S/PV.1307 Security Council

1 have already reported to the Council on the prompt steps taken by the United States Government with respect to this incident. 1 did not want to take the time of the Coancil to amplify what 1 reported promptly with respect to what we had done, but in view of this statement perhaps an additional statement on my part is called for, 5. You may have noticed, Mr. President, that 1 was late in coming to the Counoil meeting this afternoon. That is because, as 1 told the Council, 1 personally went to the authorities to sign a complaint on behalf of oui: Government, charging those involved in this regrettable incident with a violation of our laws, It is probably the first time that that has ever happened, perhaps not only here but elsewhere, where the country’s ambassador has become the complainant in the particular case involved. 1 expressed my regret at that incident and apologized to the country concerned. 1 now express my regret that the statement which has just been read out did not take notice of what I re- POrted to the Council earlier today. 1 wouldthink that, in a11 fairness, it should have done SO. 6. The United States Will act in aocordance with its obligations as the host Government, and no one need be under any impression that we are not fully prepared t0 diSCharge ou’11 obligations in this regard. That is truc now and it has been truc in the past when any incidents of this type have risen. I also want to make it verY Clear that 1 shall be very glad to diacuss this matter with the Secretary-General, with any group at the United Nations, or with any Members ofthe United Nations, because, as 1 indicated this morning, Id0 net 7. vigueur, peut-être question de l’inviolabilité où qu’elles action d’autres 7. We have acted vigorously, promptly and firmly in this situation. Perhaps the time has corne when the United Nations ought to consider the question of the sanctity of diplomatio missions everywhere, to determine whether or not our prompt action in this matter is being xeciprocated in many places throughout the world.

Before 1 cal1 on the representative of the Soviet Union, who has asked to speak, 1 would myself, as President of the Council, wish to suggest that we should not continue a discussion of this matter now. 1 think that a11 of us reoognize that this is a serious and urgent matter, and serious and urgent action has been taken both by those who have brought this complaint to the notice of the Council and also by the representative of the United States, who has on three occasions informed us of the action whioh was prooeeding. 1 did not consider that it would be right to prevent the statements that have already been made from heing presented to us, because 1 thought the matter was urgent and serious. But it would not be my view that under the agenda before us we should continue with a full debate on this matter. If the question is put down for future debate in this Council, as a matter of conoern to the United Nations, that Will be another question, 8. Le PRESIDENT donner tique qui l’a demandée, de Président suivions Nous est urgentes attiré le représentant trois pas estimé déclarations mon avis étant donné l’ordre je ne crois débat approfondi ultérieurement sécurité, Nations 9. sentant je voudrais qulapr’es avoir entendu la déclaration et la réponse qui a été donnée, nous ne poursuivions pas un débat qui ne rentre pas strictement cadre de la question que nous avons inscrite ordre du jour. 9. 1 shall certainly cal1 on the representative of the Soviet Union, who wishes to speak, but 1 would put it to him and to others that, having heard the statement and the reply we should not pxooeed to a debate which iS not strictly within the subject that we have included in ous agenda, 10. I give the floor to the representative ofthe Soviet Union, 10, Je donne la parole au représentant soviétique.

1 thank you, Mr. President, for your inspiring suggestion, but 1 should like to follow the procedure you have established by allowing two statements to be made on this subject. 11. M. MOROZOV (Union des Républiques listes soviétiques) [traduit du russe]: Je vous cie, Monsieur le Président, de la mise vous avez formulée a mon égard avec tant sement, mais permettez-moi de suivre que vous avez en fait établieenlaissant clarations sur cette question. 12. I whole-heartedly associate the USSR delegation with the statement made by the representatives of the Governments of the African-Asian Croup. The 12. Je tiens à. associer pleinement la délégation viétique a la déclaration faite par les groupe afro-asiatique B l’issue des séances ont tenues, On ne peut mieux décrire des événements qui se sont produits la mission d’un Etat Membre de l’Organisation Nations Unies, la République arabe syrienne. suffise de rappeler l’analyse de cet événemeRt le représentant de l’Union soviétique a faite, XI la 1305éme séance du Conseil. SignifiCanCe of what took place today at the mission of SYria-a Member of the United Nations-could hardly be more accurately assessed, and it is enough te add only that an appraisal of this incident was also made by the USSR representative at the 1305th meeting of the Council this morning. 13. New, in stressing our support of the statement made by the representatives of the African-Asian Croup, we should like to draw the Council’s attention to the obvious oonnexion between these instances of 13. Tout en soulignant que notre délégation pleinement à la déclaration faite par du groupe afro-asiatique, nous voudrions Conseil que les violations criminelles 14. 1 connect a11 the episodes which have occurred and the crimes which have been committed against the interests of the United Nations-specifically the firing on the United Nations building in 1965, many cases of violation of the privileges and immunities of ambassadors, particularly from the Asian and African countries, and finally, today’s oriminal event which jeopardizes the normal conduot of the activities net only of the Council, but of the United Nations as a whole-with the fact that the Convention on Privileges and Immunities which was drafted more than fifteen years ago still does not have the force of law in the territory of the country where the United Nations maintains its Headquarters. 15. 1 think we must recognize the full significance of this circumstance and that we cannot confine ourselves to the statements that have already been made, We must find out what has been done in regard to a11 these violations of diplomatlc privileges and immunities, and in particular in regard to that criminal event which took place today.

1 thank the representative of the Soviet Union for observing the request which 1 put to him by the conciseness of his statement. 17, The discussion Will proceed on the subject matter which we have before us this evening, and 1 give the floor to the first speaker on my list, the Foreign Minister of Issael.

