S/PV.1308 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken at the 1307th meeting, on Friday last, 1 shall now, with the consent of the Council, invite the representatives of Israel, SyriaandtheUnitedArabRepublic to take seats at the Council table in order to participate without vote in the discussion, At the invitation of the Presfdent, Mr. M. Comay (Israel), Mr. G. J. Tomeh (Syria) and Mr. M. A. El-Kony (United Arab Republio) took places at the Councll table.

The Security Council Will now continue its discussion of the item on the agenda for this afternoon. The first speaker on the list is the representative of the United Arab Republic.

Mr. President, 1 shouldlike on behalf of the United Arab Republic delegation to thank you and the members of the Council for inviting me to participate in the discussions regarding the letters dated 12 and 13 October 1966 contained in documents S/7540 and S/7544. 4. Once again, and after less than three months, the Security Council has to deal with another of the cases 5. Israel, as an agent of colonialism andimperialism in the Middle East, is doing its best to serve its masters and benefactors, It is being used as a tool of pressure against the Arabs, threatening their security and impeding their economic development. In serving imperialism, Israel does not fail to claim big parts of the prizes, if any. There is no end to its ambitions. 6. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, the world witnessed that most infamous aggression which unmasked the true designs of Israel and exposed its alleged peaceful intentions, The words of Mr. Eban at the 1307th meeting on 14 October reminded me of the words of his leaders during that time. 7. Throughout the summer and the month of October of 1956 the whole world was deceived, only to be shocked later by that shameful aggression. And yet, it seems that Israel has not learned its lesson, or perhaps it feels that others might have forgotten it. Israel, now, is paving its way to an attack against Syria in the hope of doing away with the régime in Damascus which, unfortunately, does not enjoy the affection of certainbig Powers. But as, in 1956, Israel attempted to grab Sinai, today it is aiming at the sources of the Jordan River in Syria. 8. The Israelis consider themselves masters in the art of aggression. They are confident of their success. After all, did they not, with the help of the colonialists and imperialists, establish their State by means of aggression, and later expand it, again by means of aggression? Why not, then, try their luck again-this time with Syria after having already felt the support of the the imperialists? In this connexion 1 deem it necessary to state that Syria is not alone in defending itS integrity against any aggression on the part of Israel. 9. The Security Council listened to two speakers during its last meeting: Mr. Eban, representative of the Israel authorities, and the representative of the United States Government. SO similar in content were both speeches that 1 should have preferred to listen only to Mr. Goldberg. The members of the Council would have been able to retire much earlier after a long and busy Friday. 10. The United States Government cannot pretend that it is imPartial between Israel and the Arab States. 11. It was distressing to hear some representative in this Council praise Israel for not taking the law into its own hands and attacking Syria as a reaction to that alleged incident, in lins with its aggressive behaviour . 1 cari hardly believe that we should pat someone on the back for not committing a crime. No wonder then that this spoiled Child should act in this irresponsible mai-mer. 12. The failure of the Security Council to act after the latest aggression of Israel against Syria will long be remembered with regret. That was a clear-eut case of aggressionboastfully announcedby Israel itself to the Security Council. 13. It is significant that the representatives of the three English-speaking countries in this Council have taken a collective stand against the Arabs. It is unfortunate that the Arabs, who have suffered and are still suffering through the policy of some of them, should be treated in this unjust way. Those are the Arabs whose resources of wealth are still exploited by these countries; and still these Governments claim to be friends of the Arabs. The same Governments are pursuing the same policy whether in Africa or in Asia. They are doing it in Rhodesia, South West Africa, South Africa and the colonies, whether in Africa or in Asia. 1 hate to think that there is a racial element in this policy in addition to the economic and strategic considerations ‘which are calculated to perpetuate their domination. 14. It seems to me that Africanand Asianpeoples are not valued equally with others. Sympathy and protection are extended only to those who corne from afar to settle in Africa and enslave its peoples, or to Palestine and chase its people away. 15. Thank you, Mr. President, and 1 should like to reserve my right to intervene later, with your permission, when my delegation finds it necessary.

