S/PV.1162 Security Council

Before getting down to business today, 1 should like to say a word or two about our friend, Sir Patrick Dean, who was President of the Security Counoil last month. 2. As a11 representatives know, Sir Patrick has returned to Great Britain pending his next assignment, but we in this Council, who knew him SO well, Will long remember him and his service here with esteem and gratitude and affection, Sir Patrick served both his country and the United Nations with skill, devotion and distinction during four years, and those years were as critical as any in the lifetime of this Organization. His contribution to the cause of peace and to the great purposes of the United Nations has earned him enduring respect, We shall miss him both as diplomat and as friend.

Mr. President, my delegation has heard your statement with great appreciation and we shall take much pleasure in conveying to Sir Patrick Dean the very kind tribute which you have just paid to him and to his presidency during the month of October and his time here in the Council. He Will, 1 know, be much gratified to hear that the President for November has addressed to him such eloquent words of praise in his absence. (a) Letter dated 14November 1964from the Permanent - Representative of the Syrian Arab Repubiic addressed to the President of the Security Councii W6044); (b) Letter dated 15 November 1964from the Permanent Representative of lsruel oddressed tothe President of the Security Council (5/6046)

The Permanent Representativea of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic have addressed letters to the President of the Security Council, dated 16 November 1964 [S/6047 and S/6051] ,y requesting to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item before us. In accordance with the usual practice of the Council, 1 propose, if there are no objections, to invite them to participate without vote in the Council’s deliberations. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Michael S. Comay (Israel) and Mr, Rafik Asha (Syria) took sea ts at the Counoil table.

The Council has been COnVened this afternoon to consider the question just inscribed on its agenda in response to the urgent request contained in a letter dated 14 November 1964 from the representative of Syria [S/6044] 3 and a letter dated 15 November 1964 from the representative of Israel [S/6046].3 In addition, the Council has received a letter dated 14 November from the representative of Israel [S/6045].9 Since it was the same recent incident which gave rise to the requests for a meeting of the Security Council, 1 woulcl suggest that the Council agree, as it has on many previous occasions, to consider paragraph 2, sub-items (a) and (b) of the agenda together. It was SO decided.

At the outset of the COUnCil’S consideration of the item before it, 1 cal1 upon the Secretary-General. 7, The SECRETARY-GENERAL: 1 wish to inform the Council at the outset of this discussion that, as a matter of course, 1 have asked the Chief of Staff, General Odd Bull, to submit tomeafull factual report on this recent and unfortunate outbreak of fighting between Israel and Syria, which Will be as thorough and as accurate as General Bull and his observers cari make it, on the basis of the investigation they are conducting. 1 have received some information already but it is preliminary and fragmentary, and 1 feel that it should net be submitted until the investigation is concluded and a full report has been received. 1 will naturally submit the report to the SeCUrity Council as quickly as possible, whioh should be very shortls. -&/ Officia1 Records of the Security Council, Nineteenth Year, Supplement for October, November and December 1964. aIbi&% 10. It is with profound indignation that 1 speak today not only in my capacity as representative of a Member State, but also as a human being deeply alarmed by the wanton aggression of Israel against my country. This is not the first time that Israel has committed aggression, nor Will it be the last. Not only does this treacherous and savage aerial bombardment include a11 the elements of a crime perpetrated against peace and humanity and of armed aggression according to Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, but there are also aggravating circumstances which render it more villainous and which merit the utmost condemnâtion. This aggression was carefully planned and premeditated. It is not only a flagrant violation of the Armistice Agreement, but also a clear bseach of the Charter. The urgent convening of the Security Council is an indication of the deep interest of the United Nations in the question of peace in the area, peace which has been lacking ever since Israel came into existence, 10. prends qualité aussi sion pas la Premiere et ce ne sera dement constitue une agression Charte circonstances nable maniere soigneusement non seulement d’armistice, La convocation moigne Unies cette d’Israël. 11. The latest acts of aggression by Israel, which go back to the early part of October 1964, cari be summarized as follows. 11. remontent recapitulés (i) On 7 October 1964, at approximately 1500 hours, an Israel tractor started ploughing Arab lands situated at approximately map reference 210600-294925, inside Syrian territory, israélien située en territoire section et un vehicule le secteur au point 209500 - 236400. (ii) On the same day, at approximately 1415 hours, an Israel tractor, accompanied by an Israel military vehicle entered the southern sector of the demilitarized zone at approximately map reference 209500-236400. (iii) On 8 October, at approximately 0930 hours, an Israel tractor started ploughing Arab lands approximately at map reference 209400-236500 (the southern demilitarized sector), lien point zone démilitarisee. deux tracteurs des terres (iv) On 9 October, at approximately 1015 hours to 1020 hours, two Israel tractors started ploughing Arab lands approximately at map reference 209400- 236500. soldats arabe armes ritoire (v) On the same day, at approximately 1045 hours and 1138 hours, Israeli soldiers marched to the Arab land of As-Samra and started dring their automatic weapons in the direction of Syrian territory (Izzeddine Farm); the fire was not returned, cules semblés israéliens (vi) On the same day, at approximately 0600 hours, four Israel armoured cars and a military jeep gathered approximately at map reference 210600-294600. Three armed Israeli soldiers crossed the Armistice Line (viii) On 12 October, at approximately 0920 heurs, two Israel tractors started ploughing Arab land at map reference 207600-255878 under the protection of twelve armed soldiers in the southern sector of the demilitarized zone. (ix) On 12 and 13 October, at approximately 0930 hours, two Israel tractors started ploughing Arab land approximately at map reference 207600-255878 (the middle sector of the demilitarized zone). At the same time, twelve armed Israeli soldiers were observed gathered under the quinine trees on the left border of the Jordan River in order to protect the work, Three other soldiers were observed climbing the trees, (x) On 13 October, at approximately 0530 heurs, three Issael tractors resumedtheirploughing approximately at map reference 207600-255878 under the protection of eight armed soldiers gathered approximately at map reference 207585-255910 (middle sector of the demilitarized zone). An armed launch based at 300 metres from the flow of the Jordan River was also observed. (xi) On 19 October, at approximately 1545 hours, an Israel tractor was seenundertaking the construction of military positions at map reference 207575-255800 (middle sector of the demilitarized zone), and, on 22 October, Israeli soldiers were gathered at these military positions. (xii) On 3 November, at approximately 1200 heurs, two Israel bulldozers and a steamroller started work at approximately mapreference 210850-294950, inside Syrian territory, under caver of mortar fire directed against the two Syrian villages of Makhileh and Abbasieh. (xiii) On 4 November, at approximately 1400 hours, two Israel tractors started ploughing Arab land approximately atmap reference 207600-255878 (middle gector of the demilitarized zone), and, at 1520 and 1655 heurs, Israel elements supported by armoured cars opened the fire of their automatic weapons from Tel-el-Mutilla across the Armistice Line in the direction of the advanced Syrian positions near the observation post of Delta, inside Syrian territory. The fire was returned. (xiv) On 12 November, at approximately 0930 hours, an Israel armoured car carrying ten armed soldiers entered Syrian territory at map reference 210920- 294985, 12. 