1 corne to this table to seek the aid of the Seourity Councll for the restoration of peace and security on Israel’s border% 1 believe that peace-loving men everywhere Will approve the urgency with which this meeting was requested and convened. No peaoe-loving Government ever fears or seeks to delay the urgent discussion of international tensions, The situation created by Syrian policy towards Israel is grave, But there is opportunity for the United Nations to help us bring it to an end. In requesting Security Council assistance the Israel Government expresses and illustrates its desire topreventfurther deterioration and to promote the restoration of peacefui conditions, 19. The most recent of the events which excite our concern and our profound indignation are set out in the letter which Ms. Comay addressed toyou, Mr. President, on 10 October 1966 [5/7536]. Before midnight, on 7 Ootober, demolition charges ,explodedunderneath two buildings in the Romema quarter in Jerusalem. Damage was caused and four civilians were injured. The tracks of men wearing rubber-soled footwear led from the scene of this attack to the Jordanian border. 21. These cowardly acts of violence directed against peaceful civilians in two widely-separated parts of Israel took place in the tenth month of a year in which eighteen similar assaults had already been executed or attempted. Indeed, two more have been attempted since we laid this complaint before the SecurityCouncil. Most of them have been perpetrated in the northern part of our country near the Syrian frontier. Sometimes the attacks have taken a fatal toll, as on 16 May when two civilians were killedas their vehicle struck a mine near Almagor. On 13 July a similar incident at the same place took the lives of two other Israelis and caused great injury to another. If on these and other occasions even heavier casualties were avoided, this was because of good fortune for which the organizers and perpetrators of these assaults deserve no credit at all. 22. On some occasions, as in April, May and twice in September of this year, the raiders struck in the Dead Sea area near Arad and Sodom, They came through Jordanian territory. But their point of origin and their centre of training and indoctrination was Syria. Since January 1965 there have been sixty-one acts of murder, sabotage and mine-laying carried out by armed infiltrators who cross into Israel and, having carried out or attempted to carry out their attack, seek the shelter of Arab territory beyond the border. These are not isolated or unrelatedincidents; they form a single., organized system of violence. It is not only to the individual incidents but to the situation which they reflect that I seek to draw the attention of the Security Council. That is why this is the proper table for the discussion. We are not talkingonly about Romema and Shaar Bag Golan but about whether it is or is not legitimate for a neighbouring State to fight against Israel by guerrilla war when it recoils from a confrontation of regular forces. 23. Who incites and organizes these actions? From which territory do they spring? There is no mystery about the facts. They cari a11 be learned by those who 1iSten to the Syrian Government’s radio service or to the published speeches and interviews of Syria’s POlitiOd and military leaders. Thus at 0800 hours on hnday last, the officia1 Syrian R.adio Damascus interrupted its early morningprogramme to broadcast commUniqU6 No. 53 of the General Staff of El-Assefa. The text of the communiqu8 reads as follows: “A force from Group 105 penetrated on 8 October into 24. The description of the explosive charges and the hours of their explosion is an accurate account of the Romema incident in Jerusalem. The same Communiqu8 announced the exploits of Group 23, Group 14 and Group 67 of the El-Fatah storm-troops. The Syrian Government radio concluded: “This is the kind of act wbich Will disturb the sleep of the gangster State”. 25, The Security Council will notice that this was communiqué No, 53. Many of the previous fifty-two had been broadcast by the officia1 Syrianradio, sometimes in exaggerated terms, at other times with detailed accuracy. It is evident from the Syrian representativels remarks at a previous meeting of the Security Council, as well as from a letter which we distributed last night, that the Syrian Government may suggest that you draw no substantive conclusions from its officia1 publication by radio of guerrilla communiques. The Syrian representative said that these broadcasts simply reflect an objective desire to disseminate knowledge. Now surely, the Security Council and world opinion will not be satisfied with that. The proclamation throughout the Middle East of approving statements concerning guerrilla activity against Israel is designed to stimulate that activity, to give it officia1 status and to enlist men in its service. Damascus Radio this morning made a simple declaration. It might have been addressed to this very meeting of the Seourity Counoil. This statement reads: “Fedayeen” -that is to say, commando- “activity Will not cesse. It is the Arab duty to strengthen, not to weaken it.” 26. But even if the Syrian representative strangely seeks to wash his hands clean of officia1 broadoasts, he must still confront the published statements of his Government’s leaders. The Prime Minister of the Syrian Republic, Mr. Zu’ayen, in a Press conference on 10 October, referred at length to my conversation with the Secretary-General the previous day. The Syrian attitude on the operation of guerrilla groups in Israel was expressed by him in the following words: “We are not guardfans of Israel’s safety, We are not resigned to holding back the revolution of the .a. Palestinian people. Under no circumstances shall we do SO. We shall set the entire area afire, and any Israel movement will result in a final grave for Israel.” 27. The followingday the SyrianChief of Staff, General Suwaydani, publicly referred to the operations of guerrilla units against Israel. The General said: nThese aotivities which are now being carried out are legal activities, and it is not our duty to stop them but to encourage and strengthen them, We are constantly ready to aot inside Sordan and inside Israel in order to defend our people and its honour. “Citieens, the Syrian revolution Will not henceforth complain to the United Nations. We shallnever be in the position of defense or complainer. Israel will be the one on the defensive and the one to complain. The Syrian revolution which advocated the slogan of lpopular wart Will, during the period of preparation for the practical implementation of this slogan, be ever ready to meet and chase aggression . e ,. The strategy which Syria is now following is a ohange from the position of defense to the position of attack. Brother citizens, the time has corne to use the arms for which our people are paying with their blood and bread to silence the enemy and to smash his morale. Our objective in a11 the coming instances will be to strike at the positions of aggression within the occupied territory.” 29. As if this was net clear enough, Radio Damascus said, three days later: “Syria has resolved to pursue its way by popular revolutionary war. Syria has xesolved to launch the campaign.” 1s this not incitement to war by an officia1 agency of a Member Government? 30. The day before, on 18 August, the Syrian commander, eulogizing a pilot shot down over Israel territory into the Sea of Galilee during an attack on an Israel patrol vessel, had said: “In the battle in which you took part we were, as a11 know, not responding to blows but delivering blows.” On this occasion the General was telling the truth: Syria was not responding to blows but delivering blows. 31. The facts, then, are clear; they are confesse& there is no ambiguity about them. The facts are that Syria mobilizes and supports groups of saboteurs, trains them on Syrian territory in two large camps at Qaboun and Kuneitra, organizes secondary training facilities in Damascus, Dera’a and Banias, sends those guerrilla groups into Israel either directly or thxough Jordan and Lebanese territory, gloats over their success, both real and imagined, actively sponsors the mobilization of men in their service, and publicly formulates their political aim in terms of “destroying” a sovereign State, Member of the United Nations. No other State in the modern international community, and few in recent history, has ever been as profuse as Syria has recently been in glorifying, advocating and upholding the ambition of launching war, causing havoc and destroying an established and legal international situation in a wave of violence. 8Yrian leaders and propaganda agencies even pour ch%sion on other Arab States which show less enthusiasm for immediate war. As a Member of the United Nations family for some years 1 cannot help feeling astonished by the prospect that the most bellicose Government in the United Nations, which is 32. For there is no doubt in our minds of Syria’s direct complicity in these guerrilla activities. Of the two terrorists intercepted and killed in Israel on the night of 7 September, one was identified as Mohammed Yusuf At-tuweili, a member of the Syrian Deuxieme Bureau sinoe 1958. The land mines laid at Shaar Hag Golan and at Ma’yan Barukh are standard equipment of the Syrian army, as were the minesused in previous a& of sabotage at Almagor and Mahanayim and elsewhere. 