My delegation must, before speaking in a debate in which the representative of Syria is taking part, express to him its concern at the incidents which occurred on Friday last at the Permanent Mission of Syria to the United Nations. We extend our sympathy to our colleague, as the representative of a friendly country, and draw the attentionof the Council to the serious implications of incidents of this kind, which injure not only the country concerned but the prestige of the United Nations. 13, The communications addressed to the Counoil bY the delegations of Israel and Syria [S/7540, S/7544] and the statements made at the 1307th meeting indicate that the situation between the two COUntrieS is one which must be described as serious. %Cent months have witnessed a gradua1 deterioration in the area and the statements of the two Governments directly concerned have now taken on a dramatic tone as they invoke their right and duty to prOteCt national sovereignty or reject any act of aggression. 19, The Security Council, if it is t0 fulfil its obligations, cannot close its eyes to these facts and must seek to devise the necessary measures or reCOmmendstions to protect peace and stability in the area. For that reason my delegation, when consulted on the matter, informed the President of the Security Council that it was in favour of an urgent meeting to deal with the question. 20. Among the dark and pessimistic circumstances of the question we are considering there is one encouraging feature which raises the hope that common sense and prudence may play an important part in preventing a worsening of the conflict. This encouraging feature is the attitude of the Government of Israel, which, by submitting its complaint to the Security Council, met the wishes clearly expressedby a11 delegations during a debate on a similar case towards the end of July 1966. 21. The United Nations has devoted much attention and effort to keeping the peace in the Middle East, There have been repeated references to the high proportion of the Council’s meetings that have been devoted to the problems of Palestine. A Truce Supervision Organization has been established, there are the Armistice Commissions, and since 1956 anEmergency Force has been operating in the area. 22. It is the earnest hope of the Argentine Governmente-and, 1 believe, of a11 Member States-that this peace machinery Will yield results and that full advantage Will be taken of it by the States of the region. Should existing bodies prove to be inadequate or lack the means to act effectively, we believe that the Council should try to remedy any shortcomings and to give them a11 the reinforcements needed. No one has said, howevex, that the machinery is inefficient or inadequate. But in some cases it has been disregarded, with the result that vital links in the system set up by the United Nations have been broken. 23. MY delegation, having heard the weighty statements of the delegations of Israel andSyria, sincerely aPPeals to both these Governments, with which we have maintained very cordial relations since &y became independent, to strive for a peaceful solution 24, For similar reasons we support the suggestion made by you, Mr. President, in your capacity as representative of the United Kingdom, that the Security Council should be given a report as soon as possible on the events in question, as established after the most thorough possible investigation by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. 25. My delegation does not believe this is a matter of assigping blame; we do, however, believe that the facts must be reported clearly and objectively, SO that the States concerned may be brought face to face with the responsibilities they have formally accepted under the United Nations Charter and the other treaties and agreements voluntarily concluded by them as sovereign States. 26. Once the problems have been set out impartially, we hope that each of the parties Will accept its international obligations and work for the required SO~Utions. The United Nations, and in particular the Council, Will be able to provide a11 necessary assistance and co-operation. 27. The Council may, in the light of the reports it receives, decide that other steps are to be taken, but we hope that the conciliatory attitude of the parties Will be sufficient to prevent a recurrence of incidents which are endangering peace in the area. Both Governments are well aware of what is happening on these frontiers and of their responsibilities. The Security Council is once again bringing those responsibilities to their notice.

My delegation is gravely disturbecl by the renewed occurrence of the alarming incidents in the border area between Israel andsyria. On the basis of the information at present available to the Council, it would appear that these incidents are of a sufficiently grave nature to cause further aggravation of the situation if appropriate measures are not taken promptly. 29. Under these circumstances, first of all, mydelegation would like to appeal to the Governments concerned to refrain, with the maximumof self-restraint, from any action which might, whether directly or indirectly, further aggravate the already serious situation, particularly while the Council has it under consideration. 