1 should like now to give the Council the details of the latest deliberate aggression committed on the northern sector during the past few days. (i) At approximately 1350 hours, On 13 November 1964, an Israel armoured patrol, supported by tanks (iii) Israel artillery shelled the villages of Nukheila and Abbasieh, which had no military elements. (iv) Fire was returned, directed against military installations and the colonies from which shelling emanated, including the village of Dan, (v) At exactly 1500 hours, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO) psoposed a oease-fire. Syria accepted, while Israel insisted on pursuing its aggression and did not accept the cesse-fire. (vi) At this point, Israel planes bombed three peaceful villages in addition to our defensivepositions. This aerial bombardment lasted until 1530 hours. Israel used napalm, which is prohibited in wars. (vii) UNTSO again intervened andproposed aceasefire, which became effective at 1530 heurs. (viii) Our losses are seven dead and twenty-six injured. 13. This time, Israel has committed one of the most wanton aggressions in the series of attacks against the soi1 of my country and that of the Arab States. This time, a cowardly attack was perpetrated by the Israel Air Force, according to General Weizmann, as reported by. The New York Times of 14 November 1964, which quotes him as having said that eleven of bis. planes -attacked as deep as six miles into Syria. Ne declared that Israel jets, whose speed we do not know, used napalm (jellied gasoline) and rackets, and strafed with machine guns, knocking out four Syrian positions. This is an act of war. This time Israel has invaded our national territory. What other name cari describe this naked and calculated aggression, other than an act of war? 14. What is more insulting to this Council is what the Chief of Staff of the Israel Armed Forces said, also as reported by The New York Times-and 1 quote: that Israel was “determined to exert our full authority in the area since this is undisputed Israeli territory.” 1 believe that he was referring to the demilitarized zone. Israel has perpetratedaggression against the demilitarized zone, and its Chief of Staff took it upon himself to say that Israel was “determined to exert our full authority in the area”-an area that does not belong to Israel. 15. What do we conclude from that oategorical statement? Who is violating the General Armistice Agreement? Who is practising the law of the jungle? Who is violating the resolutions of the Security Council? Who is defying the United Nations and who is committing this barbarous attack on the territory of Syria, with seven dead, twenty-six injured and great material damage? I’Recalls to the Governments of Syria and Israel themgations under Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations and their commitments under the Armistice Agreement not to resort to military force and finds that”-and 1 emphasiee the following- “(a) Aerial action taken by the forces of the Government of Israel on 5 April 1951, and “(d) Any aggressive military action by either of the parties in or around the demilitarized zone, which further investigation by the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization into the reports and complaints recently submitted to the Council may establish, constitute a violation of the cesse-fire provision . , ,l’ 17. That is not a resolution of today. That is a resolution that was passed in 1951. 1 should like to recall to the members of the Security Council another resolution, this time a resolution [lll (1956)] adopted on 19 January P956.g 1 should like to quote paragraph 2 of the operative part, which reads as follows : “Reminds the Government of Israel that the Council has already condemned military action in breach of the General Armistice Agreements, whether or not undertaken by way of retaliation, and has called upon Israel to take effective measures to prevent such actions “, 18. 1 shall refer at a later stage to the number of condemnations Israel has. had from the Security Council. This deliberate and calculated crime perpetrated on our national territory calls for the strongest condemnation by the Security Council. 19. What does Israel want? Israel speaks of peace with the Arabs at any time, anywhere. This selfappointed “guardian of the peace” is not after peace. Israel has flouted a11 the principles of the United Nations, whose primary duty is to ensure peace. Israel is after pieces of territory which do net belong to it. Israel aims to satisSy its expansionist hunger with other people’s land. The Israelis thought and still think they cari satiate this appetite with impunity, but the world conscience has reacted and Will react vehemently to their greed. 20. Israel authorities, who always try to appear as the innocent peace-loving and aggrieved party, are in reality both ridioulous and deceitful. In each and every case where they commit aggression, they lean back on the General Armistice Agreement. Each .?/ Ibid., sixtb Year. Resolurlons and Decisions of tbe Security Co’lncil, 1951. o/ Ibid., Eleventh Year, Resolutions and Decislons of tbe Security Council, 1956. 21. The Council is well aware of the number of times Israel has bèen condemned by this body for its behaviour and for the acts of aggression it committed against the Arab countries. The list is a long one, and I do not propose to mention them all; 1 shall limit myself to the following important instances: (i) Security Council resolution 193 (1951)], of 18 May 1951 regarding the aerial action taken by the forces of the Government of Israel on 5 April 1951 on the Syrian borders. par les forces (ii) Security Council resolution El01 (1953)]3 of 24 November 1953 regarding the action at Qibya (Jordan), “taken by armed forces of Israel on 14-15 October 1953”. d’Israël, (iii) Security Council resolution [106 (1955)]$/ of 29 March 1955 which condemned the attackcommitted by Israel regular army forces against the Egyptian army force in the Gaza Strip on 28 February 1955. securité mise par les forces contre de Gaza, le 28 fevrier (iv) Security Council resolution [lll (1956)J of 19 January 1956 which condemned the Israel attack against Syria on Il December 1955 as a “flagrant violation” of Israel’s obligations under the Charter and expressed the Council’s “grave concern at the failure of the Government of Israel to comply with its obligations “. par taque commise cembre obligations la serieuse quements (v) Security Council resolution of 9 April 1962 IS/Slll] 9 which reaffirmed “the Security Council resolution of 19 January 1956 which condemned Israeli military action” against Syria and determined that the Israel attack of 16-17 March (near Lake Tiberias) constituted “a flagrant violation of that resolutionw. laquelle lution les actions Syrie, dans la region violation 22. The most flagrant example of Israel’s acts of aggression was the attack on Egypt in 1956, which was roundly condemned by the international community. 22. condamnée est israelienne. 23. Israël et a nous systématique ter défini entre cative, J. Bunche, Nations etrangeres 23, The basic reason for the tension which has always led Israel to violate the General Armistice Agreement between Syria and Israela and to commit aggression against us lies in the fact that Israel authorities have consistently refused to respect the status of the demilitarized zone as defined in the General Armistice Agreement and in the explanatory Ietter, dated 26 June 1949, sent by Mr. Ralph J. Bunche, the then Acting Mediator for Palestine, addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Syria and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel. This explana- 1/ Ibid., Eighth Year, Resolutions and Decisions of tbe Security Council, 1953. Résolutions s/ Ibid., Tenth Year, Resolutions and Decisions of the Security Counc.il, 1955. lutions z/ Ibid., Seventeenth Year, Supplement for April, May and June, 1962. ---- .