33. New, tbose acts would be grave enough if Syria did no more than passively condone them. At meetings held in August of this year, several members of the Security Council protested against Syria’s claim that it does not regard itself as Vesponsible” for the activities of guerrilla groups passing from Syria into Israel territory. For example, the representative of Uganda stated: n . . . every State is duty bound to curb the aotivitfes of persons resident withinits territorialboundaries. This applies to States which give asylum topolitical refugees. . . . the acoeptance of refugees carries with it the correlative duty of controlling their political activities in case of any border violation by the refugees against their country of origin or against neighbouring States. The host State is held vicariously liable for the acts committed against other States and is thus estopped from wrigglingout of its international obligations.” [1294th meeting, para. 7.1 34. The representatives of New Zealand, the United States, and other Member States slso pointed out in that discussion that Syria’s repudiation of responsibility cannot be sustained, and that the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State is absolute and unreserved. It applies just as clearly to Syria in its relations to Israel as between any other States. The Charter protects the independenoe and integrity of any State-not merely of States whose existence and policy we approve, but any State, whatever our emotional or politioalattitude towards it may be. This is the lawof the Charter; and it also emerges from Syria’s signature of the General Armistice Agreement of 1949. 35. In order to understand Israells view and position, Member States here represented cari do no better than put themselves in our place. You must imagine that armed units are sent into your territory to murder your citizens, to terrorise your countryside, to destroy water supplies and farm property, to blow 36. Let me then state the problem in a11 its simplicity. We have strong-indeed, irrefutable-evidence for our conviction that the Syrian Government virtually says to itself: “We cannot attack or destroy Israel by the direct confrontation of our armies for various military and politioal reasons. But we may try to secure a similar result with less risk to ourselves and with relatively small effort by supporting and encouraging infiltration of paramilitary bands which will convulse daily life in Israel and deny it the possibility of peaceful existence within its borders”. 1s this net Syrlan polioy? I think everybody inside and outside this room knows that it is. 37. Syrian ministers, commanders and representatives speak and act as if their Government is free from obligations relating to Israel’s seourity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Syria’s refusa1 to recognize Israel or to have relations with it-a regrettable refusai-does not release it from its obligations. It merely bears witness to its Government’s lack of realism and of international responsibility. Israel’s sovereignty is not subject to Syria’s consent. Israel’s independence is an irrevocable event of world history. It touches the oldest of human memories. It makes a potent appeal to the modern historic imagination. But, above all, it is an organic part of the international order and of the United Nations system, and it creates a system of international rights and duties which not even its adversaries are free to ignore. Whether it likes it or not, irrespeotive of a11 its views and emotions about Israel, Syria has legal obligations towards Israel, obligations which it is bound to respect and which Israel is entitled to invoke . 38. NOW, the oentsal question is whether Syria recognizes or repudiates these obligations. This is the heart and essence of our discussion today; this is what we have corne here to try to clarify. Syria is committed by its membership in the United Nations to respect the political independence and territorial integrity of Israel, as of a11 other Member States; to abstain from the threat or use of force against that integrity and independence, and to seek a settlement of a11 disputes concerning Israel exclusively by 39. Under the 1949 Agreement, Syria is supposednot to launch a “popular warfl but, on the oontrary, to regard the armed conflict with Israel as npermanently liquidated”. It is its legal and politioal duty to refrain from “undertaking, planning or threatening any aggres- Sive action againat Israel”; to recognize Israel’s “right to security and freedom from force or attack”; to promote na transition to permanent peace”; and to practice a11 of these restraints Wntil a peaceful settlement between Israel and Syria is achieved”. 40. Of special importance in the present context is article III, paragraph 3, of the 1949 Armistice Agreement, the relevant paragraph of which 1 quote in full: nNo warlike act or act of hostility shall be Gonducted from territory controlled by one of the Parties to this Agreement against the other Party or against civilians in territory under control of that Party. nu And the Parties which signed the Agreement are the Government of Syria and the Government of Israel. How cari these obligations possibly be reconoiled with the frivolous contention that Syria is not responsible for preventing hostile acts conduoted against Israel from its territory? It is responsible. How 0a.n Syria assert to itself the right to sponsor, praise, approve and facilitate a so-called “popular warn against a State whose right of secusity and freedom from fear of attack it has most solemnly undertaken to respect? 41. After the 1949 Agreement was signed, at arneeting of the Security Council in 1949 the Syrian representative in the Council made a statement which still se-echoes in my cars. This is what he said: “As Ms. Eban knows full well, my Government entered into armistice negotiations only after most serious refleotion. It did SO, beoause there was an urgent appeal from the Seourity Council, and my Govexnment has always been a good Member of the United Nations, Having entered into the armistice negotiations, which were long and arduous, my Government-as Mr. Eban also knows-did not authorize the signing of an armistice agreement until it had examined every provision most carefully. u Officiai Records of the Security Council, Fourth Year, SPecial Supplement No. 2. 42. 1s it far-fetched to suggest that the Syrian Government which signed an Agreement with the accredited representatives of the Government of Israel after “examining every provision most carefully” might examine those provisions most carefully again? Surely Syria cari be oalled by the international community, by the Security Council and by Israel to carry out the obligations of non-aggression to which it has set its hand. Syria is legally bound to take vigorous steps to prevent any act of hostility being conducted by anyone from Syrian territory against Israel, or against civilians in Israel. These are the terms of article III, paragraph 3, of the 1949 Agxeement. These cannot be reconciled with the sixty-five acts of violence, of terror and insecurity bursting out at a different part of the oountry, day and night. 43. These principles of the United Nations Charter and these provisions of the 1949 Agreement between Syria and Israel are reflected in the reoent jurisprudence of the United Nations, Less than one year has elapsed since the General Assembly, with Syrian and Israel support, and on Soviet initiative, adopted a “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty” [resolution 2131 (XX)]. Some of the statements InthatDeclaration have an almost uncanny relevance to the very activity against which Israel has brought complaint. 1 quote from paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration which a11 Members of the United Nations supported on 21 December 1965: tl *.. armed intervention and a11 other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, econOmiC and cultural elements, are condemned. Ii .D. no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow . . , of another State . s ,n. Is there the slightest resemblance between this Declaration and the contention of Syrian leaders-if thi's is their contention-that they have a right not merely to “toleraten, but actively to promote acts of terrorism beyond their frontier with the declaredaim of overthrowing another State of whose existence they disapprove? Can there be any doubt that Syria is violating the most fundamental principles of the international order both by the actions which it’organizes and by the doctrine of juridical irresponsibility which it adduces CO justify them? 2 Ibid., No. 36, 434th meeting, p. 30. 45. My colleagues and 1 in the Government of Israel have given much thought in recent days to the problem of our policy towards Syria. 1 deem necessary, in the international interest, to say what that policy is. In the General Assembly 1 expressed our willingness to negotiate a peace settlement with neighbouring States. This, however, is not immediately realistic and we shall not press it. We shallbe satisfied with something less. We want nothing from Syria-nothing-except the prccise fulfilment of its obligations towards Israel as laid dow-n in the United Nations Charter and in the 1949 Agreement. We wish to know whother Syria acknowledges these minimal international duties; and rather, if it acknowledges them, it Will work for their fulfilment. We make no claims against Syrials sovereignty or integrity. We do not covet an inch of Syrian territory or of the territory of any other State. We have no interest in the character of its @gime, in its social philosophy or in the orientation of its international policies. Our attitude towards Syria is governed by one considsration alone: by its readiness to affirm and ta practise the obligations which it has contracted towards Israel by its signature of the Charter and by its bilateral Agreement with us. 46. 