab foreign ministers will hold a meeting just before the Summit Conference. Most Arab govern- ments have agreed to hold this meeting. d - The foreign minister of Morocc* is on a mission for the Arab League to convince Syria and Saudi Arabia to participate in the Summit Conference scheduled to be held in Rabat on 17 January 1968. The result of the visit to Saudi Arabia is still unknown but Syria has confirmed that it will boycott the Summit Conference. e - The Summit Conference agenda: The Secretariat General of the Arab League has sent out the agenda which has four items: 1. Reviewing the steps and efforts made in the political field in the light of the resolutions of the Khartoum Summit Conference. 2. Adopting a unified stand in the various fields to achieve . the immediate and un-conditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the Arab territories. 3. Drawing up a unified Ajps'fe plan for the removal of the traces of aggression. 4. Report of the Arab League. « 2 -

There is a possibility that other items would "be added such as the P.L.O. and Dr. Jarring* s mission and contacts. A change in Syria1 s attitude towards the Summit Conference is noted, as well as moderation in the tone of officials through their statements and officials* comments. This appears clearly in the invitation the Syrian Foreign Minister extended t» Iraqi Foreign Minister and later to the Moroccan foreign minister who is the chairman of the Arab League for the current session. g~- Changes have taken place within the P.L.O. Mr. Ahmad Shukairy resigned from his post of the Organisation's Chairman and Mr. Yehya Hammoudi was appointed as a temporary acting chairman. It is believed here that Shukairyf s resignation may be preliminary to unified commando offensive against Israel. 3* Dr. Jarring* s visits Dr. Jarring is making another tour at present. He is visit- ing Jerusalem and Cairo, and then to New York to meet the Secretary General. It is said that Dr. Jarring faces a dead end in all directions but in spite of this he sticks to two expressions which makes in Arabic. The first is "no statements" and the second is "I am always optimistic", As for his first round of visits observers say that Beirut, Amman and Cairo have stressed to Dr. Jarring that "no direct talks or negotiations with Israel and no recognition of or peace with it, and that stand applies to all the Arab states". In Jerusalem Israel emphasized to him its insistence on direct negotiations with Arabs as a basic condition for discussing the future of Sinai, the western bank and the Syrian heights. Syria however which has condemned the Jarring mission as a failure and refused to receive him in Damascus has given its opinion of the Jarring mission to General Od Bull as well as the reasons for not receiving him or having any meetings with him. A foreign diplomat said " Jarring1 s failure is important as his success. It is very important in deciding the future of the Arab Israeli conflict in the light of the recent resolution of the Security Council". However several basic developments took place - i.e. after the Council's resolution on 22 November - which may justify Dr. Jarring*s optimism: I. The TJ.S.A.'s moving away, by accepting the Security Council resolution, from the extreme Israeli stand which rejected any resolution calling for withdrawal. II. The Soviet UnionT s moving away, by accepting the Security Council resolution, from the "basic Arab stand which rejected the exchange.-of withdrawal against ending the state of belligerency. III. The success of the Arab wing which accepts the peaceful solution in putting an end to opposition of the triangle which opposed the peaceful solution. This triangle is composed of Syria, Algiers and Shukairy. The reason for this is that Algeria took up its own stand and has its internal problems to look after. Also by ousting Shukairy from the P.L.O. chairmanship and by confining the Syrian influence by exerting strong convincing Soviet pressure thereon which led in the first stage.to Syria's return to the Arab Foreign Ministers* Conference. This may also lead to cooperation with Dr. Jarring - either in Damascus or in New York. Later this may lead to Syria's return to the Summit Conference by going to Rabat. IV. The success of Eshkol-Eban civil wing over the Dayan-Alhan military wing. V. The U.S.A. is not in a hurry to supply Israel with aircraft because it does not agree with Israel's opinion that the Soviet Union has completely re-armed Egypt and the Arabs. The presence of the American and Soviet fleet in the area of the conflict aimed and aims by both sides at preventing any disregard of the cease-fire agreement. VII. The increase of the number of the Truce Observers on both sides of the Canal also aimed at preventing any violation of the cease-fire agreement, whether by air or land, after the Security Council resolution. VIII. The conference of the East European states led to the moving away of both the Soviet and Roumanian wings from their previous stands. The Soviet wing was convinced to drop the condemnation of Israel and to assert its right of existence and sovereignty. The Roumanian wing was convinced to return to the stand of the Soviet Bloc which demands the withdrawal of Is rael. a All this is followed by two equally important and simultaneous events: I. The visit of Leonid Brezhnev to Cairo carrying with him the unified East European stand. The Yugoslav foreign minister is preparing the ground for him in Egypt. II, Eshkol's visit to Washington. It is decided to take place in the first week of January at the same time as the visit of the Secretary General of the Soviet Communist Party to Egypt. - 4- -

The two meetings - Nasser/Brezhnev and Johnson/Eshkol will be the most important developments which will have the right to justify Dr. Jarringfs optimism or the pessimism of the pessimists. Dr. Jarring*s mission The press in the region comment extensively on JarringTs visits to the four capitals - Cairo, Beirut, Amman, Jerusalem, and though these papers do not get many statements "by the foreign ministers or Dr. Jarring, the latter*s optimism is accepted well "by most of them. Thus he has won the public opinion in the region to a larger extent. Certain journalists and diplomatic circles tried recently to find in any world event a facilitation for Dr. Jarring's mission. These circles have referred to the Warsaw conference. Dr. Jarring was his government's ambassador in Moscow, and this gives him a full picture of all the aims and extent of Soviet policy in the Middle East especially regarding the Palestine question, and his choice is an attempt to reconcile the American-Soviet view points rather than an attempt to reconcile the Arab-Israeli view points. The most important event to take place after Jarring1s arrival in the Middle East and his visits to the four capitals is the Warsaw conference which called upon the Arabs to recognize Israel and. avoided to brand Israel as an aggressor. The Warsaw communique concerning the with- drawal from the Arab countries occupied by Israel was careful to be in line with text of the last Security Council resolution. As the Warsaw communique confirmed the Eastern European blocts adherence to the resolution it was natural to deduce that the basic object for the holding of the Warsaw conference wassipo support Jarring1 s mission in the Middle East. And as the resolution forms the base of the Jarring mission then it is also the base for the reconciliation of the Eastern and Western view points of the Middle East crisis. So it can be said that the task of confining the Arab-Israeli conflict and preventing it from becoming a source of anxiety and trouble in the East West relations has succeeded. And the mission Jarring was asked to carry out in the region was the outcome of this success. There- fore it is clear that there is a line connecting the resolutions of the Warsaw conference and the Jarring mission. The Refugees1 question The debate of UNRWA's Pomgen's annual report at the Special Political Committee was more quiet than in the past. Certain circles here say that there are three noteworthy points: I. The realisation of the Palestinian presence in accordance with statements of the delegations of the Palestinian organizations to consider the Palestine question as a special problem and should be separated from the recent events in the region. • Dr. Tannous said the Suez Canal is not the Palestine question and the Strait of Tiran is not the Refugees' problem. Some Palestinian delegates said that the - 5 -

Arab states have no right t» decide the fate of the Palestine Question and that their cooperation was only a brotherly cooperation. II. The project submitted by the Israeli delegate for the solution of the refugee problem was categorically rejected by the Arab states. Some non-Arab delegates said that it was an obscure and'an insignificant project. III. The Irish Project tabled for discussion by the Irish Foreign Minister got serious attention and it was described as the best project submitted to the Committee for many years. None of the Arab delegates attacked it. On the contrary some Arab delegates found it to be a worthy project which can be discussed and debated in a practical manner. The Irish foreign minister was informed of this reaction and expressed his desire to continue discussing his project and expressed a desire to visit the region and discuss the project with the governments concerned and is awaiting the outcome of the Jarring mission. He also said that he will officially submit his project to the Secretary General. I heard from Minister Hakim that he welcomes the visit of the Irish foreign minister to discuss the project with him. The atmosphere here is suitable for such a discussion. The Middle Sast CrisJTs