% Ibid., Fourth Year, Special Supplement No. 2. Supplément I rdeVant section of Mr. Bunche’s explanatory letter was quoted at the Security Council meeting on 16 May 1951 [ 546th meetingJ. 24. I believe I must clarify the meaning and status of the demilitarized zone. The status of this zone cari be summed up in the following principles: First, the return of normal civilian life in a11 of the Arab villages and in the Israeli settlements and colonies. Secondly, the administration of the demilitarized zone on a local basis, under the control of the Chief of Staff of the area. Thirdly, no question of sovereignty -1 repeat-no question of sovereignty, jurisdiction or citizenship should arise regarding the demilitarized zone. This last point has never been understood by Israel, Israel does not want to recognize that the demilitarized zone does not fa11 under the sovereignty of any country, certainly not under that of Israel. It is administered by and under the control of the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission. Fourthly, no armed forces cari be stationed in the demilitarized zone; no fortifications cari be built there; the maintenance of order in the zone rests with a police nominated on a local basis and withthe consent of the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission. 25. These are the principles according to which the demilitarized zone should have been administered and should be administered today and tomorrow. But how does lsrael act? Since the beginning of the implementation of the General Armistice Agreement the Israeli authorities have deliberately and repeatedly violated the status of the demilitarized zone, and 1 cari say zones. They have denied to the Chief of Staff the right to control the administration of the zone. Israel authorities directly took over the administration instead of leaving it, as it should be, on a local basis. What is worse, theIsrae1 authorities seriously overlooked the nature and juridical character of the demilitarized zone, Now the Israelis have declared that they are “determined to exert our authority in the area since this is undisputed Israeli territory “, 1 leave it to you, Mr. President, and the members of the Council to judge this question, 26. By ‘their action, the Israelis have shattered the main parts of the General Armistice Agreement. They have destroyed the balance set up by the Agreement and have grabbed military advantages contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of article II of the Armistice Agreement. They have assumed rights which are categorically denied by the second paragraph of that article, 27. In its resolution [111 (1956)] of 19 January 1956, Che Security Council invited the parties to abide by their obligations in accordance with article V of the Armistice Agreement, namely to respect the demili- 28. In this connexion, 1 should like the members of the Council to recall the fact that in 1955, General Burns, who was then Chief of Staff of UNTSO, drew the attention of the Secretary-General to the fact that the status of the demilitarized zone was overlooked and ignored by the Israel authorities. But Israel, as usual, turned a deaf ear, Since 1951 Israel has refused to participate in the meetings of the Mixed Armistice Commission when questions touching upon the demilitarized zone have been discussed. 28. Je voudrais du Conseil d%tat-major lance de la trêve, gbnéral ne tenaient aucun compte du statut tarisbe. sourde aux réunions lorsque la zone démilitari&e. 29. On every occasion that we meet here to deal with the behaviour of Israel, Israel claims that its delegation to the Mixed Armistice Commission has formulated and submitted numerous complaints against the Syrians. 1 challenge the Israel delegation to tel1 this Council the reasons why the Mixed Armistice Commission has not met to discuss the complaints and to adopt measures on them. The answer is simply this: the Israel delegation has not participated in the work of the Mixed Armistice Commissionsince 1951 and continues to boycott it up to the present day. It is well known that these complaints on the part of Israel refer basically to matters which directly or indirectly refer to the demilitarized zone. If you complain to a United Nations Commission, then why do you not attend its meetings? Either Israel recognizes the jurisdiction and competence of the Mixed Armistice Commission when lodging a complaint or it does not, and in the latter case it should not be allowed to say that complaints have been submitted ta the Mixed Armistice Commission, because a complaint not followed by a condemnation is not a complaint and cannot be considered in itself as a condemnation or a punishment. 29. Chaque convoqué pour discuter que sa d8légation a saisi la Commission tice de nombreuses mets pourquoi examiner s’imposent. la delegation vaux de la Commission continue israeliennes tions demilitarisée. commission part & ses connaft mission il ne les saurait plaintes, tion n’en est pas une et ne peut pas être considéree en soi comme une condamnation 30. The Security Council has shown deep interest and concern with regard to this matter. With the President’s permission, 1 should like to read the answer given by the Chief of Staff of UNTSO to questions addressed by members of the Security Council in 1962. He then said: 30. Le Conseil de cette le Président, chef d’état-major veillance adressees 1962. Le chef d%tat-major “The Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission is empowered under paragraph 5 (e) of article V to authorize the return of civilians to villages and settlements in the demilitarized zone and the ‘employment of limited numbers of locally recruited civilian police in the zone for interna1 seourity purposes’.” [lOOlst meeting, annex.] “Le tice de l’article villages ainsi civile pour annexe.] 31. Tous les chefs le général mixte de l’article est habilitee vernement cuter, 31. Successive Chiefs of Staff, beginningwithGenera1 Riley, have taken the position that it was the Mixed ,Armistice Commission itself which, under article VII, paragraph 8 of the General Armistice Agreement, was competent to interpret the meaning of that Agreement. The Israel Government, however, has not agreed to discuss in the Mixed Armistice Commission 33. My Government cannot allow any Israel military movements cross the demilitarized zone, as happened on 14 November, and certainly Will reject with a11 its strength any Israel incursions on its territorial soil. When Israel adopts such a treacherous method as engaging the Syrian patrols by enoroaching upon the Syrian borders in order to followup such an encroachment by a heavy aerial attack, then Israel, and Israel alone, must be put under strict measures. 34. It is evident that the aggression committed by Israel against Syria is part of a well-concerted plan with ulterior motives, Israel has been striving for a long time to mislead the UnitedNations and Member States into believing that peace is at stake in the Middle East and that an Arab threat to the secusity of the area exists. That manœuvre has been followed time and again in order to distract world attention from the basio issue of the Palestine question, 35. It is indeed most deplorable that whenevex the Israel authorities contemplate a military aggression they simultaneously try to justify it by an explanation which is no less wicked than the act itself. The letter dated 14 November addressed to you, Mr. President, by the Israeli representative, and circulated to Member States, stands naked in this respect, In itself it is a confession on the part of the Israel authorities of the underlying factors which motivated the Israelis in attacking Syrian national territory with full military s trength. 