1 put these matters with emphasis because gross distortions of truth are being diffused in certain places, You may hear it said, or see it w-ritten, that Israel, on its own account or in league with others, is planning to overthrow the present Syrian regime. That is utterly false. It is a dangerous falsehood. Nobody who is sincerely concerned with peaceful coexistence Will lend his hand to such slanders. Our vision of the Middle East is of an area marked by 47. We do not conoeal our own fidelity to parliamentary ciemocracy, but we acoept it as normal that other Governments in our region and elsewhere have divergent views on social and political organization and on international policies; Any Government, in Syria or elsewhere, which respects Israel’s integrity and independence and Israel’s daily peace Will encounter a reciprocal respect on Israel’s part. 48. Members of the Council may also read reports which assert that Israel has now concentrated forces for an assault on Syria. This allegation is SO untrue that it is difficult to believe that it is sinoerely held. The decision that my colleagues and 1 have taken is to concentrate not our troops on the frontier but our efforts here in the Security Council, 49. We have some thirty declarations by officia1 Syrian sources expressing an intention to destroy Israel by war. One of them is by the Head of the Syrian State, broadoast by Radio Damascus on 22 May 1966: IWe raise the slogan of the people’s war. We want total war with no limits. A war whioh Will destroy the Zionist existence.” The other statements are in the same sense. These policies and the actions which express them are responsible for the tension that now disturbs the Israel-Syrian area. Those in the Middle East who enunciate and practise suohpolicies, those outside the Middle East who treat them with indulgence or oomplacency, those who diffuse and publish false reports about Israel’s policies and intentions and troop movements, a11 contribute to the increase of international tension. There are no Israel troop concentrations on or near the Syrian frontier. Ours is an open society in which this fact cari readily be asoertained. But, in view of false reports, diffused by Syria and others , concerning the alleged concentration of forces with a view to an alleged Israel plan of attack, we formally indicated last night to the Chief of Staff of UNTSO, General Bull, that we would be ready for him to carry out an immediate and free inspection in order to ascertain whether there is any concentration of troops or any disquieting build-up of forces in the frontier area, We would expect this inspection to embrace both sides of the border, but we do not even stipulate that as a condition. If he Wants, let him inspect the position on the Israel side alone and report, 51. Every government has the national right and the international duty to defend its territory and population against aggression in the exeroise of its inherent right of seLf-defence. What we seek from members of this Council is the achievement of these aims by peaceful means, including solemn and emphatic condemnation of the hostile acts, the illicit infiltrations and the incitement to war praotised and supported by the Syrian Government. The bloodshed must stop. The border must ke respected as a barrier against any arbitsasy orossing whether of troops or of people calling themselves a popular army. 52. In addition to thisurgent andindispensable action, we propose that b&h parties to the Syrian-Israel dispute reaffirm at this table their intention to abstain from the use or threat of force against each other’s politioal independence and territorial inl;egrity. 1 give that assurance to Syria onIsrael’s belief. 1s the Syrian representative here prepared to affirm it in relation to Israel? 53. 1 have already referred to our readiness for an immediate inspection of the alleged militarybuild-up. 1 also suggest that both Israel and Syria specifically reaffirm article III, paragraph 3, of the 1949 Agreement forbidding any advance of asmed forces or guesrilla groups or other persons beyond the armistice demaroation line; snd that they specifically pledge to the Council their determination to work actively to prevent the conducting of any act of hostility from their terrftory against the other party. 1s the Syrian Government prepared, as we are, to speak and work against the existence, the training and the operation of guesrilla units against any neighbouring State? Its answer to that question is of crucial importance, 54. If these prinoiples are reaffirmed, we are ready to discuss with Syrian representatives the methods and measuses to be adopted in order to make the frontier utterly secure against a11 military actions, infiltrations and guesrilla war. 55. The issue is the continuation of a partioularly elusive and insidious form of aggression, with a11 its consequences, or the restoration of that minimal stability desoribed in the 1949 Agreement. The Security Council is called upon to express itself in clear condemnation of a concerted, organized and 56, The PRESIDENT: 1 now give the floor to the representative of Syria.

Mr. President, first of all, in viow of the reaction that has occurred today inside and outside the Council regarding the outrageous humiliation to which the Syrian Mission in New York has been subjected, allow me to express my thanks to all those Members of the United Nations in the Security Council and outside it that have expressed in the clearest manner their indignation at what happened to us today. In particular, my delegation wants to thank you for the summary that you made as President of the Security Council, expressing the sentiments and the views of the Council on the incident I havc referred to. 58. A great deal of the debate this mosning took place about two procedural points. With your permission, since I am directly involved, 1 should like to comment on one of them only: that is, the time of the meeting of the Council. History-and you are a historian yourself to a very great extent-is said to repeat itself, but not always in the same manner. As the representative of the Soviet Union said, each case has it own merits and its own aspects which make it different from the others. This is because the human element is involved in every case, making it unmathematical and consequently different from any others. 59, On 14 July 1966, the Israel Air Force attacked inside Syrian territory a development project and bombsd civilians with napalm bombs. On the same day the representative of Israel submitted a letter, dated 14 July [S/7411], to the Security Council informing the Council of what happened on that day. On22 July 1966, 1 submitted my oomplaint [S/7419] to the Security Council and asked for a meeting. 60. TO sum up what happened, 1 shall read from the Verbatim record of t& Security Council of 25 July 1966 which indicates liow the date of that meeting was determined after 1 had requested it. The President at that time was Mr. Adebo, representative of Nigeria, and this is what he said: “Having listened to the reference made by the representative of Bulgaria to our failure to meet last Priday, 1 should like to explain for the record ‘that the result of my consultation, upon receipt of the Syrian representative’s request, was that four of our &mber were quite ready to proceed with a meeting on Friday, but the rest expressed a proference for Monday, and .one or two in faot would have preferred to hold the meeting on Tuesday or Wednesday. 1 therefore felt that it would be more oonvenient for most parties that this meeting should Start today, and 1 was glad that when 1 discussed the matter with the representative of Syria he was 61. The Israel complaint to the Security Council, contained in document S/7540 dated 12 October 1966, consists of two points; the first point concerna “Acts of aggression committed by armed groups operating from Syrian territory against the citizens and territory of Israel , m -n This complaint is submitted, as stated by the Israel Permanent Representative, in pursuance of his letter of 10 October [S/‘7536], which contained a detailed aocount of those incidents that had taken place between 7 and 9 October. Allow me, therefore, to take those incidents one by one, for a perusal of the Israel letter of 10 October Will prove beyond any doubt that it contains its own refutation. May 1 therefore, Mr. President, respectfully draw your attention and that of the Security Council to the following. 62. The first incident, referred to in the Israelletter as taking place during the night of 7-8 October, OCcured in the R.omema quarter in the Israel seotor of Jerusalem, accosding to. the Israel letter. Jerusalem is at least 100 miles away from the nearest Syrian demarcation line. The Israel letter itself states that a complaint has been aubmitted in respect of this incident to the Israel-Jordan Mixed Armistice Commission, Yet in its conclusion the same letter sweepingly attributes a11 incidents from January 1965 up to the present time, ‘including the Jerusalem incident referred to the Mixed Armistice Commission, to the Syrian Govexnment. The self-contradiction of the Israel letter, the absurdity of its sweeping onesided conclusions, need hardly be emphasized. 63. In the second place, while stating that this incident has been referred to the competent Mixed Armistice Commission, the Israel representative foouses a great deal of attention on a broadcast from Radio Damasous given at 0800 hours on 9 October about this incident, and goes on to state: “Such broadcasts are of obvious significance in determining the responsibility of the Syrian Government for these aggressive acts”. Such an inference-establishing a direct relationship between a radio broadcast and this and other alleged incidents-is disproved by the following facts: (a) The El-Assefa and El-Fatah communiqu& are distributed in a11 Arab capitals and to a11 Arab newspapers, broadcasting stations, organizations, institutions and individuals. (b) Radio Damasous and Syrian newspapers are not the only Arab mass media which either broadoast or publish El-Assefa communiqu8s. Other Arab broadcasting stations broadcast the se communiques and other Arab newspapers publish them in other Arab capitals besides Damascus, as cari be ascertained beyond any doubt. TO single out Radio Damascus sheds (ç) Radio Damasous broadcastg with equalemphasis a11 the news of oppressed and perseouted people of Southern Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique, South West Africa, North Viet-Nam and, in fact, the struggle of a11 peoples denied their right to self-determination and struggling to enjoy this sacred and inalienable right. TO infer from these regular and frequent broadcasts a responsibility of the Syrian Government for the struggle of these oppressed peoples-invarious continents of the world, wherever they are or may bewould, 1 am sure, sound foolish. But to follow the Israel logic such an inference must be made. Furthermore, the accurate broadcast of Radio Damascus twelve hours after the Jerusalem incident-does that really mean that the Syrian Government knew about the everit before it occurred? We expected a more intelligent representation on the part of the Foreign Minister of Israel. Where does the aocuracy lie if the communiqd of that Palestinian group is sent, as 1 said, to every Arab newspaper and published by Arab media of information? 