Observers here say that this problem has moved during the last week on several fronts. On the Israeli side for consolidating their gains, and attempts to find a solution to preserve peace in the region on the Arab side. The Israeli activity was concentrated on Eshkol's visit Arab to the US and Dr. Jarring* s talks in Jerusalem. The/activity was confined to the contacts concerning the Summit Conference and the operation for freeing the foreign ships in the Suez Canal. The Jarring mission Political circles and the press in the region talk a lot about Dr. Jarring1s visits to Jerusalem. Beirut. Amman mission and Cairo. It is said the Jarring/is at present in the second phase of his mission, which is being called the new stage. In the first stage he listened to those responsible in the four capitals and that today he..;is making proposals, and though: the four capitals denied that Dr. Jarring has made any proposals*and explanation of these proposals was made^ It is said that these proposals aim at the opening the dead end facing the Jarring mission. This dead end is a result of the Arab states insistence on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories at first and then to move from these to the discussion of the peaceful solution, while Israel insists on finding a peaceful solution to be followed by withdrawal. These proposals are summarized in some thing like general internationalization of all the occupied Arab areas influding > Jerusalem by placing them under UN supervision, international forces to replace the Israeli forces and then to move from there to implement a permanent peaceful solution in the light of the S.C. resolution sponsored by Britain. It is also said that Dr. Jarring has sent a report about his contacts in the region to the Secretary General, in which he referred to the difficulties he is facing in Israel and are in Brief: 1) Israel's insistence that the Jarring mission should be confined to making the necessary arrangements leading to the starting of direct negotiations between the Arabs and Israel. - 2 -

2} Israel's refusal to withdraw completely from the Arab territories it occupied after 5 June unless this withdrawal is coupled with the Arabs fulfilling the Israeli conditions which were made public in several past occasions. 3) Israel's categorical refusal to discuss the future of Jerusalem because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. As for Dr. Jarring's visits to the Arab capitals several statements were made in this respect by Arab responsible officials. Lebanon - The Foreign Minister said that he explained Lebanon's stand to the UN envoy, and that he demanded that withdrawal should take place and then the peaceful solution can be discussed. He denied that Dr. Jarring ha§ made any proposals, and also said that he was in constant contact with the Foreign Minister of Jordan and the U.A.H. Cairo - An official spokesman of the U.A.R. declared that Dr. Jarring did not make any proposals concerning the crisis in Cairo. it Amman - The Prime Minister declared that he met Dr. Jarring and presented to him Jordan's interpretation of the Security Council's resolution, emphasizing the rights of the refugees. 'Also Dr. Jarring explained to the Jordanian officials the Israeli view point and Israel's interpretation of the S.C. resolution. He also said that Jordan believes that Israel does not intend to respect the S.C. resolution. Also that Jordanaan side does not express any optimism on the possibility of success of the Jarring mission. The Arab stand Observers here are of the opinion that the postponement of the Summit Conference - at Cairo's request - is in fact a salvation for the unity of Arab stand which resulted from the Khartoum conference, and at the same time it gives a fresh chance to the present international contacts concerning the M.E. crisis though all indications show the futility of these contacts and their uselessness against the Israeli challenge and Israel's categoric rejection of most of the UN resolutions concerning the crisis. - 3 -

Alongside Dr. Jarring*s mediationxArab rulers are constantly on the move in order to keep the Palestine question alive at the UN and in the conscience of world public opiniono The Hussein-Faisal talks It is said that these talks dealt with: 1) King Faisal's participation in explaining the Arab stand to some heads of the big powers. 2) Overcoming the obstacles in the way of the Summit Conference. 3) An attempt to find a satisfactory peaceful solution to the Yemen problem. 4) Review of the Jarring mission in the light of meetings between him and the Jordanian side and the information he gave them about the Israeli stand. The Hussein-Nasser discussions The talks between Nasser and Hussein are, in brief, to work for holding the Summit Conference and explaing King Faisal's viewpoint and to make an attempt to get Faisal and Nasser together as soon as possible. These taks resulted in: 1) King Hussein and King Hassan (of Morocco) renewing the call for holding an Arab Summit Conference after the conference which was to be held on 17 January 1968 and was postponed by the Arab League. 2) The visit of Lebanon's President to Jordan It is said that the discussions include political question of an Arab and international nature related to the Arab Israeli crisis. Lebanon will not put forward any new proposals other than those made recently to Dr. Jarring and which call for not discussing any of the proposed international solution unless this preceded by the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the occupied territories. The talks will concentrate on the necessity of the Israeli withdrawal and reiteration of the Arab stand. Also the resumption of Arab efforts on a high level concerning the Summit Conference will be discussed. The talks will also deal with the latest round of visits by Dr. Jarring and this will have a special nature by will not go beyond the traditional boundary which is subjected to the unity of opinion though the rulers differ on the means adopted, because Dr. Jarring1s ...A - 4 -

round of visits to Jordan, UAR and Lebanon does not give any justification to any Arab state to take any unilateral decision, regardless of its importance, on the Arab Israeli level. 3) The visit of Mahmoud Riad Foreign Minister of UAS The Foreign Minister is starting a round of visits to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait on Saturday, 20 January. Riad1s discussions will deal with: 1) The support of the Arab Governments to Egypt1s stand concerning the talks with Jarring. 2) Finding a solution to the Yemen problem. 3) The possibility of renewing efforts to hold a summit conference. Certain diplomatic circles say that political and economical circumstances indicate that the solution of the Middle East crisis cannot be achieved before 2 years at least. President Nasser prefers to discuss the problem from the rostrum of military power, i.e. after Egypt completes its defence and attack measures. The Arab states prefer to postpone discussing the crisis until after the Presidential elections in the US as the new President will be more able to exert stronger pressure on Israel. Eshkol1s term of office expires in 1969 and its probable that he will relinquish his post this year to give the field for competition between Moshe Dayan and minister "Alon" the stronger candidate to succeed Eshkol. Alon carries the idea of the acceptance of 100,000 refugees and.the unconditional withdrawal from the occupied territories. In the present situation the Arab states are inclined to prefer the "political solution" and then taking their time before achieving it, and thus changing the nature of the conflict and transferring from the level of war among states to the level of resistence within Israel and the occupied territories, or depending on a blitz krieg with the hope of avoiding American intervention.

Date: 20 January 1968 //U 06.1.115.1

UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY OFFICE DE SECOURS ET DE TRAVAUX FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES POUR LES REFUGIES DE PALESTINE

Cables UNRWH Palais de t'UNESCO BEYROUTH The Middle East Crisis

14 April 1968

Observers conversant with the Middle East crisis describe the present situation as follows: Ten months have passed since the six day war and the Israeli occupation of certain Arab territory, and seven months have passed since the Khartoum Summit Conference and four months since the Security Council resolution. Certain observers are of the opinion that the visits made by Arab leaders and officials in the Arab world and abroad, and the visits of the Israeli officials or those made by UIT envoy have reached a record figure. Yet Israel still occupies the Arab territories, the Khartoum resolutions are still in force, the Security Council resolution is still frozen and Jarring is moving in a vicious circle. Israel refuses to implement the Security Council resolu- tion and considers it to be a working paper, and before taking any further steps it makes direct negotiations with the Arabs a condition. The Arab states maintain the principle of no negotiation, no peace, no recognition and no neglect in the Palestine question, Observers of the Arab Israeli situation have formed an opinion that Jarring is moving in a vicious circle and that he cannot expect any success in his mission except for one of the two following points, the first being Israel's stepping down from its rigid stand of direct negotiations with the Arabs and second being the adoption of the US of a new attitude towards the Security Council resolution on the Middle East. A. As for the first point some people assert that it is not unlikely for Israel to stop insisting in the direct negotiations in the near future for the following reasons: 1. The neighbouring Arab states have completed their defence systems and are preparing for attack. 2. Adherence to a demand rejected by the Arab states will present Israel to the world in a weak political aspect. — 2 —