36. The Israel letter makes reference to Israel’s allegations regarding thesyrian attitude towards Israel 3’7. While we in the Syrian Arab Republic scrupulously observe our rights and obligations under the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement, we cari in no way depart from the basic principles in the question of Palestine, principles which have time and again won the sympathy and support of this Organization and which were demonstrated in the most impressive manner and at the highest level at thé conference of the non-aligned countries held in Cairo last Ootober. 38. 1 should like to refer to a very important declaration. That declaration, entitled “Programme for Peace and International Co-operation” and adopted by the Second Conferenoe of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Cairo from 5 to 10 October 1964, had this to say: “The Conference condemns the imperialistic policy pursued in the Middle East and, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, decides to: “(1) Endorse the full restoration of a11 the rights of the Arab people of Palestine to their homeland, and their inalienable right to self-determination. “(2) Declare their full support to the Arabpeople of Palestine in their struggle for liberation from colonialism and racism”. w 39. Those are the decisions of theSecondConference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries representing forty-seven participating States and ten who attended as observers. Those states represent more than one third of the world population and have every right to be heard. Their decision must be respected and implemented. This is a question that deals with the liberation from Zionist colonialism of a whole nation, the Arabs of Palestine, who have every right to return to their homeland. 40. It is a widely known fact that Israel has been misleading world opinion by constantly repeating and constantly spreading the false idea that the Arabs are always the aggressors. The scheme is clear and the trick is classical. They want to justify their interventions in many ways; they want to exert pressure cin certain groups in other countries in order to influence their policies and extra& promises detrimental to the Arab cause. Like the man who is holding something he does not own, they feel insecure in the possession of what they have taken away from the Arabs, thus, they are constantly looking for reassurances, whether they are repetitions of old undertakings or attempts at obtaining new ones. II/ Document A/5763. 42. This latest aggression committed by Israel against my country calls for urgent action on the part of the Security Council. We respectfully request the Council to condemn Israel in the strongest terms, as it has done several times in the past. But due to the fact that Israel has notobservedthe resolutions of the Security Council, the terms of condemnation this time should leave no doubt in the minds of the Israel authorities that the Council is determined to put an end to Israel’s aggressive acts and policies.

The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Israel.

Mr. President, on behalfof my Government, 1 wish to thank you and the Council for acceding to our request for urgent consideration of the Israel complaints against Syria, contained in the document before the Council [S/6046], and for inviting me to participate in this debate. 45. The incident which took place on 13 November in the Dan sector of the Israel-Syrian border was an unusually serious one, even on this troublesorne frontier. That is clear from the scale of the armed clash, and the loss of life and injuries sustained on both sides, which my Government deeply deplores. Yet, however grave this episode, it cannot be regarded as an isolated one, for it is the most recent of a lengthy series of Syrian attacks on thepopulation and territory of Israel, and on normal activities within the Israel border areas. These activities include cultivation, fishing, movement along the roads and the routine patrolling which is an indispensable feature of life on these sensitive borders, This aggressive behaviour of Syrian troops in forward positions is in itself an expression of that state of war which Syrian leaders proclaim day in and day ouf, and of their open incitement to violence. It is necessary to examine the events of 13 November-but those events should also be seen in their wider context. That is why my Government has formulated its oomplaints in the way they have been presented to the Council. 46. Before examining the facts of the incident of 13 November, 1 must point out that the Council has 47. It is only from the statement we have just heard that 1 have obtained any idea of what it is that Syria accuses ISrael. 1 would, therefore, reserve the right to reply more fully to this statement at a later stage if that should be necessary, though 1 do not propose to deal with the more abusive passages in it. 47. Ce n’est qu’en entendant la déclaration qui vient d’être faite que j’ai pu me faire une idée de ce dont la Syrie accuse Israël. Je me reserve donc le droit d’y répondre de façon plus complete, plus tard, si c’est necessaire, encore que je n’aie pas l’intention de relever les passages les plus outrageants. h 48. At this point I would make only three general observations on the Syrian representativels statement. Firstly, the representative of Syria now says that Israel planes attacked Syrian villages. He seems to have changed his mind since his press release on Friday when there was no mention of villages, but he referred twice to an attack on Syrianpositions-and referred only to an attack on Syrian positions. The first version in that press release, andnot the revlsed version we have heard today, was the correct one; and it is in accord with my own letter to the Security Council [S/6045]. 48. Pour le moment, je me contenterai de faire trois remarques d’ordre géneral sur cette déclaration. vient de declarer que des avions israéliens ont attaque des villages syriens, 11 semble avoir changé d’avis depuis la publication, vendredi, de son communique de presse dans lequel il n’était pas question de villages, mais bien, à deux reprises, des positions syriennes et uniquement d’une attaque contre cespositions. Seule la Premiere version figurant dans le communique, et non la nouvelle version qui vient de nous être donnée, est exacte et correspond a celle qui est indiquke dans la lettre que j’ai adress8e au Conseil [S/6045]. 49. Secondly, the representative of Syria makes what I suggest is an important admission, In referring to the incident of 13 November, he says: “Our defensive positions opened fire on the patrol and prevented it from advancing inside Syrian territory.n [Supra, para. 12.1 At least General Bull and his investigators cari now spare themselves the trouble of determining who started the shooting on 13 November. 49. Deuxiemement, le representant de la Syrie fait ce qui me paraît &tre un aveu d’importance. Parlant de l’incident du 13 novembre, il dit: “Nos positions défensives ont ouvert le feu sur cette patrouille et l’ont empechee de penétrer plus avant en territoire syrien.” et ses enquêteurs peuvent desormais se dispenser de chercher 51 savoir qui le premier a ouvert le feu le 13 novembre. 50. Troisiemement, l’essentiel de la déclaration du representant connexes du statut de la zone démilitarisee et du fonctionnement de la Commission mixte d’armistice. Ces deux questions ne sont pas a l’ordre du jour du Conseil puisque l’incident du 13 novembre ne concernait en rien la zone démilitarisee. Cependant, si les membres du Conseil souhaitent se remettre en memoire la position d’Israël à cet egard, je les renvoie a ma déclaration de la 1002Bme séance du Conseil, le 5 avril 1962. Le représentant de la Syrie n’a rien dit de nouveau sur ce point aujourd’hui. Je le soupçonne d’avoir beaucoup insiste la-dessus pour détourner l’attention d’événements plus récents. 50. Thirdly, the bulk of the statement by the representative of Syria is devoted to the inter-related questions of the status of the demilitarized zone and the functioning of the Mixed Armistice Commission. These questions are not at present before the Council since the incident of 13 November did not involve the demilitarized zone in the slightest. However, if members of the Council wish to recall what Israel’s position is in this matter, 1 would take the liberty of referring them to the analysis in the statement 1 made to the Council at its 1002ndmeeting on 5 April 1962. There is nothing new in what the representative of Syria has said on this subject today. 