39. When the Council considered similar incidents in the area last summer, my delegation regretted the retaliatory action undertaken by the Israel Air Force and noted that the Syrian Arab Republic, exercising self-restraint, had instead correctly brought the situation to the Council’s attention, On the present occasion, it should be said in a11 fairness that the Israel Government has acted correotly in bringing the matter to the attention of the Council without re- 32. On the basis of these conflicting statements alone, it would seem very difficult for the Council to formulate a considered .and wise judgement. However, no one has denied and certainly no one would gainsay, that a series of very grave incidents involving a deplorable loss of human life has in fact recently taken place. This cannot be condoned. We deeply regret that, despite the untiring attention which the Council has paid to the problems of the area, there have been few, if any, indications of improvement in the situationthere. On the contrary there would seem to be no doubt about the fact that it has deteriorated in recent months. 33. It is certainly appropriate, therefore, and indeed essential, that the Council should exert every possible effort to find ways and means by which, if it is at a11 possible, this very dangerous trend cari be reversed. For this purpose, it would seemessential for the Council to have before il a first-hand, impartial, factual report to be submitted by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. 34. My delegation, therefore, joins with others in suggesting that the Security Council might make the necessary arrangements for the early submission of such an objective report to the Council. 35. Meanwhile, my delegation would like to reiterate its appeal to the Governments concerned ta abide fully by the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement between the two Governments and to refrain scrupulously from taking any steps which might lead to further aggravation of the situation,

No one cari view the Middle Eastern situation of today without disquiet and concern. Tension has been on the rise and tempers seem to have been shortened by frustrations and impatience, One of the unmistakable manifestations of this has been the increase in the number of acts of violence and border clashes. 37. Only a little over two months ago this Council was called upon to deal with the dangerous situation that had developed in the border area between Syria and Israel. At that time my delegation expressed its strong disapproval of a11 measures of reprisal, believing that no country, even under provocation, was justified in taking the law into its own hands without first seeking redress from the appropriate international organ. It is heartening to note that this time 39, Whatever the actual facts of the case may be, pending a report from the United Nations personnel on the spot, it seems to my delegation that in a sensitive area such as the Middle East, where the climate of fear, suspicion and exacerbated nationalism has already engendered a cycle of injustice, violence, retaliation and counter-retaliation, any further aggravation of the situation could touch off a crisis of great magnitude, with a11 the tragic consequences not only for the countries of the region but for a11 the world. My delegation therefore appeals to both Syria and Israel to exercise the utmost restraint to avoid such an unfortunate eventuality. 40. The obligations solemnly assumed by them, both under the United Nations Charter and under the General Armistice Agreement, should not and must not be lightly disregarded. In the present context, it is pertinent to remind them of article III, paragraph 3, of the General Armistice Agreement, to the effect that: “No warlike act or aot of hostility shall be conducted from territory controlled by one of the Parties to this Agreement against the other Partyor against civilians in territory under control of that Party.“I/ This applies with equal force to Syria as well as to Israel. 41. What the United Nations seeks to promote in the Middle East is peace and stability. Inthe present case, the task of the Security Council is not SO much to apportion responsibility or to mete out condemnation as to appeal to the enlightened self-interest of bot-h parties SO that acts of violence from either side of the demarcation line Will be prevented. My delegation, in common with other delegations, has more than once urged the full utilization of the United Nations machinery in the area, set up with the agreenîent of both parties, for the settlement of disputes. The reactivation of the Mixed Armistice Commission, we believe, could go a long way towards the restoration of peace and tranquillity in the area.

Before 1 deal with the subject on our agenda, I should like to say something about the regrettable incident whioh toOk place 011 Friday, 14 October 1966, at the Permanent Misg Officia1 Records of the hxrity Council, Fourth Year, Special SuP- PIement No. 2. 43. In our general statement on Thursday, 13 October [1304th meeting], my delegation expressed its deep concern at the ever-increasing number of attacks on diplomatie missions and at other breaches of timehonoured diplomatie immunity, and my delegation appealed “to a11 Governments to make clear inword and in deed their strong feeling that such infringements on diplomatie practice and privilege should stop.” Our statement also said: “These attacks are by no means the doubtful privilege of any particular country or any particular area. They have in more recent years taken place in almost a11 parts of the world.” 