3. The continuances of the waiting period is not in the interest of Israel at all, especially on the domestic level where it faces the threat of the Arab commandos on one side and the burden of the existing military effort with its cost and emergency situation. Some other people however, are of an opposite opinion and maintain that the international situation is in the interest of Israel or at least Israel can utilize the international situation to its advantage for the following reasons: 1. If Dr. Jarring declares that he has failed in his mission all that can be done is that Secretary General will submit a report to the Security Council, or the Arab states will request a meeting of the Security Council or the General Assembly. In both cases the result would be another resolution calling for the necessity of finding a solution of the Middle East crisis and repeating the attempt of the UN envoy in another form. 2. The general Arab attitude helps Israel to maintain its rigid stand and gives it more chances for threats and challenge. 3. It appears that the UN and even the Security Council are unable to impose any kind of an international resolution where Israel is concerned. B. As for the second point it is now clear that Israel know that the forthcoming elections in America gives it the opportunity for mutiny even against America. It is stupid to think or believe that the U.S. is ready to change its attitude towards the Middle East crisis eight months before the presidential elections. Has the mission of Dr. Jarring ended? Certain observers say: the Jarring mission is ended. Let Dr. Jarring submit his resignation after which the necessary action will be taken. Others say: the Jarring mission needs an urgent rescue operation, and it will be a good idea if the UN Secretary General intervenes especially that most of those responsible in the Middle East are friends of his. A third group say that Jarring may be able to convince the Israeli, in one way or another, that obstinacy may lead the Arabs to use force, and this is a risk the results of which Israel cannot guarantee no matter how much self-confidence it has. Also Dr. Jarring can convince Israel that adhering to its present rigid stand - would compel world powers to change their attitude towards the problem which gave Israel the chance of staying in the occupied territory. - 3 -

The Arab Policy The Arab policy is also moving in a vicious circle, or rather there is no common Arab policy. There are regional policies. A group is trying to save what can be saved ... Another group is trying to protect what can be protected and a third group is trying to avoid getting involved more than they have done so far. The opinion of Algerian president concerning the responsibility of the Palestinian themselves for the liberation of their country is also applied to the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians concerning their responsibility for the liberation of their territories. King Faisal says that as far as Israel and the Palestine question are concerned there is a common Arab responsibility which was expressed by the Khartoum resolutions. As for the "removal of the traces of aggression" i.e. withdrawal from the territory occupied after the June war the responsibility of Egypt, Jordan and Syria is or should be theirs. The Security Council resolution is not confined to the subject of withdrawal from the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian territories but also extends to the two problems which preceded the June war, namely, the stand concerning Israel and concerning the Palestine question. The Khartoum resolution prohibit discussing or taking any action concerning these two problems. The call for a Summit Conference After Cairo and Amman agreed to receive Dr. Jarring and to discuss the implementation of Security Council resolution they found it necessary to move from the stage of the Khartoum resolution to the stage of the resolutions of a new Summit Conference. Amman called for a Summit Conference and cables were sent to the Kings and Presidents stressing the improtance of convening the conference but the replies were not encouraging. Cairo also called for a Summit Conference, and President Nasser said "We have called for a Summit for peaceful co-existence among all the Arab nations0. Saudi Arabia is not eager about the Summit Conference. King Faisal says that a Summit Conference for the states concerned - Egypt, Jordan and Syria - should be held after which the necessary action will be taken. King Faisal also said "let the Arab states declare the failure of the Jarring mission and after that the Summit conference can be held. - 4 -

Syria does not recognize the Security Council resolution and does not agree to receive Dr. Jarring. It also says that the Summit Conference is a waste of time and will not produce any results* Syria calls for armament and war. Algeria calls on the Palestinians to liberate their homeland. Tunisia does not want to go beyond the Khartoum resolution and is of the opinion that a new Summit Conference is fruitless. And so the responsibility for the "the removal of the traces of aggression" is passed back to the states concerned - Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Egypt, and Jordan are at present in a position of "another Palestine", for as the Palestinians are at present shouldering the responsibility for the liberation of the Palestinian homeland, the Egyptians and Jordanians are similarly working for shouldering the responsibility for the liberation of the Egyptian and Jordanian territories. And until the Arab policy emerges from the vicious circle, those responsible in Egypt and Jordan are working for a policy to replace a common Arab policy, the achievement of which cannot be attained in the near future. of of

Couaeii a&soiuuen g4a f a 10671 1967 for ^ ** j'*'l ^r

80 in th. of a

;/4»tti \j m f©y (ioiif«p«ne«»

•V *, : of &ftd of the [os» Jsstlaa)

1967 for

auspices for ©aaon of th@ resolution. fJri© two gov®?ft@@ate faave to cooperate t^ith E-a in EG? as a In the of my fcssk of such a « la view of th® urgsnay with a vi@w to effor&a to r@aeh invited th® to •Mt(trttl} within th©

to to thie

.-•..11

,*«.:

RVw~ «. tt^-w. - fe The Middle East Crisis 4 May 1968

Observers these days notice that the interest of public opinion in the region is greatly directed towards "commando11 action and news. Interest in the meetings, news or speeches of officials has decreased. Interest in the United Nations is suffering the same decrease: it does not have the same interest that it used to have in the past. The reason for this is that the Arab people have become fed up with the meetings of the leaders of the region, which always end with statements with which the people here are familiar and to which they have become used. They are no longer interested in the visits of the Kings and Presidents. They are also fed up with the Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly or the Security Council because there are many of them and they all look the same to these people to the extent that they cannot differentiate between them but know very well that they have no force and cannot be implemented. Dr. Jarring*s mission; The press and public opinion granted a vacation to the news about Jarring. All that appeared last week was a few lines about his visits to Amman and to Jerusalem, his meeting with the officials in both capitals and then his safe return to his base in Cyprus. In Amman the Prime Minister declared that he had met with Dr. Jarring and talked with him about the Security Council's Resolution and Jordan's understanding of this Resolution. He also"announced Jordan's preparedness to implement that decision - people have often heard this declaration thus it has no more value or consideration. In Jerusalem declarations about the meeting of Jarring with the Foreign Minister of Israel were few. They did not in all exceed the discussion of the Security Council's Resolution and Aba Eban* s hope that Jarring's mission will succeed* The last declaration of President Nasser about Jarring* s mission was severe and pessimistic. He said: "The contacts of Dr. Jarring have not yet achieved any result. The Arabs have accepted the Security Council's Hesolution, but Israel has not accepted it". The question today is what has remained of Jarring1s mission. The Riyadh meeting? Observers attach great importance to this meeting. At the beginning the meeting was supposed to be held between Kings Faisal and el-Hassan and then it became a meeting between both of them and King Hussein. - 2 - The result which the observers noticed was that the attention of Faisal and Hassan is directed towards the Moslem world. The communique said: "It is extremely essential to endeavour to strengthen and support the Moslem solidarity and to unite the ranks of Moslems, governments and people all over the Moslem world, considering that the unity of these ranks is the basic condition for supporting the Moslem and Arab right in Palestine and its sacred places as it is inevitable for the achievement of the progress and the riddance from ruining and destructive currents desired by the Moslem world". If we add the declaration of King Hassan after the meeting in which he said: "The Arab man has not yet been placed in a positive state of war or in a state of peace11, we find that the gap between the conservative and the ideological Arab States is growing bigger. This means that there will be no Arab summit conference whether in the near or in the distant future. The Cairo Conference; On the 5th of this month, the Syrian President and his civil and military assistants will visit Cairo to meet with the officials in Cairo. Observers say that this meeting is going to be an answer to the Riyadh meeting. It will most probably result in an invitation for a summit conference between the UAR, Algeria, Syria and Iraq.. Syrian sources say that the Syrian delegation will carry proposals concerning political and military co-ordination in a manner that would make the stand of endurance on the part of the Arabs more effective and powerful. President Nasser; Before the referendum of 2 May, President Nasser made two speeches. Attention was drawn to his saying that: MNo result is expected from the contacts which are being made by Jarring, and secondly that the Arabs are not prepared to sit with Israel and negotiate with it on the basis of "dictation of the conditions of the victorius", thirdly that the battle is inevitable and fourthly that the UAH may enter the battle alone because there is no joint Arab or military plan. Hussein's visit to London; This visit was a surprise to everybody.Observers made many comments on it; some said: "Has King Hussein, after his tour in the Arab world, become desperate about the possibility of bringing together the politi- cal and military powers of the Arab nation to face Israel and thus turned his face towards the West?" It was decided that he would visit Libya on that day. The schedule of the visit was prepared with the Libyan Government, but it was suddenly cancelled. - 3 -