1 suspect he has unduly laboured the point to distract attention from more recent events. 51, L! incident du 13 novembre est brievement analyse dans ma lettre du 14 novembre [S/6045], et je n’ai pas besoin d’en rappeler tous les details, Pendant les deux heures qu’a dure l’accrochage, il semble qu’il y ait eu deux phases distinctes. 51. A resume of the 13 November incident is set out in my letter of 14 November [S/6045], and 1 need not repeat a11 the details. During the two hours that the clash lasted, it seems to have gone through two distinct phases. 52. La Premiere a debute par l’attaque soudaine &Pig&e sans motif contre un vehicule occupe par deux hommes, dont un chauffeur, qui patrouillait le long de la frontiere. les positions syriennes ont ouvert le feu comme vient de l’etablir le représentant de la Syrie. 52. The first phase was initiated by the sudden and unprovoked attack on the patrol proceeding along the border road in a single vehicle and containing two men, one of them the driver. It is this patrol which the Syrian representative has now put on record as the patrol that Syrian positions opened fire upon. 54. Ten days earlier, a party of workmen XePairing the road were fired at from the Syrian side, and were rescued only after a Sharp exchange of fire in which two Syrian tanks joined. Complaints were made ta the Mixed Armistice Commission and the investigation showed that the Syrian charge of encroachment across the border was unsubstantiated. Since then, this sector of the border had been quiet, and the regular patrol had passed through for a week without incident or interference, before it was attackedonl3 November. Since the attaok last Friday, the regular patrol has been resumed along this road, again without incident. and without interference. As was stated in my letter of 14 November [S/6045], this roadway is wholly on the Israel side of the border. 55. A little while after the incident had started the Syrians launched into a second and far graver,phase of their attack. From a number of their artillery positions at different locations on the heights, a simultaneous and co-ordinated bombardment commenced of the Israel villages in the valley below. Amongst others, the folowing types of weapons were USed: 122 mm field guns; 120 mm and 81 mm heavy mOrtarS; 82 mm recoil-less guns, and 75 mm tank guns. 56. My letter of 14 November sefers to two of these villages, Kibbutz Dan and Shear Yashov. Aocording to the fuller information, which reached me after that letter, the bombardment was directed also at a third village in the vicinity, the Kibbutz of Dafna. Here, too, extensive damage was inflicted to the buildings, installations, orchards and crops. 1 assume that fuller particulars Will be contained in the United Nations investigation report. The initial rough estimate of the damage in these villages is in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars, 57. In the sketch map I am circulating to members of the Council, they oan see the relative positions and heights of the places concerned. The topography here is described in my letter of 14 November in the following terms: “The border area is completely dominated by the adjacent high ground on the Syrian side. These heights have been heavily fortified by the Syrian armed forces, which occupy a chain of infantry and artillery positions dug into the rock, and mostly ooncealed from observation from the valley below. 58. What 1 wish to stress is that these villages contain peaceful civilian communities not involved in the initial attack or the response to it. The heavy and accurate shell-fire poured onto the villages had no military xeason. This action ranks among the most brutal and large-scale onslaughts on the population which even this unhappy border has seen. If the inhabitants had not immediately taken shelter, and if the Syrian guns had not been silenced, the casualties and destruction would have been far greater than they actually wexe. 58. lages sont habites n’étaient la riposte, soumettre et Pr&is. les meme s’étaient canons les pertes t%tB beaucoup plus Elevés encore. 59. Israel planes went into action as a last resost, aftex the shelling of the villages had continued for forty-five minutes, and after an appeal by the United Nations representatives for a cesse-fire had been accepted on the Israel side but ignoredby the Syrians. No other effective means was available in the area by which the shelling could have been halted. The sole purpose of this air strike was to suppress gun positions which were operating at the time against our population and territory. That purpose was achieved, and the cesse-fire was accepted and came into operaticn immediately afterwards. My Government accepts full responsibility for this defensive measure. It was left with no alternative course of action, in discharge of its obligation to defend the State against attack. 59. dernier lages cessez-le-feu, Unies les Syriens. fin au bombardement. avait d’artillerie population et immédiatement. responsabilite était pas possible de attaque. 60. d’autres, riennes vaquaient activites tice, plus frontiere, etablies contre n’ont harceler et au long de cette période, n’a cesse Syriens le la patience d’attaques incidents du Conseil reprgsentants vernements la region. des au droit mais syriennes 60. This incident, like scores of others, was initiated by Syxian military positions opening fire on normal Israel activities across the border. That practice has been the most recurrent theme woven through neaxly sixteen years of the armistice. Along most of the border, topographical conditions give the Syrîan forces on the heights a high degree of immunity against direct return fixe from below. They have not hesitated to exploit this advantage in oxder to harass the population of the Israel border zone, andto impede its development. Over a11 these years, the Israel Government has urgeci, in season and out, that the incessant Syrian shooting is dangerous, and makes it impossible to keep the border quiet, I shall not weary the Council by listing literally hundreds of such attacks, or by detailing a11 the occasions on which we have brought this problem to the attention of the Security Council, the Secretary-General, the United Nations representatives on the spot, and Governments concerned with the peace of the area. Nobody has disagreed with our view that the Syrian behaviour in this regard is unlawful and a threat to peace; yet nobcdy has been able to curb the Syrian authorities, 61. In addxessing the Council at its 1057th meeting, on 23 August 1963, 1 referred to a list of ninety-eight 61. séance, 1 continued: ?Fully realizing the dangers inherent in this incessant and illegal resort to firearms, the Secretary-General, the UNTSO Chief-of-Staff and their representatives, have made every effort to induce the Syrian Government to halt such behaviour, but their protestations have fallen on deaf ears. “1 would urge the members of the Council to view this problem not merely as one of lists and statistics, but also in its human aspect. The men, women and children who live and work in the vicinity are the unsung front-line heroes of an undeclared and completely one-sided border war. Repeatedly they have to drop their work and take cover from a sudden eruption of fire, and at times rush their families into underground shelters when their villages are bombarded. “What is the value, they ask themselves, of an armistice agreement which guarantees them against a molestation which the United Nations appears unable to halt? They want to know whether there is indeed no alternative for the monotous and futile sequence of firing and complaint. They look to their Government and their Army to ensure their safety. Must their elective leaders tel1 them that when the uniformed troops of one Member State fire upon the population of another Member State, this should be accepted as if it were a phenomenon of nature, like rain or wind?” [1057th meeting, paras. 