64. Thirdly, the description of the incident of 8-9 October,,near Shaar Hag Golan, as described in the letter of 10 October of the Permanent Representative and. repeated by Mr. Eban tonight, is equally but deliberately misleading. The letter states that the Israel trackers alone determined that tracks of three men led towards the border, but could not even aticertain that they led beyond the border, As to the so-calied physical evidence of a land mine, of a military anti-tank type, it is common knowledge that arms of almost any kind cari be procuredandused. Ancl you, Mr. Prestdent, having, SO to speak, lived the whole history of Palestine, and Mr. Eban know, 1 am sure, that the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Haganah and a11 those who established the State of Israel by acts of terrorism, were able to procure from the British army a11 sorts of armaments to be used against the Arabs. 65. Nevertheless, in a11 these incidents the Israel authorities want, by clevious ways and means, to 1aY the blame on Syria. With regard to a11 these incidents, 1 am sure that the members of the Council would like to receive the reports of the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truoe Supervision Organization, and we are also anxious to receive those reports. 66. In this connexion, 1 wish to make the following observations. First, Mr. President, as stated in my letter to you of 13 October 1966: 67. Second, it is common knowledge that there are more than one and a quarter million Arah refUgeeS living across a11 the demarcation lines between the Arab States andIsrae1, extendingfromGazat0 Lebanon and passing by Jordan and Syria. These wretched refugees live within sight of their homes, theirfarms, their villages, their lovely orange groves and vineyards, usurped from them by sheer brutal power and the Israel policy of iron and blood. They know that their rights to their homeland have been affirmed by scores of United Nations resolutions which have been utterly ignored and cynically disregarded by Israel. When one listened tonight to the preselation of the Foreign Minister of Israel about respect for law and respect for United Nations agreements and resolutions, one wondered what has happened to a11 those resolutions which have affirmed, time and again, the rights of the Arab refugees. It is understandable that those Arab refugees cannot be preventedfromyeasning for their homeland. Furthermore, the Arab refugees have shown time and again that they are a11 determined in their attachment to their native land. Why, then, hold Syria responsible for the behaviour of more than one and a quarter million Arab refugees scattered a11 over the area? 68. Third, and this point is directly related to the previous one, is the fact that whenever we are discussing the problems of Israel and the neighbouring Arab States, one thing is lost sight of, which is absolutely necessary, and that is that besides,beyond, outside and above either the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Lebanese ox the Jordanians, there is an Arab people of Palestine. The whole wretched story th?t we hear time and again here is due to the fact that these Arabs of Palestine have been forgotten. History works in Strange ways, very strange indeed. There is an Arab people of Palestine, and these Arabs of Palestine are completely different from any other people in their determination, will, atiachment and loyalty to their homeland. 69. Strangely enough, in one of the rat&; strange workings of history. I shall borrow your own words, Mr. President, from your book A Start inFreedom. In the very introduction to your book, whichwas published in 1964, you stated: “It is a very 1Ongtime since 1 arrived in Jerusalem fresh from Cambridge at the age of twenty-one to take Up my first post-and straight away walkedinto one of the bloodiest communal riots which even the Holy Land had ever known. But, surely, you could not but be on the side of authority. 70. Later on, in a marvelous chapter entitled “The Arab Rebellion in Palestine”, you described that great rebellion, one of the greatest in the Middle East, one of the greatest of the wars of independence undertaken by any people anywhere in the world. I wish 1 could confine my statement to a reading of that chapter of your book, Mr. President, but 1 shall be satisfied with one quotation only: “The failure of British administration in Palestine was inevitable. The double sin had been committed of raising false hopes both with the Arabs and with Jews. The hopes were false because they were conflicting. The Arabs who fought with Great Britain in the first world war to throw off the yoke of the Turkish Empire were led to believe that they were fighting for their freedom. “-1 repeat-“were led to believe that they were fighting for their freedom. The Jews were led to believe by the Balfour Declaration in 1917 that they would win a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Relying on British assurances they too fought and worked with us. But Palestine was populated and owned by Arabs.” G Those, Mr. President, are your ownwords, “Palestine was populated and owned by Arabs”. 71. This brings me to the second point of 18raelfs complaint as described in the letter from the representative of Israel [S/754Oj, namely, “Threats by Syria against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, andopensyrian incitement to war against Israel, in violation of the United Nations Charter and the Israel-SyrianGeneral Armistice Agreement,ll 72. CJne is really at a loss where to start and what to choose from among the innumerable statements and voluminous writings by Israel leaders and Zionist spokesmen against a11 Arab countries. Such statements are not made haphazardly but are in fact embodied in the officia1 Israel yearbooks and writings of Israel’s leaders, If the Council has the time to hear them and Would wish to examine such statements, 1 have quite 3/ Sir Hugh Foot, A Start in Freedom (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1964), p. 13. y &ii& pp. 35-36. 74. Let us, however, take another aspect of the problem. At Mr. Eban’s press conference held at the Headquarters of the United Nations on 10 October, he stated that: Ysrael wants urgent action in the form of international representations today or tomorrow to end alleged Syrian acts of aggression on the common border between the two countries. Our need is for urgent action today or tomorrow. We want representations to be made to Syria very much indeed. “Syria does not need any aid or encouragement, The Government of Israel views the situation with the utmost gravity and is prepared to carry out its responsibility. n Asked if Israel was concentrating troops on the Syrian border, he declined to comment directly, although he said it openly tonight after 1 distributed my letter to the Security Council and he then said: “Our action now is political and diplomatia action,” 75. The threats in these statements, in spite of everything that we heard from Mr. Eban tonight, are too ,obvious; they speak for themselves. They betray the intent and spirit which really motivated the Israsl action and should be seen in the light of Israel’s behaviour during the last eighteen years, a11 of which discredit any claim on its part, even the slightest, to defend the cause of peace. 76. Even very recently, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of 12 October reported the follcwing statement by Premier Eshkol of Israel: “The premier told a Paratroopers Day celebration at Ramat Gan that acts of sabotage would be reacted to-but that Israel wouid decide when and how. ‘Syria will learn again in the future at a time when we think fit.‘” Then 77. It is rather ironie to see the Israel Foreign Minister and the Permanent Representative of Israel corne to this Council and accuse Syria of aggressive intentions. In fact, the members of the Council undoubtedly recall the wanton attack by the Israel Air Force on Syrian territory and people on 14 July 1966, during which napalm bombs were used against innocent people. On that occasion alone, nine workers were wounded and one woman and one Child were killed. One month before that thirteen people in Jordan were killed, and others before in Lebanon, and SO on, 78. That aggressive action was admitted by the Israel Permanent Representative in a letter to the Security Council dated 14 July 1966, submitted the same day that the attack took place. He stated in that letter: ‘1 . . . planes of the Israel Air Force were ordered today to take strictly limited action regarded as appropriate in the circumstances. They carried out a brief attack to the south-east of Almagor on Syrian tractors and mechanical equipment, a type of target which has been under constant Syrian attack in the same Israel area. The planes carried out their mission and returned safely to their base. This action was meant to impress upon the Syrian authorities the gravity with whichtheIsraelGovernment views continua1 Syrian violence against Israel’s population and territory.” [S/7411.] Surely the members of the Council will remember that they all, without exception, condemned this action of Israel in one way or another. But the utter disregard for law and for United Nations bodies need hardly be emphasized as it emanates from this letter from which 1 have quoted, a letter which was addressed to the President of the Security Council, 79. As one followed the statement made by Mr. Eban, one was left with the impression that Israel was the most peace-loving nation and that Syria’s Government was the most bellicose. Fortunately, however, there are written records and there are events in history that have been done and cannot be undone-and these speak for themselves. 