It is said here that he will meet first with the British Foreign Minister and then with the Prime Minister and that the most important subjects of discussion will be the results reached so far of Jarring1s contacts and the question of the Israeli military parade. Some say many things concerning the Palestinian case from its "basis. "Fateh": Finally Fateh came out into the open, after it remained a secret organization since 1965* It is said that his coming out into the open has important meanings: 1. That the Palestinian resistance movement requires such an action because it is high time that it should be freed from the accusations that it is a terrorist or destructive movement or that it is a movement fed by forces from outside the occupied territory. 2. That the movement is a national one which endeavours to liberate the Palestinian homeland from the invading aggressors and that its leaders are from among the people of Palestine itself and the ownerw of the legitimate right. 3- That the coming out into the open of the movement gives it a clear position to enable it to receive assistance and talk in the name of the Arabs of Palestine. 4. That it will grow stronger and will force those who doubt it to recognize it. It willmake confrontation between it and the Israelis open. 5. That the step taken by it is a natural and gradual step which took place in all resistance activities against the usurping enemy. This organization was established in 1965 with 200 Palestinians. Today it consists of thousands of well-trained commandos who work now aginst Israel from both East and West banks of Jordan and from within occupied territory. The Organization receives today many applications, ^ts leaders endeavour to keep it away from partisanship. Its motto is "Before liberating their country, the Palestinians cannot bear the luxury of political parties and they should work hand in hand in a national unity". The least this Organization can peacefully accept is the establishment of a state controlled by the Arabs and covering all of Palestine.

...A - 4 -

As for the Jews, a spokesman in its name sayss "The Jews can Tive in the Arab state of Palestine on the same basis by which the Arabs lived in the stat& of Israel after 1948". The Organization does not approve the endeavours of Dr. Jarring which aim at reaching a solution on the basis of Israel's withdrawal from the territories occupied during the June war. A spokesman in its name explains this by saying: wWe do not recognize Israel even within its pre-war borders. Israel was established in a country "owned by us and we shall not lay down arms except when this whole country is restored by us". The success of the Organization has urged thousands of Palesinians and Arabs to join it and contribute to it. The Organization keeps silent about the sources of the funds and arms received by it* It is said that it receives assistance from all the Arab States. President Nasser declared that the United Arab Republic helps the resistance movement by all kinds of assistance, including military assistance. It was announced in Riyadh that in the meeting of the two kings there was a great interest in resistance and in providing it with assistance. Head of the Organization; Yasser 'Arafat: he was born in Jerusalem and left it in 1948. He studied engineering in Cairo University and then entered the Egyptian Military Academy where he specialized in explosives. In 1956 he fought with the Egyptian forces against the tripartite aggression* He is not married* The Middle East Crisis

11 May 1968

Ever since the General Assembly resumed its session around the end of last month, observers of the Arab-Israeli crisis said that attention during the coming few weeks should be directed towards F£w York to follow up the developments which will take place there in connection with the Middle East crisis. As a result of this, the news of the crisis in the region's press and diplomatic circles and the interest in Jarring1s mission and visits decreased. At the beginning of this week, movements on the political scene of the Middle East developed suddenly and without fuss. Internally, the observer will see visits continuing between high Arab officials. There is the visit of the Jordanian Prime Minister to Cairo, Baghdad and to Beirut, carrying messages from King Hussein to the Presidents of the three states concerned. There is the visit of the Syrian President and his Civil and Military Assistants to Cairo and there is the visit of the Libyan Prime Minister to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.. There are visits abroad among which are the visits of the Jordanian monarch to London and Paris. There are also Israeli visits, such as the visit of the Israeli Foreign Minister to Scandinavia, of Golda Meyer to Latin America and of Menahim Pegin to Brazil. There are as well visits of European officials to the Middle East. There are today in the region British, Swedish and Norwegian emissaries. The one thing in common between these visits is silence, and this is, to a great extent, similar to the silence which surrounds Jarring. The question in the region is "what is happening?" Naturally, the answer to this is not easy. The movements may be summarized as follows: 1. !Dr. Jarring: When Jarring came to the Middle East, the press gave him considerable attention. They covered his activi- ties on the first pages, then that interest decreased and the news about him started to occupy a less important place in the inner pages. In explaining this it is said that there are two reasons for this: 1. that not enough information is available about his visits and discussions, and 2. that his role was unchanged after the increase of the commando action and the pessimism about the possibility of a political solution. - 2 -

All of a sudden this week the news about him started to occupy the headlines; the talks and comments about his mission also occupied an important place in the first pages. What was said about Jarring*s mission this week can "be reviewed as follows: (a) King Faisal reiterated on 6 May what he had said about Jarring*s mission and the holding of the Arab summit conference: "Once Jarring1s failure has been announced, there will be need for a summit conference preceded by meetings of military and political experts of Arab countries. We will decide jointly with our brothers the steps to take". The question about this declaration is: Is it true that King Faisal awaits the failure of Jarring*s mission? Some say that the King intends to give Jarring sufficient time and also intends not to hold an Arab summit conference so that new decisions may not affect Jarring*s mission. (b) On 7 May the Foreign Minister of France passed through Beirut Airport and declared; "I believe that it is necessary to find a peaceful solution for the Middle East crisis, and the United Nations and the Security Council should play an important role in this respect. I believe that 3)r. Jarring, who moves between the capitals of the region, is playing a useful role in keeping contacts'*. (d) In London, it was said that King Hussein and the Foreign Minister of Britain had on 6 May "agreed during discussions in London that Jarring's mission still forms the best hope for the achievement of peace in the region'1. The press also started to talk about Jarring*s mission under headline such ass "Important developments in Jarring1 s mission11, "There is hope that Jarring*s mission will succeed*. 2. Cairo Conference: The official visit by the Syrian President to Cairo is the third after the June hostilities: the first was on 16 June 1967 and the second in July 1967» Observers say that the meeting between the Baath of Syria and the Kasserism of Egypt is not an ideological one, but a meeting between two revolutionary regimes that were not brought together by revolutionarism as much as they were brought together by the June setback and the policy of erasing the consequences of aggression. This is a meeting between a regime that calls for a military solution in its press and broadcasts and a regime that tends towards a political solution. - 3 -

Some observers say that many factors caused this meeting, among which ares (a) Damascus found itself isolated, thus bringing many accusations aginst its repeated negative attitudes. It also found that irb was not.free to have inter-action with its neighbours. These attitudes resulted in arresting the commandoes, boycotting of their activities and opposition to their operations. As a result of this, the newspapers of certain Arab countries began attacking Damascus. The President of Iraq, in one of his speeches, also attacked the policy of Damascus. It was thus necessary that Syria should take a prompt action which led to the Cairo visit and the meeting between the Baath of Syria and the Fasserism of Egypt. (b) It has become evident to Damascus that the Soviet Union, similar to the United States, is placing its weight to the side of the political solution* It has also become evident that the corte^t of the Soviets about the political solution is that it should be imposed from outside - the United Nations - in order to save the regimes and ideologies and the men who work for these regimes and ideologies, while the United States wants a political solution that would create a popular revolution which would exterminate those regimes and ideologies and the men of these regimes and ideologies. (c) The C&mmandos: the Commandos to Syria and Egypt are as the Yiet Cong to China and the Soviet Union. The Viet Cong force the Soviet Union and China to get together in Vietnam. The activities of the Arab commandos force Syria and Egypt to get together in Hthe Vietnam of the Arabs!' The meeting has ended. Some observers say that the meeting did not result in what was expected of such a meeting. The two parties were satisfied by issuing only a press communique. The Communique described the visit as: an important and basic part in a ^series of continuous consultations aimed at co-ordinating and developing co-operation between the two countries in various fields, at studying the unification of energies and mobilization of all means and resources to strengthen the steadfastness and power of the Arab nation to face the Israeli aggression, erase its traces and liberate the occupied territory. •i-t is also said that the Syrians requested some kind of a military and political agreement with the Egyptians and that this agreement should be supported by some kind of solidarity between the Socialist Union in Egypt and the Baath in Syria. The Egyptians' reply was that "Planning for this agreement should firt be preceded by some kind of co-ordination between Syria, Jordan and Iraq". - 4 -