17-20.1 62. This is the question which my Government then brought before the Security Counoil. We didsowithout implying any criticism of our esteemed Seoretary- General and his representatives, who have tried their best to eliminate this obvious source of inflammation. 64. As 1 informed the Council at that time, 1 had two weeks previously attended a meeting in Jerus alem between General Bull and the Prime Minister of Israel, when this matter was raised. At that meeting, General Bull assured the Prime Minister that he had obtained assurances from the Syrians that this praotice would stop, that there would be no more shooting, and that if they had any complaints about cultivation or anything else, these complaints would be submitted to the nearest United Nations post. That assurance, which was transmitted by General Bull to the Prime Minister of Israel, was broken the day after the meeting. 1 wish that I could inform the Council that this basic source of tension and trouble on the border has since been eliminated; but, unhappily, that is not SO. 64. je auparavant, et le Premier question gbnéral qu’il habitude lades, ou de tout autre Nations mise d’Israël, tien. principale frontiere est rien. 65. The Security Council debate on the murder of the Israeli farmers, in August of last year, did seem to have a deterrent effect, since there followed a period of relative calm and of freedom from Syrian shooting. That lu11 lasted about ten months, until June of this year, when the indiscriminate firing was resumed and the border tension revived-for what reasons of interna1 or external politics one cari only guess. 65. de fermiers eu un effet modbrateur, periode n’ont 10 mois cette annbe, les fusillades provoquant de la frontiere, politique 66. On 7 July of this year a letter was addressed from the Israel representative to the President of the Security Council [S/SSOl], listing twenty-nine new armed attacks .by the Syrian forces in the four-week period 9 June to 6 July 1964. There have been a number of further such attacks in the months since then, and 1 have before me a partial list of eight of them and would add another one which occurred this morning. But it had become pointless to go on reporting them to the Council, particularly as General Bull and his staff were making strenuous effosts to induce the Syrians to desist. 66. Conseil a énum&r& syriennes Depuis, yeux auxquelles ce matin. de les signaler et son personnel pour persuader 67. On 8 July 1964, Colonel Marsh, theDeputy Chiefof-Staff of UNTSO, informed the Israel Foreign Minister that a fresh assurance had been obtained from the Syrians that they would not resort to firing. On 15 August, Colonel Marsh informed Mr. Kidron, the Director of Armistice Affairs in the Israel Foreign Ministry, that assurances had again been obtainedfrom the Syrians. On 26 August we were toldthat the senior Syrian delegate to the Mixed Armistice Commission had made another such undertaking to the Chairman of the Commission. On 8 September General Bull advised Mr. Kidron nat an assurance hadonce more been obtained. On 12 October General Bull told Mr. Kidron 67. major lance de la treve, etrangeres veau donne l’assurance feu. M. questions lien des affaires r6itér8 clar8 mixte devant 68, I regret to say that each and every one of these Syrian assurances, commitments, undertakings or promises was violated within a week or two of its being made, Members of this Council will not need to be persuaded how extremely irresponsible, provocative and dangerous suoh a pattern of conduct is, in the conditions prevailing on the Israel-Syrian border. The fiare-up last Fsiday, 13 November, provided a recent and dramatic case in point. 69. It appears to my Government that the time has corne for the Security Counoil to exert its authority and to insist firmly on the observance of those provisions of the Armistice Agreement which rule out the use of force, 1 refer in particular to article 1, paragraph 2, which says: tiNo aggressive action by the armed forces-land, sea or air-of either Party shall be undertaken, planned or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other , , .w. and to paragraph 3 of the same article, which reads: “The right of each party to its security and freedom from fear of attack by the armed forces of the other shall be fully respected.” 70. Any armed attaak across the border is serious. It is more serious when the attacker is the regular army of Syria, subject to the authority and control of the Syrian Government. It is still more serious when the leaders of that Government are openly inciting their people to war and proclaiming that a neighbouring State must be liquidated by force. This background gives a large dimension to what might otherwise be regarded as local border difficulties. While the leaders beat the war drums, the soldiers in the forward position pull the triggers. In such an inflamed atmosphere, what starts as a small-scale attack against farmers working in their fields, or fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, or a routine patrol on its daily round, cari rapidly escalate into a major conflagration. 71. TO the expert eye, the progress on 13 November from the initial attack to a full-scale bombardment of three whole villages suggests a planned act of provocation, bearing some analogy to the cold-blooded murder of the Israel farmers at Almagor last yearthough on a more massive scale. If that supposition is truc, the Dan episode becomes very sinister indeed, because it would suggest that there were forces in Syria bent on stirring up trouble, in the broad context of Arab affairs. 73, In September 1964, the Arab Heads of State again met, in Alexandria. According to the Lebanese newspaper Al Jarita, the President of Syria, General Hafez, declared at that conference: 73. sont reunis libanais genéral Hafez, aurait alors declare: “Syria demands war against Israel at the earliest date because such a war in the near future ~$11 be casier to conduct than a war in the year 1970. We would be able to fight against Israel and to liquidate $t within forty-eight hours “-this 1 would doubt-‘land to determine the suitable moment which would enable us to .gain the victory before the Security Council or the Amerioan Sixth Fleet could intervene on Israel’s behalf. ” 74. 1 cannot vouch for the accuracy of this Psess statement and others similar or state to the Council that they correctly reflect the attitude taken by the Syrian President in Cairo or since. Al1 1 cari say is that these Press stories generally corroborate the available information, If the President of Syria does not want war with Israel now or in the future, 1 am sure that his representative sitting at this table today Will inform the Council to that effect. 74. Je ne peux pas depeche de presse ni affirmer à l’attitude du Caire Tout presse ments Syrie ou plus si8ge aujourd’hui 75. At the end of the Alexandria Conference a public declaration was issued. Thatpart of it whichproclaims hostile intent against Israel is contained in theletters of the Israel representative to the President of the Security Council dated 18 September [S/598O]m and 21 October 1964 [S/6020].-/ In those letters it was asserted: 75. publie une declaration. qui proclame a Bte reprise d’Israël eeourite 1964 [S/6020-/]. ment: flThe clear purport of this proclamation is that thirteen Member States of the United Nations have set themselves the aim of liquidating another Member Rate, have declared that to be a central policy objective guiding their collective actions, and have determined to concentrate a11 their national potential on the attainment of th$s aim.” [S/5980.] Further on, this same document states: Il . . . these policies, now given explicit formulation and endorsement in the decisions of the Alexandria Conference, inflame the tension in the Middle East, and constitute a threat to international peace and SeCUrity. It would be unwarranted for the United Nations and its Members to acquiesce in tNs open challenge to United Nations principles, or to ignore the threat to the peace wb$oh is involved” [-id.]. Et encore: -/ Supplément 121 Offkiel Records of rhe Securicy Council, Nineteenth Year, SuppIement for July, August and September, 1964. -/ Ibid., Supplement for October, November and December 1964. 