80, The record of Israel’s aggression at the United Nations, culminating in the 1956 war against Egyptstrangely enough there are many resemblances between now and 1956, for Mr. Eban himself said at that time, one day before the Israel attack on Egypt, that there was not going to be a war-and the scores of condemnations by the Security Council and various 81. As for the statement of the Syrian officia1 spokesman that we shall not be complaining against acts of aggression by Israel, but that we shall defend ourselves, is that an unusual statement or is it in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations? Mr. Eban has dwelt at length on the question of obligations. Well, what about those obligations? 1s not Israel supposed to abide by them? Shall I refresh his memory with respect to the meetings of this Council? Has the Council not devoted a fifth of its time to discussions of acts of aggression committed by Israel? Have not the Israelis boycotted the meetings of the Mixed Armistice Commission since 19517 82. But today , more than at any time before, Israel makes no secret of its aggressive designs against Syria. Anxious to make the world forget its guilt, Israel wants to accuse Syria of being gui@ SO as to distract world public opinion. 83. In spite of everything that we heard from Mr. Eban, when the truth is knowh of the incidents which it has been alleged Syria committed, one cannot help but wonder about the haste with which this meeting of the Security Council was called. One also wonders where the threat by Syria against Israel lies, Indeed, one questions the motives behind the Israel complaint. I am sure that there are many representatives who are raising similar questions. For us, the answer is simple. 84. What we are witnessing here today, in fact, is but a link in a long, well-known chain of aggressive actions, coupled with continuous hostile designs. Throughout the years, one Israel phenomenon has been unfolded after another, leaving behind a series of tragedies and scores of innocent Arab victims. Our feeling is that behind this complaint lies an Israel plan for a new aggression. The world is too upset by wars and tragedies to afford a new one in the sensitive area of the Middle East. The United Nations annals prove that Israel alone has always been the cause of the great crises that have upset the whole area. For our part, we are determined net to upset the peace. But we are equally determined to stop the aggressor.

Before we proceed, 1 should like to state that I have on my list tanight five speakers, and 1 should hope that we could hear those speakers, I would ask that the names of other speakers should be put down to speak at a subsequent meeting, 86, Mr. GOLDBERG (United States of America): Before stating my Government’s view on the incidents 87. One of the bitter lessons of history in this area and elsewhere is that violence breeds violence. It is the essential task of the Security Council to take those wise steps and measures which will contain violence and promote peace and security. We are now immediately concerned with a series of acts of violence against Israel, in which there have been a number of Israel casualties, including loss of life. In OUI view, Israel has acted properly and wisely in seeking assistance through peaceful political means by bringing this matter promptly to the Security Council. This is where matters such as this one should be brought; this is where matters such as this one should be settled. 88. 1 speak of a series of incidents because there seems to be no doubt thatthere isa series of incidents which appears to be part of a pattern of action. Information available to the Council inmany documents and by much evidence indicates that the chief instigator of many of these border incidents is the so-called El-Fatah or El-Assefa group. Now this is clear. The organization does not deny its involvement. On the contrary, it publicly proclaims its responsibility for many incidents in the past. In several cases, acts for which this group takes credit have resulted in the loss of human life. They pose a constant threat to the citizens of a Member State. 89. Now the problem before us is a little more deeply rooted. The Syrian Government, as 1 understand the statement made by the Ambassador who represents it SO ably here, is not ignorant of the movements of this organization. Indeed, it permits its officia1 radio station in Damascus to broadcast the El-Fatah communiqués. And we have noted that the Chief of Staff of the Syrian Army was quoted on Radio Damascus only two days ago, 12 October, saying that the operations of the El-Fatah group were “legitimate actions which we should not restrict but should support and abet n b This is the problem which is before us. Because at the same time and in a contradictory way, it would seem to me, the Syrian Government disclaims any responsibility for acts of terrorism. 91. It is this attitude and policy which presents the problem, because the Syrian Government is bound by solemn commitments, some of which include a11 of us, not to take action in support of such activities. 92. First, Syria is bound by Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the United Nations Charter, to which we a11 owe allegiance. 93. Second, Syria is bound by, and voted for,General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX), which was adopted on 21 December 1965-again, if 1 remember correctly, unanimously-and which provides that: n . . . no State shall organise, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the régime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.” 94. Third, and most specifically in this matter, Syria is bound by article III, paragraph 3, of the Israel- Syrian General Armistice Agreement. These are very solemn commitments. We believe that commitments should be kept on both sides, by Syria and by Israel, and we believe that the activities whichsyria has been condoning in violation of these commitments, are very dangerous to peace in the area. Past cases before this Council show that such activities cari leadto even more serious developments. 95. Now, we seek to promote good conditions of peace and stability in the area, between Syria and Israel, and between a11 countries in the Middle East. We therefore urge the Government of Syria, inthe interest of peace, to consider its attitude; to recognize its obligations under the Charter and the General Armistice hgreement; and to take a11 necessary measures to ensure that these obligations are put intopracticespecifically, by ensuring that its territory is not used as a base for terrorism or destruction, with or without the consent of the Syrian Government. We think that, in SO urging, we are expressing the common voice of a11 peoples ,everywhere who believe in peace, who eschew violence, and who would live by the law of the Charter, We also strongly hope that a11 those in the area who might become involved in these dangerous activities Will continue to take every possible measure to deny the use of their territory to any terrorist organization whose activities are directed againqC,$he 96. Finally, we appeal to allparties, includingIsrae1, to avoid any acts which might contribute to a further deterioration of the situation in the area. 9’7. Mr. SEYDOUX (France) (translatedfrom French): My delegation has listened with great attention to the statements made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel and the representative of Syria. We cannot conceal our concern and uneasiness at the situation, already fraught with danger, which has deteriorated still further following the latest incidents, with their loss of human lives that my delegation deplores. 98. Only recently , 1 had occasion to express in this Council our disapproval of a11 and any measures of reprisal, both for reasons of principle and because they are invariably out of proportion to the provocation. 99. My delegation is happy to note that, this time, the Israel Government has refrained from takingsuch measures, despite the fact that these serious incidents which have been brought before the Council have, understandably, inflamed Israel public opinion. 100. The situation underlines the responsibilities incumbent upon the United Nations in the settlement of such incidents and the re-establishment of peaceful relations between neighbouring countries. In saying this, my delegation does not lose sight of the fact that the recent attacks on Israel territory were theacts of terrorist groups and not of regular military unit& Nevertheless, while appreciating the difficulty which Arab Governments may have in containing the violent feelings of the Palestinians who have been drivenfrom their homeland, we are still justified in asking the host countries to control the conduct of these refugees in their territory. That is an obligation which the Governments concerned car-mot shirk, especially when the refugees proceed to organize terrorist groups. 101, Moreover, the publicity which has been given to the recent acts of violence by the Syrian officia1 radio and, in particular, the public statement of the Head of the Syrian Government that he would abstain from curbing the activities of the El-Fatah lead mY Government to believe that the Syrian Government cannot be exonerated from a11 responsibility for the recent incidents. 102. As my delegation has had occasion to point out several times, notably at the 1291st meetingof 29 July 1966, my Government considers that the only way to put an end to this chain of violence would be to reinstitute plenary meetings of the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission.