Change in Israel*s attitude; Some observers in the Arabic press comment on the new attitude of Israel by saying that from the beginning, especially during the June war£ and its aftermath, the extremist wing in Israel dominated, bore the responsibility for rejecting the United Hations resolution and fixed the aim of holding direct negotiations with the Arabs and concluding permanent peace treaties as its least irrevocable demand. The other wing, Eshkol-Eban, sees that the least demand of Israel should be more flexible in order to achieve the same aim. Consequently the factor of bargaining of this wing was more motional than that of the other wing. The length of the period which has elapsed since the June war made the extremist wing form within the Israeli Cabinet a final barrier in front of Jarring's mission and consider that Israel should seize the present opportunity to establish the fruits of its aggression even if this required the launching of another war. At the same time, the Eshkol-Eban wing presumes that the armed Arab resistance will reach power within a few months, an? effective level which will make Israel unable to achieve any of the aims of Ben Gurion-Dayan wing and that it is necessary to exploit Jarring*s mission by means of a flexible retreat to avoid what might happen. Meanwhile, it will not be easy to achieve the aims of Israel after a few months owing to the increase of commando action and the Arab fighting potential. The moderate wing in Israel has carried greater weight in the last three weeks. This makes the responsible circles more confident about Jarring1s success. "

The Middle Bast Crisis 18 May 1968

Twenty yearst Twenty years have elapsed since the establishment of Israel in Palestine and one year since Israel occupied other Arab territory equivalent in area to three times the area held since 1948. Observers are of the opinion that in these twenty years Israel could not solve its problem and the Arabs could not forget their problem. They are also of the opinion that the "time factor11 and the ability of time to make the new generation which was born in exile forget Palestine, not relate themselves to it and not fight for it, have completely collapsed, ^his "time factor" is a basic Israeli theory and the collapse of this Israeli theory after twenty years means the collapse of a basic thing in the Israeli strategic structure. In fa£t, the bitterness which dominates th6 Palestinian generation born in exile also dominates the new Arab generation in every Arab country. This fact appears clearly and evidently these days. Most developments these days concern Barring's mission, and the endeavours to make it successful are not only local but are also international and external and may be summarized as follows: Increased concern for Jarring1s mission: The general feeling in the region is that the presence of Dr. Jarring in New York will be a favourable opportunity for the success of his mission. The meeting of the General Assembly, the presence of permanent delegates of the Member States, the presence of the Security Council and the Secretary General's supervision of the discussions, will help to save a great deal of effort and time. In this atmosphere, optimism will carry greater weight and may even win by the emergence of a peaceful solution. These days the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in Cairo, .Amman and Beirut were the object of new contacts on the part of foreign States through their ambassadors with the aim of participating in measures which could save Dr. Jarring1s mission, for the first time, messages concerning Jarring1s mission were made public. Cairo made public two documents: one sent by Jarring and the other by the Foreign Minister in Cairo in connection with reaching a peaceful solution for the Middle Bast problem. - 2 -

On the other hand, it appeared that Jarring1s mission was of special concern in the discussions which took place in the recent official visits. Talhouii's visit to Cairo t In his recent visits to Cairo, Baghdad and Beirut, the Jordanian Prime Minister not only delivered messages from King Hussein to the Presidents of the three States, and not only reported on the results of King Hussein* s visits to some Arab States and to the Gulf, "but he also explained may matters and submitted many requests to the responsible officials in those countries. Most of these matters were in connection with Dr. Jarring*s mission. Jordan stressed that it was extremely keen not to have Jarring*s mission undermined or hindered. The answer of Arab officials was similar to that of Cairo: the Arab countries will not be the cause of undermining Jarring*s mission and will not put hindrances in the way of his mission, but on the contrary they will endeavour to make it successful. The Jordanian Official asked Egypt as well as the Arab countries which he visited: will Egypt or those countries take a hostile attitude towards Jordan if it unilaterally takes steps to put an end to the occupation? The answer was that those countries will leave it to Jordan to do whatever it wants in this regard and that Egypt will not take a hostile attitude towards it if it takes this step. The officials in Jordan believe that the undermining of Jarring1s mission will have a great effect on the existence of the Kingdom of Jordan. Criticism of King Hussein's visits appeared in some local newspapers. Those newspapers said that "If the reason for these visits is the purchase of arms, such a reason does not require King Hussein to leave his country because he can send a military delegation for this purpose. If these visits aim at explaining the present situation, such a matter does not also need royal visits because the whole world now knows the real situation in the Middle East". The visit of Syrian officials to Cairo: Some of the discussions which took place in that visit recently became known. The Syrian officials tried to raise the subject of the conference which was held in Hiyadh between the three Kings: Faisal, Hassan and Hussein. They said that this conference was "a reactionary rightist action" aiming at the creation of a bloc against the "progressive Arab States". The answer of President Nasser was that the rightist Arab is exactly the same as the leftist Arab and that Israel does not look at the Arabs from this point, but looks at them as Arabs only. The Syrians went to Egypt as revolutionaries but were - 3 - received "by President Nasser with the logic of "Egypt the State" and not "Egypt the Revolution". President Nasser raised the fact that the Syrians make many demands and do not accept one Arab demand - they boycotted the summit conference, refuged to reach an understanding with Jordan and boycotted Jarring1s mission. Jarring1s mission was the subject of talks and discussions between the Syrians and the Egyptians. Cairo's viewpoint was that the Arabs should not take an opposing attitude towards Jarring1s mission, but should show close co-operation. It also appeared that President Nasser insisted that a press release and not a joint communique be issued about the discussions, because the press release is not signed by both parties and is only informative while the joint communique is binding. After the recent visits there were many rumours about the Arab situation in general. It was said that Kuwait wanted statements concerning *he way in which Egypt spends the aid approved by the Khartoum conference. Saudi Arabia and Libya have the same desire or reconsidering that aid. In fact, these three States cannot raise the financial subject, they are afraid that raising the subject of the financial aid or attempting to suspend it would give Cairo an opportunity to request aid from the Soviet Union. V

lL«- 0 -^. U-JUw

*J CL

f^—'

b*sv>J-~*

jJv* ^-o^JU*

*

t"

fv^M LU>-» . J-

»V

^JZ_p. — *M /AJL 06.1.115.1

UNITED NATIONS NATIONS U N I E S RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY OFFICE DE SECOURS ET DE TRAVAUX FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES POUR LES REFUGIES DE PALESTINE

Cables UHRWH Palais de I'UNESCO BEYROUTH THE MIDDLE EAST CRISIS

It was expected that after Jarring1s departure to New York that talk about the Middle East crisis would diminish especially that discussions have "been transferred to New York, the place of the General Assembly, Security Council, and the Secretary-General. But in fact the crisis has "been discussed everywhere and in a more serious manner than before and observers are under the impression that the crisis has reached a cross-road. There is talk in the region about reports from London and Washington saying that the Jarring mission has begun to make certain progress and that there is a pressure from the big powers - including a limited pressure, - by the United States - on Israel for accepting the Security Council Resolution and the principle of withdrawal from the occupied territories. However, there are no details in these reports about this subject, and observers say that international stands concerning the crisis are summarized as follows: The Arab Stand: The Arab stand began to move after a stand-still beginning with the recent initiative taken by the Lebanese Government when it decided to make diplomatic efforts in internatifeal circles to find a solution for the Middle East problem. The Lebanese Foreign Minister was sent to visit the capitals of the four Big Powers, the United Nations and the Vatican. Certain official departments say that the Foreign Minister got this idea after his meeting with Secretary-General U Thant, in the Beirut Airport a few weeks ago when U Thant hinted at the importance of carrying out fresh efforts by the Arab states, and particularly - 2 -