77. The world is still waiting for an unequivocal answer to this question, 1s the answer to be found in the increasingly militant pronouncements of the Syrian leaders and military commanders since the Alexandria oonferencc? Are they seeking ta bolster their own standing by projecting themselves onto the pan-Arab screen as the vanguard of the struggle against Israel? Are they for this purpose seeking cheap victories at the exPense of Israel farm villages? Are they trying to drag the rest of the Arabworld into military adventures? Whatever the motives may be-and one oan only surmise what they are-what goes on in Damascus and other Arab capitals provides ominous overtones to what goes on along the border. 78. The United Nations Charter forbids the threat or use of force against the political independence and territorial integrity of any state. Both Syria and Israel have signed that Charter, A similar prohibition is written into the Armistice Agreement signed by the representatives of Syria and Israel on 20 July 1949, at aill 232 near Mahanayim, not many miles from the scene of the clash of 13 November, Dr. Bunche, who is present in the Council today, Will recall that occasion. The Armistice Agreement, and the Security , Council resolutions which called for the Agxeement and endorsed it afterwards, stipulated that the Armistice was a transition stage to an eaxly, negotiated and permanent peace. More than fifteen years of tension and strife have gone by since then. Can the representative of Syria state here before the Council today that his Government is prepared to honour its signature, and negotiate a peaceful settlement of its conflict with Israel? 1s he able to state, at least, that his Government is prepared to renounce the use of force as a means of -esolving that conflict? Those questions go to the root of a malady, of which border clashes are only the ugly symptoms. My Government has no hesitation in giving affirmative %swers . We want a negotiated peace settlement and we are prepared to renounce the use of force, as the Charter and the Armistice Agreement enjoins us to do. Similar affirmative answers from the xePreSentatiVe of Syria on behalf of his Govexnment would open a new and happier chapter in the modern histoxy of the Middle East, and relieve the sense of foreboding with which Council Members must view the developments in that region. 80. 1 would respectfully commend this action to the Council on the complaints my Government has laid before it. 80. Telles sont les mesures que je me permets très respectueusement de recommander au Conseil de prendre pour donner suite aux plaintes dont mon gouvernement l’a saisi.

While 1 do not wish at this stage to reply to the numerous questions that Mr, Comay has addressed to me and the other distortions with which he tried to impress the Council, 1 should like to make a few observations. 81. M. ASHA (RBpublique arabe syrienne) [traduit de l’anglais]: Je n’ai pas l’intention, répondre aux nombreuses questions que M. Comay m’a posees, ni de dénoncer la déformation des faits par laquelle il a tent8 d’influencer voudrais cependant formuler 82. As usual, Mr. Comay is a very clever man in the question of distortion of facts. Of course, his main purpose is to avoid speaking about the real issue. He said that both Syria and Israel signed the Charter. We had the honour of having signed it long before Israel came into existence. We were one of the founders of the United Nations and we take pride in that. However, Syria and Israel also signed the Mixed Armistice Agreement. Mr. Comay failed to answer my question. Why does Israel boycott the Mixed Armistice Commission? 1 still want an answer to that question, 82. Comme d’habitude, M. Comay s’est montré fort habile B déformer les faits. Bien entendu, il cherche avant tout à ne pas parler du vbritable probléme. Il a dit que la Syrie et Isr.aël avaient tous deux signé la Charte. Nous avons l’honneur de l’avoir signee bien longtemps avant la creation Nous sommes parmi les Membres fondateurs des Nations Unies et nous en sommes fiers. Syrie et Israël ont egalement signe la Convention d’armistice à ma question: pourquoi son pays boycotte-t-il Commission mixte d’armistice? sa r8ponse. 83. Le representant d’Israël la force, Mais qui emploie la force? Qui a bombardé la Syrie, voila seulement trois jours? Il a mentionne des contradictions entre mon communiqué de presse et la déclaration que j’ai faite aujourd’hui. Je suis heureux qu’il ait lui-même reconnu que des erreurs s’étaient gliss&es dans sa lettre Conseil de &curité. ne m’être pas contredit. 83. Mr. Comay spoke about the use of force. Who is using the force? Who bombarded Syria just three days ago? He referred to inconsistencies between my press release and my statement today. 1 am glad that he himself admitted the number of errors inhis letter 2% addressed to the President. But 1 was very consistent in what 1 said. 84. Le representant d’Israël s’est effort@. de mettre en doute la faculté du Conseil de juger de la gravité de la situation et, par con&quent, de se &Unir, Je suis stlr que les membres du Conseil ne le suivront pas dans cette voie. auraient mieux fait d’Bviter que de venir ici les deplorer. Les autorites isra& liennes n’ont pas hésit8 et n’hésiteront pas à sacrifier la vie de quelques naifs citoyens a des fins politiques égol’stes. i 84. The Israel representative tried to question the ability of the Security Council to judge the gravity of the situation and hence when to convene. 1 am B sure the members of the Council did not take him seriously. The Israel authorities would have done 8 much better to avoid causing losses instead of coming here and shedding tears today and deploring the R losses. The Israel authorities have not refrained and will not refrain from sacrificing the lives of some of : their naYve citizens in order to achieve selfish political aims. 85. Tous les kibboutz israeliens de la zone avanc&e> sont armes - armes jusqu’aux dents - et situes en des lieux bien choisis ayant une importance militaire strategique. de distinction entre les activit& activit&s et qui est militaire. 85. Al1 Israel advanoed “kibbutzim” are armed-they t are armed to the teeth-and built in well chosen spots with strategic military importance. InIsrael, military and civilian activities cannot easily be differentiated: c W& cannot tel1 who is a civilian and who belongs t0 the military there. i: ti 86. On the question of the cesse-fire, it was accepted # by Israel only after Israel planes had committed this wanton attack on Syria. The Israel representative 86. Quant au cessez-le-feu, Israël qu’apr&s que ses avions eurent lanc8 sans raison cette attaque contre la Syrie. Le représentant d’Israël 87. who started thepracticeof shooting? Thepractice of shooting was first introduced into Palestine net by the Arabs, not by the Syrians, but by the Haganah and Irgun. Mr, Comay should refresh bis memory on that. Mr:Comay is trying to coverup many things. Perhaps there are interna1 difficulties in his country. We have heard of the resignation of a Minister from the Cabinet, and we have also heard that a former Prime Minister has resigned from the Central Committee of the Mapai. The present authorities would like to show that they are as hard on the Arabs as the previous ones. 1 leave that for the members of the Council to ponder. The authority of the Security Council is flouted only by Israel, not by us. 88. In his statement regarding the conference held by the Arab States, the representative of Israel has let his imagination run very far. The peace offers of Israel are well known. They are always preceded by aggression. As 1 said, the Israelis are not after peace; they are after pieces of territory. 89. 1 should like to draw the attention of the members of the Council to the misleading map distributed by Mr. Comay. He tried through this map to convey the impression that the sources of the Dan River are located in Israel. In point of fact, the sources of the Dan River lie in the demilitarized zone, and not in Israel. That is a11 1 want to say at this point. 1 hope 1 will be permitted to reply indetail at a later meeting,

Just one correction of fa&: The sources of the Dan are not within the demilitarized zone.