With the permission of the Council, 1 shall now maks a short statement on behalf 104. My Government has watched with grave and growing concern the deteriorating situation on the borders between Israel and Syria, and we would say at once that we welcome the decision of Israel to bring the question to this Council; we thinkthat it was right ta do SO. 105. Only two months ago the Council was called to consider the dangerous situation that had been developed in the border area between Syria and Israel. At that time Sir Roger Jackling, on behalf of the United Ringdom delegation, in his statement on 29 July 1966 [1291st meeting] emphasized the responsibility of the Syrian Government, both as a Member of the United Nations and under the Armistice Agreement, to ensure that no active hostiliiy was planned or mounted from its territoxy, irrespective of the status of the perpetrators. It cannot be disputed that there is a clear duty, under the Armistice Agreement, on the Governments of both Syria and Israel to maintain the peace on their respective sides of the armistice demarcation line and to exercise proper responsibility to ensure that texrorist incidents of the kind which now confxont us do not occur. There is a clear responsibili’cy on the Syrian Government, under the Armistice Agreement, to prevent raids beingmounted from Syrian territory. 106. My delegation was much concerned to learn from the statements to which reference has beenmade, including the statement of the Prime Minister of Syria on 10 October, to the following effect, that: “We are not the guardians of Israel’s safe@. We axe not resigned to holding back the revolution of the homeless and oppressed Palestinian people. Under no circumstances shall we do SO.” We do not think that the Council Will ever accept that any Member State 107. It is surely the duty of the Council constantly to recall to Governments their obligation in this respect whenever violence has occurred or whenever tension may seem to be on the point of erupting into violence. But since the letter addressed to me on 13 October 1966 [S/7544] by the representative of Syria shows that there is dispute aboutthefacts of the present situation between Israel and Syria, my delegation would welcome an investigation by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, SO that impartial evidence cari be quickly presented to us. Whenever there is dispute on facts, we advocate impartial investigation. Indeed, 1 was happy to note that the representative of Syria and the Foreign Minister of Israel both were anxious to bring to bear the machinery of the United Nations which already exists to deal with such matters. We hope therefore that the Secretary-General cari arrange for a report to be made available to us quickly on the incidents which are the subject of the present complaint. 108. In the meantime, my Government urges, in the strongest terms, the Governments of both Syria and Israel to exercise the utmost caution and restraint SO that the situation is not made more dangerous by any further rash act. 109. A clear duty of the Council is to take every possible step immediately to stop acts of violence and conflict, to prevent any recurrence or extension of such acts and to enlist the positive help of the United Nations in a combined and concerted effort to restore and maintain peaceful conditions.

After listening attentively to the statements of the Israel and Syrian representatives, we have been confirmed in our conviction that Israel’s hasty recourse to the Security Council is nothing but a tactic designed to distract attention from the real causes of tension in the Middle East and to conce& the military preparations being undertaken by extremist circles in Israel against the Syrian Arab Republic. This tactic by Tel Aviv is nOt new, nor is it in any way original. I am sure the Council fully realizes that often in the past the initiators of hostile acts and schemes have made haste to corne to the Security Council with the secret Purpose of trying to make the intended victim appear 112. At the Council’s meeting, Mr. Tomeh furnished new proofs of the groundlessness of this attempt. Characteristically, the Israel representative, in his statement before the Council today, was una.ble to support his assertions with any convincing facts or serious arguments, Al1 the Israel Minister’s accusations against Syria in fact rest on the flimsy premise that some so-called subversive elements infiltrate into Israel from Syrian territory. Rut his numerous and unconvincing arguments are built on sand, since, as the members of the Council Will have realized, the key point-that the persans committing these acts of sabotage were operating from Syrian territory-has not been proved. Therefore a11 these arguments infact bail down to unsubstantiated assertions. 113. This is not the first year that the Security Council is considering a situation fraught with danger to peace in the Middle East, where the united forces of reaction are opposing the Arab people’s struggle for liberation and their desire to consolidate their political independence and promote their social progress. 114. We of course remember that quite reoently-in July and August of this year-the Security Counoil disoussed in great detail the serious situationcreated by Israel’s aggressive acts against the Syrian Arab Republic. 115. Clearly, the real reason for the deep concern which the peace-loving peoples feel about the situation in the Middle East lies, broadly speaking, in the extremist course which Israel and its baokers pursue in relation to the Arab countries and in the attempts of the imperialist Powers to curb by force the national liberation movements of the peoples. It is no secret that we have recently witnessed a resurgenoe of the forces of imperialism and reaction in the Middle East, caused by the fact that the number of Arab countries pursuing an independent policy is steadily increasing. The Syrian Arab Republic is one such country. 116. Ever since the Syrian people began to consolidate their national independence andpromote their social progress, military tension has begun building up on Syria’s borders. We have seen that Israel has recently begun concentrating large numbers of troops along its Syrian border. Military manœuvres have been conducted in areas near the Syrian border, and 117, In this connexion, we cari hardly fail to be disturbed by the statement made recently by General Rabin, the Chief of Staff of the Israel armed forces, disclosing the real aims of the plot against Syria. In an interview with a correspondent of the military journal Bamahane, General Rabin stated forthrightly that the so-called retaliatory actions of Israel’s armed forces “will be directed primarily against the present polftical r6gime in Syrial’. 118, The Security Council cannot, of course, ignore statements such as this by officia1 representatives of IsraeI which are entirely contrary to that State’s obligations under the United Nations Charter. The actions of the Israel side pose a threat to peace and tranquillity in the Middle East and clearly belie the Israel Government’s assurances that Israel seeks peace and tranquillity on its borders. 119. Concomitant with these military preparations in Israel, ever-increasing pressure is being brought to bear on Syria by the imperialist Powers and Arab reactionaries. It is significant that the Springfield, flagship of the United States Sixth Fleet, recentlypaid a visit-which was meant to be noticed-to the port of Beirut. The people of the Middle East have often seen that precisely at that moment whenprovocatory actions are under way against one of the countries of the region the United States Fleet pays “courtesy calls” on Middle Eastern ports, 120. As Radio Damascus recently announced, Mr. Youssef Zu’ayen the Prime Minister of Syria, told the Association of Arab Jurists that the SyrianGovernment had information confirming United States participation in the financing of plots against the Syrian Government. 121, It is pertinent in this connexion to point out that, as a result of the position taken by the Israel Government on the machinery created under the Israel-Syrian Armistice Agreement, the Security Council has no information at its disposa1 about the allegecl incidents other than unilateral StatementS by the Israel Government itself. Instead, we hear a barrage of threats against the Syrian Arab Republic, and such threats, as recent experience teaches us, are invariably followed by hostile acts on the part of Israel. This practice of appealing to the SeCUri@ Council with trumped-up ccmplaints and acCUSatiOnS designed to oover up military provocations against the neighbouring Arab countries, to which the Israel extremists have repeatedly resorted in the past and are, 122. This is what happened in 1964, when the Israel Air Force carried out a raid against Syria; this is what happened in July 1966, when the Israel Air Force, on direct orders from Tel Aviv, again violated Syrian air space and bombed Syrian territory. 123. Many facts show that Israel’s warmongers, encouraged by the imperialist forces of reaction, are by no means willing to renounce the use of armed force against the Arab States which follow an independent foreign policy and oppose colonialist intrigues in the Near and Middle East. 124. The facts we have presented are reason enough for the Soviet Union and other peace-loving countries to feel concern at the mounting tension in the region of Syria. Naturally, we cari hardly be indifferent to attempts to disturb peace in this region, 125. The ruling circles in Tel Aviv must carefully weigh the possible serious consequences of aworsening of the situation along Israel’s armistice lines with the Arab States. The Security Cou&l, which, undel, the Charter, bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace, is in duty bound to issue a Stern warning to those harbouring aggressive plans against the independent and sovereign Syrian Arab Republic and to prevent events from taking a course which would threaten the maintenance of peace in the Near and Middle East.