Lebanon, in international circles concerning the Palestine problem. The Foreign Ministerte visit was preceded by special contacts with Cairo and Amman* The Minister1s tour of visits has a dual aim, Lebanese and Arab-! The Lebanese aspect of this visit is to explain the new Israeli threat on the Lebanese village and this was preceeded by provocative campaigns from Israel Radio against Lebanon. The Arab aspect is to explain the Arab viewpoint concerning the Security Council Resolution and the demand for the intervention of the great power and the Vatican to help in implementing the resolution and realizing the Israeli withdrawal from the territory. In the meantime the Lebanese Foreign Ministry follows closely the new activity of Dr. Jarring in New York and its reaction in the Arab states and Israel in order to form a correct idea about the stage which the Jarring mission has en-feed, or rather, about the truth of the reports that the peaceful solution has started to appear in the horizon. Certain Lebanese departments are of the opinion that the Israeli stand remains in the same condition of stiffness and procrastination in order to be able to obtain the most possible gains as well as the opinion that the contacts of Jarring'in New York will remain revolving in the same Israeli tactics and that any talk about entering the approaching stage of the peaceful solutioniis premature. - 3 -

The Israeli Stand; Observers here do not see any change in the Israeli stand,anlhis stand was confirmed by the decision taken by the Israeli Government at its last meeting "no indirect negotiations, no withdrawal, rejection of any solution "before concluding peace agreements with the Arab States by direct negotiations". Observers think that the statements made by Eban during his Scandinavian visit and the statements made by the Israeli permanent delegate at the United Nations were Israeli maneuvers which ended without achieving anything of what was expected of them. Eban was hoping by his tactics to achieve two things at the same time. 1. To thwart the success of Arab diplomacy which accepted the Security Council resolution thus gaining international sympathy, and, 2. To return to Israel the world sympathy it had lost as a r result of its rigidity and rejection of the Qouncil's resolution. The Stand at the United Nations; After Dr. Jarring's move to New York and his discussions with some Arab Delegates and the Israeli Delegate, observers here see the situation in New York as follows: International circles received Jarring1s move from Cyprus to New York by saying:" what Jarring failed to achieve in the Middle East cannot be achieved in New York" and "this move is an evidence of the failure of Jarring1s mission in carrying out direct or indirect negotiations". They say here that it appeared to the members of the Security Council that the Council resolution was ambiguous and that this ambiguity was its passport for being adopted by the councily \lthough this ambiguity is chiefly responsible for the floundering of the Jarring mission and his failure to put a programme for its implementations u#til now. ...A - 4 - With, this background it is said that international circles find themselves faced with one of two possibilities; (1) Expecting the resumption of fighting between the Arab States and Israel. (2) Extending Jarring1s mission so that it may lead to the achievement of permanent solution of the Middle East crisis. Alternative Plan; In recent days the following question was seriously asked what will happen if Jarring failed? The answercwas that there are several alternate plans being discussed by political circles in East and West and at the United Nations; I - INTERNATIONAL PLAIT; The London Times of 13 May revealed the presence of an international plan based on "the creation of a Palestinian Arab Community". The British Foreign Secretary declared that the British Governaent had studied the idea of this plan together with other plans to face the possibility of the failure of Starring1 s mission. Observers thin^that this plan achieves several objectives. It is:(a) Por Palestinian Arabs; the creation of a Palestinian Community and personifying the Palestinian entity in the Arab world. (b) Por the Arab Governments; recovery of the territories occupied by Israel after last June without entering in'to direct negotiations with Israel. (c) For Israel; ensuring stability and security on the frontiers without having to achieve this by direct negotiations with the Arabs. (d) For the world; re-opening of the Suez Canal and the liquidation of UNRWA after the re-settlement of the refugees in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and compensating them. - 5 -

(e) For the United Nations; recovery of its international prestige and the confidence of the nations in it. (f) For the "big powers; avoiding a direct conflict in the Middle East. It is said that this plan is not new and it is similar to a plan presented in I960 "by Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the Foreign Affair^ Committee in the United States Senate. Certain observers say that his plan was as a result oS. an agreement between certain Arab and Jewish leaders and they also say that several discussions took place in London, the Scandinavian countries and Cairo concerning this plan and afrer agreement a copy thereof was handed to Secretary-General U Thant. However this plan meets with several obstacles such as: (1) The Palestinian organizations representing the will and aims of the Palestinian people have given the red light for the plan which aims at the gradual liquidation of the Palestine question and recognising the Israeli presence in the occupied territories. Furthermore Jordan categorically rejects this plan. (2) Informed Arab circles say that the most prominent dangers of this plan are: (a) PlaniTng of international forces along the Israeli borders with the Arab States for five years thus providing internation protection for Israel which will enable it to prosper and grow stronger as well as bringing in hundred of thousands of > . , ^migrants. (b) They fear that the peace which the international forces provide during the five year period will lead to: £tranquilizing the nerves of the Arabs11 and alienating them from thinking about the Palestine question. V f - 6 - (c) The plan obliges the Arab States to put an end to Palestinian commando activities. II - THE AMERICAS' PLAN; They say here that President Bourgiba's speech in Washington and the plan he proposed at the United Nations General Assembly are preliminary to a future plan which would be adopted by the United S*£&es "in service for its friends in the Middle East". III - THE ISRAELI PLAN; In brief this is the remaining in the occupied territory. The Isralies have repeatedly stressed that they can stay in the occupied territories twenty years more by the force of arms and the continued American support. IV - THE ARAB PLAN? There is no clear plan. There is a state of ambiguity, The Arabs depend on the Security Council resolution and the influence of the United Nations. The failure of Jarring will place the Arabs in face of one position which is fighting. This was declared by a number of Arab leaders and even some of them have taken an oath to liberate the Arab territories regardless of the cost. The military preparation in most of the Arab States and the full support of the commando activities are executive measures for fighting when Jarring fails* V

Cease-fire in the Middle East As everyone knows the Middle East situation is heating up most dangerously and it is clear that very strong and possibly extreme measures will be necessary to avert a new catastrophe. As I have said in my special reports to the Security Council some time ago (8/9171 of 21 April 1969; S/9188 of 2 May 1969; S/9316 of 5 July 1969; and S/9368 of 30 July 1969), the Middle East cease- fire demanded by the Security Council at the time of the June 1967 war, has broken down and is totally ineffective, especially in the Suez Sector. Hie breaches of the cease-fire, committed by both sides, have been daily occurrences for a long time and recently have increased in number and intensity. For almost a year now I have been making daily reports to the Council on breaches of the cease-fire in the Suez Canal Sector and, more recently, in the Israel-Syria Sector. Indeed, both sides in the conflict now frequently make public announcement of breaches committed by them on their own military initiative. This is an unprecedented situation in U.N. peace-keeping experience. It is my duty as Secretary-General, of course, to do all that I can to have the cease-fire observed. I have been doing all that I can toward this end, but, admittedly, with little success in recent months. As you know, I have asked General Bull to come here urgently and we are conferring on what if anything more, can be done at this time by UMTSO and U.N, Headquarters of a helpful nature. You will understand that it would be impossible for me to divulge any details of this consultation. Arms limitation or embargo

As the U.N. spokesman said on my behalf just the other day,

/j,tvj^cv^-~^ /""-i- -\ T , - I am in principle in favour of arms limitation Ua£-ae-a3?ffl6—embargo-j i1]**—* X I c^n. when a situation such as that in the Middle East develops but it would be misleading to leave the matter there. Wo restriction of this

kind is ever self-executing. The measure of the justification for

an arms limitation and its utility is its effectiveness, its impartial

application. This comes down to a question of the willingness and

readiness of all States concerned to observe strictly the limitation.

Otherwise, the results of the declared limitation or embargo could

defeat its own ends and could even give a military advantage to

one side or the other. 13.11.70

Cease-fire in the Middle East As you are all aware the Middle East situation is again heating up most dangerously and it becomes apparent that only some very strong measures can avert a new catastrophe. At the moment at any rate one must still look principally to the Four-Power talks for the necessary effort. As I have said some time ago in special reports to the

Security "Council £S/9171-Q£--S1—Apgll 19^—i/9l88 of 2 May 1969; g/^gi/; nf p .Tniy i ofo; and s/jggW.-p.-y .Tniy-^aj^ the Middle East cease-fire demanded by the Council at the time of the June 19&7 war, has broken down and is totally ineffective, especially in the Suez Sector.