44. Little could my delegation foresee on Thursday that already the very next day would bringanother sad confirmation of the timeliness of such a warning. The regrettable incident which befell the Syrian Mission to the United Nations merely confirms everything my delegation said on Thursday, and 1 am thankful to Ms. Tarabanov, who wondered why 1 did not immediately express this, for thus implicitly emphasizing the usefulness of our statement. 45. I should also like to remind the Council that in the case of the Congo complaint, my delegation went on to say, as did several other delegations, that we took note with appreciation, in that case, ofthe regret expressed by the Poreign Minister of the Congo and of his assurance that his Government intended strictly to observe its duties in this respect. In the same way my delegation wishes to express now its appreciation of the statement and of the actionof the representative of the United States, Mr. Goldberg, to the effect that the perpetrators of the incursion in the SyrianMission have been apprehended on his orders and Will be brought to trial. 46. With regard to the subject on our agenda, my delegation wishes, in the first place, to welcome the fact that Israel decided this time not to consider military retaliation as an answer to provocation, but to address itself to the Security Council instead. This approach surely is more conducive to improving the situation and should be the guideline for the future as well. Only two months ago the Council discussed the mounting tension between Israel and Syria. At that time the Members clearly expressed their concern at this state of affairs and their hope that strict compliante with the Charter and the General Armistice Agreements would guide the policy of the countries concerned. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and at OUF 1307th meeting we heard new evidence of strained relations and of acts of violence, My delegation is deeply concerned, like others, over this increasing use of violence, since it obviously contains serious elements of an explosive threat to the peace and stability of the area. The world today surely is not in need of another situation of armed conflict, 48. Members of the United Nations have, in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, undertaken theobligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other States. Even more relevant in this present situation is article III, paragraph 3, of the General Armistice Agreement between Syria and Israel, which says that: “No warlike act or act of hostility shall be conducted 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.‘-/ 49. Another general guideline cari be foundinresolution 2131 (XX), adopted on 21 December 1965 by the General Assembly, containing the Declaration on the inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of States. This resolution, which was adopted with near-unanimity, stipulates, among other things, in operative paragraph 1: “NO State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the interna1 or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, 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.lf And operative paragraph 2 thereof states: II .*a no State shall organize, 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.” 50. The Israel delegation in our debates has put before us complaints of a twofold nature: in the first Place, acts of aggression and sabotage by groups operating from Syrian territory; and secondly, threats and 51. On record, furthermore, are statements by officials of Syria calling for an ail-out war against Israel, which were published in the’ Press and not refuted by the representative of Syria in the Council. Suoh inciting declarations under the present circumstances cari only worsen an already most dangerous situation. The Syrian representative from his side has charged Israel with aggressive intentions, especially by its massing of troops along the border. Here too, we feel that an impartial survey could be most helpful in dismissing such fears. The Poreign Minister of Israel has already declared his country’s readiness to have General Bull investigate this point. If the representative of Syria could agree to this idea it would probably help to allay fears on the part of his country. This could be one of the measures the Council might take in order to improve the situation between the two countries, 52. In addition, my delegation strongly endorses the appeals made by previous speakers for moderation and respect for the Charter andthe General Armistice Agreements. Syria and Israel are both under theobligation Co respect each other’s territory, to abstain from the threat or use of force andfrom giving support to any terrorist activities. 53. Both parties should be ready to reaffirm their respect for the Charter and the General Armistice Agreements, especially article III, paragraph 3. A solemn promise from both sides to that effect would certainly help to clear the road. My delegation has noted with satisfaction that the Foreign Mini&er of Xsrael pledged his willingness to make ,such a solemn declaration. A similar statement from the Syrianside would be m6st helpful. The United Nations has been involved in the cause of peace in the Middle East for nearly twenty years, as the Organisation played such a big role in the realization of the Armistice AgreementS. 1s it too much for our Organization to ask the parties once again to stick to their oommitments and respect the letter and spirit of the Agreements into which they freely entered? Retaliation can never be the answer to provocation, but the latter should not be allowed to take place. Both parties should do their utmost to prevent the recurrence of new acts of violence.