It is a cause of deep regret to my delegation that, for a second time within the space of three months, the Council has convened to consider serious complaints of incidents disrupting life along the frontier of Israel and Syria. At our last series of meetings the Council was not permitted to express its collective concern at the tense situation that had been developing in this area. This sterile outcome reflected little credit upon either the role of the Council or its effectiveness as the organ charged with the principal responsibility for maintaining international peace. The explanation is well known to a11 members here. 127. Nevertheless, my delegation had believed that the parties involved could not have failed to note the widespread anxiety displayed in the Council at the renewed violence and the consequent loss of life and the damage to property. Nor could they, we felt, have been unmindful of the appeals for restraint, SO that peace in the region-preoarious thing that it is-might be restored and the constructive work of the United Nations machinery there be resumed. 129. The matters raised in the complaints nowbefore the Council are only one aspect of this disquieting condition. But they Pose the grave& and most immediate threat of igniting a dangerous outbreak of hostilities. 130. In the circumstances, the Government of Israel has on this occasion properly chosen to seek redress from the appropriate international body, for complaints which it considers well founded. Too often in the past the Council has had reason todeplore a decision to respond initially to provocation by way of unilateral action. The restraint SO far exercised is especially welcome in view of the statement by the Israel Chief of Staff on 11 September concerning a “new form” of reaction to border raids “involving military action against any régime supporting terrorist activities*. We hope such restraint Will continue SO that the expectations of the Council in this respect may be fulfilled. 131. We have studied closely the letters of 10 October [S/7536] and 12 October 1966 [S/7540] submitted by the representative of Israel. These are, of course, only the latest in a whole series of similar messages extending back to, and indeed beyond, the Council’s earlier consideration of this matter. Read together, they present a deplorable record of death, injury and destruction, whatever may be the origins of those incidents. What is even more ominous is the disclosure that this violence has a11 the characteristics of a carefully planned and executed campaign. There is a pattern to the occurrence and nature of the incidents that allows of no other conclusion. 132. Israel has charged previously, and has now repeated the accusation, that responsibility for these acts rests upon armed groups working from Syrian territory, with the active encouragement of the Syrian authcrities. The evidence relating to the most recent incidents has yet to be analysed andwe have no desire to make a hasty judgement upon this particular case. It may once again be difficult if not impossible, as bas been found on other occasions, to establish beyond shadow of doubt that the terrorists had indeed emanated from a particular place, The authors of sneak attacks rarely show themselves in open view; that is the characteristic of this new type of incident, 133. We do not fail to note that the Government of Syria has consistently denied any association with 134. Even less consistent with a serious intent to uphold that Agreement are the further threatening statements attributed to officia1 Syrian sources which have been quoted in recent Israel letters and have not yet been refuted. The attitude of my delegation has already been stated, At the Council’s meeting on 29 July 1966 we noted that such statements could not be lightly dismissed and we observed: “the duty imposed by the Charter on a11 Member States to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State is an absolute one. It certainly does not admit of exceptions in favour of a people’s war of liberation, nor, obviously, do the terms of the Armistice Agreement.” [1292nd meeting, para. 86.1 135. We sought at that time a reassurance from the representative of Syria about the statements in question. That request was not met. As a consequence my delegation, and we believe a majority of the delegations present, had no option but to drawcertain conclusions which necessarily affected our attitude towards the particular incidents then under consideratien. 136. In view of the very serious charges now laid by the representative of Israel and the legitimate misgivings which they have aroused, my delegation believes the need for reassurance from the Syrian authorities is even more pressing. We have been ready, indeed eager, to give our full attention to any reasonable explanation for the incidents described in the Israel letter which the representative of Syria might have presented. After listening intently to the statement of the representative of Syria, we must confess that in our view such an explanation is still lacking. 137. The plain fact is that incidents have occurred within the territory of a Member State which, like a11 Member States of this Organization, is entitled to 139. We have noted from the statement this evening by the Foreign Minister of Israel that one party has already given such an undertaking in clear and unequivocal terms. We believe that members present would welcome a statement of. similar intent from the representative of Syria. 1 must also note and commend as a further indication of a positive attitude the fa& that the Government of Israel, as we have heard this evening from its Foreign Minister, has indicated to General Bull that it would welcome without conditions an inspection of its frontier areas with a view to an impartial ascertainment and report on allegations of troop concentrations and a military build-up in those areas. 1 find it hard to imagine a more conclusive reply than this to the charges of aggressive designs and the massing of militaryforces In areas adjacent to Syria just made by the representative of the Soviet Union. 1 find it equally hard to understand that the latter could have advanced such charges without reference of any sort-if Iunderstood him correctly-to the answer thus given him in advance. It seems that none are SO deaf as those who do not wish to hear. 140. Nos would it, we feel, be unreasonable for the Council, in re-emphasizing the responsibilities of both parties to control their borders, to place special stress on the dangers of terrorism and so-called wars of national liberation and the need for restraint. In any event we assume that the Council, in view of the rise in tension since its meetings in July, Will wish to consider’ whether any further measures are possible to assist the United Nations Truce Supervlsion Organization and to try to ensure an end to border incidents,

I have undertaken cOnSUltations with members of the Council and Ithink there is general agreement that we should continue thiS debate at 3 p.m. next Monday. 1 might say that the representatives of both Syria and Israel have already expressed a wish to reply to what has been said in the debate SO far. I think that on Monday we should follow the usual practice of hearing other members of the Council wishing to speak and 1 shall then cal1 on the Litho in U.N. Price: $LIS. 1.00 (or equivalent