The breaches of the cease-fire, committed by both sides, have been daily occurrences for a long time and recently have increased in number and intensity. For almost a year now I have been making daily reports to the Council on breaches of the cease-fire in the Suez Canal Sector, land-y—mure ryetsrfciyj—in -tho Israol-gyri-a-g&ctco^l Indeed, as regards the Suez Sector, both sides in the conflict now frequently make public announcement^ of breaches committed by theJm on their own military initiative, This is an unprecedented situation in U.ET. peace-keeping experience, It is my duty as Secretary-General, of course, to do all that I can to have the cease-fire observed. I have been doing all that I can toward^ this end, but, admittedly, with little success in recent months. I also have a deepening concern for the safety of the United Nations Military Observers in the Suez Sector who recently have been exposed to f£re,, particularly L.. from the West Bank of the Canal,, '/'* -2- djroturbing frequency.- The inescapable conclusion from this only U«H. attempt to maintain a cease-fire over an extended periocL concurrently with military occupa- tion by one of the conflicting parties- is that it has become increasingly unsuccessful. As you know, I have asked General Bull to come here urgently and (__ we are conferring on what if anything more, can be done at this time / V) *— *--•rt^ by UMTSO and U.H. Headquarters/off a helpful nature./; You will understand V ' *~ that it would be impossible for me to divulge any details of this consultation UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES

NEW YORK

CABLE ADDRESS • LJNATtQNS NEWYORK • ADR ESS E TELEGRAPH IQ UE

PERSONAL 5 September 1970

To: The Secretary-General

From: Ralph J. Bunche

Knowing that Yost has some very important information to give you, I have taken the liberty of making a tentative appointment for you with him at 4.15 p.m. today. He has talked with Jarring this morning and what he will have to tell you will have vital bearing on Jarring1 s mission. I would suggest, therefore, that you make no public comment on the Jarring mission until you have talked with Yost and Jarring. cc: Mr. Lemieux /^

2 February 1971

Bear .Mr, Free&nan, The Secretary-General has asked me to thank you for your letter of 19 January 1971» the contents of which he has noted with interest. Yours sincerely,

Brian Urquaart

• V Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman 1*00 East 56th Street Hew York, K.Y. 10022 BENJAMIN H. FREEDMAN

4OO EAST S6TH STREET - SR NEW YORK, N. Y. 10022

<212> 751-2333 c. -

OJLY g&ffTHS EYES OF;

H«S. Secretary General U Thant, The United Nations, New York,W.Y. 10017 Dear Secretary General U Thant, Yesterday I again telephoned to Dr.Bunphe- -to --Inquire' ab&ut his progress and I had the great pleasure of a talk with Mrs.Bunche who was with Dr.Bunche at the time. As can be expected under the circumstances, Dr.Bunche's present illness incapacitates him from from giving you the benefit of his understanding that you formerly enjoyed. This loss of Dr.Bunche's customary collaboration will unquestionably continue until his return to good health permits-his- return:.to his office. Ever since 194-6 at Late Success, it hag been a pleasure and a privilegeto personally or by other means"1 to make available to Dr.Bunche my personal experiences acquired since 1912 a§ a direct reult of my identification with the innermost gircles of the international Zionist movement. My associations and activities at the highest levels in that movement both in this country and abroad have in the opinion of others best qualified to judge declared me the best informed person in the world on all the ramifications of that movement. Dr.Bunche always had access to this information by direct or indirect means. Without fear of any justified contradiction by anyone anywhere, Dr.Bunche's understanding and outlook wiifch reference to the Palestine question cannot be equalled by anyone anywhere. Your temporary loss of his valuable assistance in this crisis imposes an additional hardship on youwhich is greatly- regretted by those who regard your personal welfare in this crisis of prime importance to the peace of the world. Your countless friends are anxious to extend every possible personal Assistance to you that will serve to mitigate the severe tax of this emergency upon yourself, In keeping with Jjhat spirit may I most respectfully call to your attention to certain facts with which you may not forrgbvious reasons be as well informed as myself owing to my age and background. I shall make every attempt to be brief but you will have to make allowances for the scope of the subject. The stakes are too high to fail in my attempt to cover the subject as adequately as called for under the circumstances. The facts H.^Secretary General U Thant, ~ 2 - January 19th 1971-

follow are the warp and woof of the fabric of tne international crisis which now confronts the world. It is of paramount importance to the peace or the world that your undertsnding of the "copies in 'tnis letter form the framework for the solution of your^arch for peace in the Middle East. Please be patient it will prove worth it, The topics will be presented in their historic sequence to give you a birds-eye perspective of the subject*. In 400 B.C. the tribal Asian Turco-Finn Khazar nation thrust itself into eastern Burope by a succession of wars of naked aggression. In the area of the Black Sea in eastern Europe, the Khazar invaders established the Khazar kingdom.Af-ter the conquest of twenty-five peaceful pastoral nationsf the Khazar kingdom was a country with a population of over ten million, the largest nation in all Europe, extending from the Ural Mountains in the east to the shores of the -Baltic Siea in western Europe* The Khaaars were a pagan nation of phallic worshippers. The degeneracy among the Khazars due to their paaliic worship led their ruler, King Bulan, to consider conversion to a monotheistic religion. He considered Christianity, Islam and Judaism and by choice chose Judaism and compelled' the entire Khazar nation to acceptj"to the religious faith of his choice. This took place in the 8th A.D». century. There was never an ancestor of the converted Khazar nation who ever had an ancestor who ever set foot in the Holy Land in Bible history times. It is an undisputed fact today that there is no truth to the propaganda that the invasion and conquest of Palestine in 1948 by the eastern Europeans of Khazar ancestry was historically the "repatriation" to their ancestral "promised land" of "God's chosen people." How c ru.el"i. if !tha world was now plunged into war because Zionist control of the media for mass information has brainwashed the world to that effect. The my efforts for twentyffive years, million throughout the world know the above truth, and millions more are learning the truth el ay. by day. It would cast grave doubts about the intelligence of the United Nations if they based any recommendations for peace in Palestine upjon the propaganda of Zionisti about "repatriation" to their ancestral "promised land." The Russian; empire was born in 855 A.D. as a small Slavic state on th° shores of the Baltic Sea, and was known in history as the Principality,:, of Eos. This young rapidly expanding state femglrfc '.its-way 'across- Europe con^ue3?±ng. all"1 the territory;* to the Ural Mountains, which included the conquest of the Khazar kingdom between the lOtli-llth A.D.. centuries. The ten million population of converted Khazars was thereafter included inv the expanded Russian empire. That is the history of when, why and how the Russian empire happened to have the large concentrated population of converted Khazars, known now Hi,E. Secretary General U Thant, ~ 3 - January 19th 1971. by the misnomer "Jews". In 954, CLadimir III ruler of the Russian empire became a convert to Christianity and made Christianity the religion of the Russian nation. The converted Khazars, the so_called "Jews", resisted assimilation into the Russian population. The converted Khazars, the so-called "Jews" , organized their culture under the laws in the Talmud. The Russian Czars made overtures to the converted Khazars, the so-called "Jews", to the. culture of the Christian Russians. This was bitterly opposed by the leaders of the so-called "Jews." The bitterness between the Christian Russians and the converted Khazars, the sor-called "Jews" was all the result of their religious differences based upon their corresponding cultures* Between the final conquest of the converted Khazars by the expanding Russian empire in the 10th—llth A.I), centuries, the conquered Khazars attempted to revolt seve-ral times against their Russian conquerors :for the purpose of again establishing their former Khazar kingdom in the territory formerly occupied by them. The most recent attempt was in 1905." Although Russia was at war with Japan at the time, Russia was again able to defeat the attempt by the conquered Khazars to secede and create their Khazar state in the territory in Russia formerly inhabited by the Khazars. The conquered Khazars in Russia, the sorcslled "j9wsM», finally gave up all hope.of seceding from the Russian empire. For centuries- they had hoped to do what the Irish did in 1916, expel the British invaders from Ireland and establish their own sovereign state,.which they did, after six hundred year§ uader their British 13th A.I),, century conquerors. Many offers we r e made to them of territory in Africa and South America to which they could transplant the population of so-called "Jews" and organize their own soverign state again.. Those offers did not appeal to them ancj they were refused. Then in 1896 Theodor Herzl came along with his idea of Zionism, the "repatriation" of "God's chosen people" to their ancestral promised land." That idea supllied a basis for chasing the occupants out of their country,,and "liberating" it as their ancestral "promised land." Zionism offered the conquered Khazars, the so-called "Jews", the,escape medium for which they nad been:, seeking for centuries to excape from Russian rule. The conquered Khazars in Russia started a National Fund to raise money to purchase land in Palestine, and for propaganda purposes. But the world did not take them seriously, even their co-religionists throughout the world ridiculed the idea of a 20th century, theocracy to which they were expected to "return." Zionism was a dead duck until World War L.