1 trust that when the Moroccan delegation has received the report which the Secretary-General promised us in his speech at the beginning of this meeting, it Will have an opportunity to present its views on this serious matter. It Will endeavour to base its opinions on the information andclarifications which that report will contain. Before that, however,~ should like to offer a preliminary observation. 9% Prom the statements we have heard and the documents we have read, one fact stands out on whioh a11 the Parties concerned are unanimous: Israel’s forces bave launched a large-scale air attack on Syrian territory. MY delegation wishes to draw the Counoil’s attention to the gravity of that action, whether it was undertaken as a reprisa+if one accepts Israel’s case-or-as the Syrian representative maintains-as an act of PrOVOCatiOn and war. Aotually, on a highly sensitive armistice Iine such as the one with whioh we are familiar and have had to deal several times, incidents in the form of exchange of fire arme now and then and the United Nations Observers have 93. But the fact that this time the exchange of fire has given Israel’s powerful army a reason for launching an air attack of the dimensions that have been reported to us by a11 the information media of the world has left the Moroccan delegation deeply concerned over the present state of affairs. Indeed, we have a right to wonder whether this massive air attack is not a prelude to a policy for which a certain faction of opinion in Israel has always pressed: the policy of a preventive war. 93. Mais cette fois lienne l’ampleur toutes marooaine En effet, si cette intervention prelude l’opinion valoir, ventive , 94. That question has presented itself, and, 1 think, seriously. 1 must recall that previously, in other circumstances, the Security Council has had occasion to voice its concern when aircraft haveparticipatedin local conflicts. Certainly, intervention by an air force, especially an air force which has used napalm over extensive areas, is an occurrence which goes far beyond the compass of the periodic incidents which may occasionally arise between two hostile asmed forces. This point should be brought to the attention of the Security Council, for such a heavy attack, launched by very powerful bomber formations, is an occurrence which, 1 repeat, goes far beyond the compass of incidents such as those which thesecurity Council has had to consider from time to time. The Council, 1 repeat, has already had occasion to express its concern when the air force of a country has deemed it necessary to intervene in a local conflict in order to alter somewhat the existing balance of power, and to do SO regardless of current opinion concerning the conflict. 94, La question sérieusement. securité, casion est intervenue En effet, aviation étendues, le cadre temps hostiles. du Conseil importance, de bombardiers, de beaucoup le Conseil autre. d’exprimer les forces intervenir les rapports qu’aient qui concerne 95. D’autre ment Etendu sommet annee. Il s’est il a même essaye là du probleme B l’attention nous ne devons pas déplacer 95. Moreover, the representative of Israel has dwelt at length on the decisions of the Asab summit conferences held this year. Ne has dwelt at length on this problem; he has even attempted to give the impression that this is the central problem whichshould be brought to the attention of the Security Council. 1 do not believe, however, that we should confuse the issue. 96, Although the problem which we are now considering is included in the agenda “The Palestine Question”, it is a limited problem, because it is a military one. There has been an act of war against a State, and we must consider that act on the basis of the conclusions and information which the United Nations Observess Will in due course put before us. 96. Le encore de Palestine”, un probleme contre base des conclusions vateurs prochainement. 97. Le probleme celui arabes, 9’7. The more general and vaster problem of Che decisions adopted at the Arab Summit Conference exists and poisons the international atmosphere. It is 93. 1 should merely like to recall that this political problem which the United Nations oertainly one day have occasion to study as a whole, and that the Arab States, signatories of the United Nations Charter, respectful of the principles of the United Nations, and basing a11 their hopes on the aohievements and success of the international Organization, Will nsver submit to any charge of acting collectively in breach of the principles of the United Nations, But 1 am bound to state that the question we a11 must answer is this: which country, whioh state has deliberately chosen systematically to ignore the resolutions of the United Nations? It is my belief that a country should be judged according to its behaviour in respect to the Charter and theprinciples of the United Nations.

1 cal1 on the representative of Israel. 100. Mr, COMAY (Israel): 1 apologize for asking to speak again. 1 shall be brief and it is with referenoe to the statement made by the representative MO~OOCO. 1 would reserve our position entirely on the substance of that statement. There was one sentenoe in the statement which 1 think might usefully be clarified for the record. 101. Xf 1 understood him rightly, the Moroccan representative, in referring to the uses of planes of the Israel Air Force, suggested that from the Israel viewpoint this was an act of reprisal. 1 simply wish to state that that is not the Israel viewpoint at a11 and that, from the account of the incident which has been placed before the Council, it should be clear that the use of the word “reprisalu in the context of that incident is wholly inappropriate, 102. 7% PRESIDENT: AS there are no further speakers for this meeting, I would suggest that the Council might adjourn at this time to reconvene the oall of the President, after the usual consultation with members. Unless there should be a sudden change in the situation, 1 would plan to consult members about Our neXt meeting aftes we bave reoeived the report of the Chief of Staff, General ~~11; which the Secretary-General has indicated might be forthcoming.in the near future, 103. 1 hear no objection, and that, therefore, is procedure that we shall follow. The meeting rose at 5.30 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED United Nations publications may be distributors thraughout the world. Write to: United Nations, Sales COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS Les publications des Nations Unies sont agences dépositaires du monde entier. ou adressez-vous 9: Nations Unies, Section COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES tas publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas casas distribuidoras en todas partes diriiase a: Naciones Unidas, Section Litho in U.N. price: $US, 0.35 (or equivalent