I was privy to the negotiations which railroaded this country into World War I as an ally of Great Britain so I can speak with some authority-on that subject. Throughout the world, at the outbreak of World ¥ar I, all so-called "jews" were pro-German. H.E.. Secretary General U Thant, ~ 4 - January 19th 1971.

Germany was fighting against the Russian Empire,. the enemy of so-called "Jews" thoughout the world as a result of Zionist propaganda. The Gernan Kaiser had attempted for twenty years to influence his ally/, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire,, to cede sovereignty over Palestine to the Zionists for a sovereign state. Great Britain, Prance and other European countries opposed Zionism. Germany's 1822 Mancipation S3 let granted so-called "Jews'* full civil rights, the only country in Europe to remove restrictions on so-called "Jews." Germany had practically defeated Great Britain in Ho rid Tfar I by October 1916, when Great Britain was about to accept a magnanimous peace offer made to them by Germany. Great Britain would have been compelled to surrender to Germany In a few weeks. Great Britain was faced. "with that alternative when the ¥orld Zionist Organization advised Great Britain that Zionist pressure In the United States could bring that country into the war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. The ¥orld Zionist Organlzstion, through Messrs. Weizmann, . Sokoloff and Landman, agreed to bring the United States into the war as Great Britain1 s. ally if Great Britain promised to deliver Palestine to the Zionists for their sovereign state after the defeat of Germany and the partition of the Ottoman Empire. That agreement was entered into In London in October 1916 and was confirmed by the so-called "Jews" in the United States on behalf of that country on December 25,1916 at the Savoy Hotel In New York GIty. I was privy to that meeting and the subsequent Implementation of the London 1916 agreement by the United States. Germany knew about the October 1916 agreement, . and to avoid bringing the? United States into the war as Great Britain's ally, Germany

Under Article XXII of the Convention which created mandates of the independant states carved out of the Ottoman empire, their governments were to "be created by self-determination as, soon as they were able to "stand alone." Independanr governments were promptly organized for every mandated state except Palestine, where Great Britain had usurped the mandate to create an independant gcvernemnt. Great Britain remained in Palestine as the mandate for twenty-seven years without holding that election. In those twenty-seven years Great Britain supervised the transplanting of 600,000 eastern Europeans of Khasar ancestry behind the protective shield of 200,000 British troops maintained in Palestine for that purpose. When Great Britain assumed the mandate for Pales- tine, there were only 50,000 so-called "Jews" in Palestine, less than 50% of that 50,000 were transplanted Khazars, or so-called "Jews." Christians and Moslems constituted 7005oOO of the Palestine population when Great Britain usurped ^he mandate in 1920. ' Great Britain terminated the mandate for Palestine in 194-6, and turned her responsibility over to the United Nations. Dr.Bunche witnessed the most crooked piece of skull-drudgery when the United Nations adopted a resolution in November 194-6 "recommending"'1 a form of government for Palestine. Under the United Nations Charter the United Nations could only "recommend" a form of government. That "recommendation" recommended that the Christian and Moslem Indigenous owners of 97% of Palestine from time immemorial cede 50^ of Palestine to the transplanted Khazars who at that time owned less than 3/5 of Palestine acquired in recent years. As was to be expected, the Christian and Moslem population rejected the United Nations ". recommendation." By a rigged vote in the United Nations 5 the Christian and Moslem population were prevented from having the legality of that United Nations "recommendation" tested, Great Britain decided to withdraw her forces from Palestine and on May 14,1948 their last troops departed from Palestiio. Gr-est Britain withdrew from Palestine without creating any form of adrain_ 1st ration to having arranged in advance of her depar ture for the 600,000 'transplanted Khasars to form a government to rule Palestine. In addition to having trained a Zionist army of 40,000 soldiers recruited from the transplanted eastern Europeans, Great Britain turned over to the Zionists more than $300,000,000.00 in the most modern weapons making up Great Britain's military strength for the Middle East-Mediterranean area. Instantly upon the withdrawal of the last British soldier at mldaigh't^cn May 14th 1948, the minority of transplanted Saropean Khazars, so-calle-d "Jews", "proclaimed" their armed uprising the "State of Israel.11 Since the disturbances in Palestine 1939, the British had confiscated weapons of every description from the Christian and Arab population. They were totally disarmed and completely defenseless in May 1948 when the armed uprising of the highly, armed 600,000 transplanted alien minority drove the disarned H.E.. Secretary General U Thant, - 6 January 19th 1971. and defenseless 1,350,000 Christian and Moslem majority from their homes and their homeland. In the year 1919? the so-called State of Israel was only ar armed uprising by a minority of transplanted aliens. In order to give this armed uprising the appearance of respectability, it was 'planned to have the so-called 'State of Israel admitted to the United Nations as a member nation. Otherwise, by every standard in international affaits, the so-called State of Isr ael remained an armed uprising by a minority of transplanted aliens. My twisnty=five years friendship with Cardinal Spellman made it possible for me to confirm the part he played in making it possible to adimit the so-called State of Israel"7 into the United Nations as a member. One of the leading Zionists in this city,.a Mr.Char les H.Silver, "confessed a secret he had kept for fifteen years", when he broadcast to the world in the presence of Cardinal Spellman on June 10,1964, how he had prevailed upon Cardinal Spellman to make two trips to South America to obtain the two votes needed to admit the so-called State of Israel into the "Goiter1 Cations as a member. The newspapers of the world on Junce"llth'19^4 published the full "confession" of Mr.Silver, which he had kept for fifteen years. Cardinal Spellman lived to regret his part in that conspiracy... After the outbreak of the Juno war between the go-called State of Israel and the Arab states, which was planned, promoted and provoked by President Lyndon Johnson as the behest of his Zionist masters in the Zionist political hierarchy in the United States, Cardinal Spellman literally begged me to use my standing with the Arab world to "get me off the hook." Cardinal Spellman expressed the fear that all the blood that would be spilled in the Middle East would be on his head. T will not burden you again with the reasons for the Rothschild worldwide financial gruoup's participation in the creation of the so-called State of Palestine. I believe you will find an earlier letter from me on that subject in your files. Dr.Bunche acknowledged the receipt by you of that letter. You must be fully aware by this time that the Middle East situation is purely political and economic. There is absolutely nothing spiritual about it. Everything that I know on thl.s subject I am imparted to" the interested -Arab states over the past twenty-five years. They have the documened evidence of the truth about everything I ever told them. In view of their understanding of the underlying reasons for the Middle East situation, it suggests itself to me as folly to believe that they will ever recognize the existence of the so-called State of Israel. Palestine will be restored to its indigenous population come hell or high water. I" would not like to see the United Nations fold up in the process. But it will if the United Nations becomes tne accomplice, with the United States, In enabling crooks to permanently retain possession of their stolon plunder. Aproximately 90/£ of the world's population believe that Palestine should be restored to its rightful owners.

Again asking Your pardon for intruding upon your privacy with this communication. Judging you by what I know about you there H.E., Secretary General II Thant, 7 ~ January 19tli 1971'

is little doubt in my mind that you will pardon me for any indiscretion on my part In having communicated with you on this subject. But in: view of the alternatives to peace In the Midaie"Es£t, I would re*: ard myself as _a.. co-ward unworthy of the confidence and respect of my fellow-men in my country and throughout ?ne world. with my best wishes i'or your success and your continueu iieal-cri, please Delxeve me to be, siinaerelj?: &l •P t> d H o* H O H EH CQ PH =f H H O PI cS •H fH P ftB; aCD 0) O -a d> Q) & P I 0) a a

3

m0^ EH CO M

z '••< EC i 8

to 10 o ^ -1 z 111 CD