The Security Council is once again discussing the Palestine problem, as a result of a letter to its President from the Permanent Representative of Israel [S/7540]. 57. The statements at the last Council meeting and those we have heard today give rise to anxious speculation as to whether the urgent convening of the Security Council is not a further example of the tactics SO often employed in the past to mislead world public opinion and distract attention from the real causes of tension in the Middle East, thereby paving the way for further adventuring. 58. The Foreign Minister of Israel spent only a few moments describing the latest incidents, without producing any proof which would make us believe that those responsible for the incidents were acting with the consent of the authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic. On the other hand, he dwelt on other matters at great length, and it would not seem that he did SO by chance. The Foreign Minister of Israel knows better than anyone that the Syrian representative has denied, in the document he has issued, that his Government had any responsibility for the latest incidents. He knows that the United Nations armed forces in the area must carry out an inspection if a case is to be presented and he also knows that if such a case is to be discussed, it must first be brought to the attention of the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission-which does not function because Israel 1s opposed to it. 59. Despite that, the Government of Israel has deemed it necessary to appeal to the Security Council, reacrting to allegations about acts of aggression, Syrian 61. The statements of the sepresentatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand concerning the submission of the complaint to the Security Counoil seem to be an encouragement for such preparations rather than a cal1 for a calmer attftude. The Netherlands representative associated himself with those statements when speaking today about provocation of one State by another. 62. Instead of making use of the machinery established by the Israel-Syrian Armistice Agreement, Israel, which had the effective support of certain countries, chose net to cal1 on the services of the Commission or the United Nations armed forces in the area, but rather to adopt a course of action whereby it cari take full advantage of established f riendships. 63. Al1 this arouses justified concern. Many facts show that certain circles in Israel, encouraged by imperialist forces, have not renounced the use of force in their relations with the Arab countries. The activities of the forces of imperialism and reaction in the Middle East are governed by the fact that an ever-growing number of Arab countries are pursuing independent policies, that every passing day sees the strengthen.ing of the Arab people’s struggle for liberation and of their desire to consolidate their political and economic independence and that the forces fighting against reaction and imperialism in the area are growing and uniting. 64. It is precisely this moment that has been chosen for a build-up of tension on the Syrian border. In July and August, the Security Council examinedthe serious situation which resulted from the attack by the Israel Air Force on Syrian territory. An atmosphere which carries the threat of new military action is now being built up by exploiting sabotage carried out by unidentified persons and calls for guerrilla action by individuals and organisations for which the Syrian Government is in no wise responsible. The statement by General Rabin of Israel that activity is directed primarily against the political régime of Syria is most significant. 65. Furthermore, the statements of the Foreign Minister of Israel at a press conference a few days ago are equally significant in that connexion. He said: “We are now taking action at the political and diplomatic level.” One may well ask what action Will be 66. The representative of Syria, however, stated: II I*I the Syrian Government has repeatedly rejected the Jsrael accusation that the acti,vities of the El- Assefa organization have been ‘planned, organized, equipped or directed by Syria’.” [1307th meeting, para. 66.J 67, Nevertheless, there are many here who do not wish to take these statements seriously. They prefer to consider merely the accusations and the footprints which apparently are to be found on Israel’s soi1 and which are discovered, of course, by people sent by Israel to discover them. 68. There are grounds for believing that the Security Council meeting is only one stage in a plan directed against the Government and people of the Syrian Arab Republic. The other known stages are as follows: economic or political pressure on Syria by the imperialist countries, a show of strength in the guise of a Mendly visit by the United States Sixth Fleet to Syrian ports, attempts to disrupt the unity ofthe Arab countries in order to strengthen Arab reactionary circles, frontier incidents, acts of provocation and SO forth. 69, The Security Council has a supreme duty not to close its eyes to these facts. We have not been a member of this body long, but since we have been participating in its work the Palestine question has twice appeared on the Council’s agenda. 70. On the first occasion, in July and August, we had before us a complaint by the Syrian Arab Republic concerning an aerial attack organieed and carried out by the Israel armed forces. Bombs had been dropped, people killed, and material damage caused bypersons and aeroplanes whose origin was clearly identified. Those persans were acting on the orders of the Israel Government, which publicly recognized its responsibility for the crime. 71, At that time, the representatives of certaincountries deemed it fit to cal1 for the adjournment of the discusston for days, and even weeks. They remained silent for a long time during the meetings, unable to @Xe@ the fact that such action by Jsrael should be condemned and that that country should be warned against a repetition of acts of aggression against neighbouring territories. As you Will certainly recall, the Security Council was unable then to adopt the draft resolution submitted by the representatives of Jordan and Mali [s/7437]. 72. 1 mU6t say here that 1 agree withthe representativa of New Zealand when he says: “This sterile outcoma reflected little credit upon either the role of the Council or its effectiveness as the organ chargedwith the principal responsibility for maintaining international peace. The explanation is well known to a11 members here.” [1307th meeting, para. 126.1 74. We are now facing an entirely different situation. Bombs have exploded on Israel’s soi1 and the representative of Israel presumes that they were placed there by unidentified individuals operatingfxom Syrian territory. The Government of the Syrian Arab Republit has categorically denied being in contact with those responsible for the acts of sabotage in question. The Syrian representative, Mr. Tomeh, recently quotedthe statement by his Government dismissing as incorrect and entirely groundless allegations that the activities of the El-Fatah and El-Assefa organizations are organized by Syria. 75. In the present case, as has rightly be& pointed out, interna1 forces are not invalved, no Government has given any orders and there have been no frontier violations. Despite that, those delegations which were in no hurry in July, which asked for a report from the Commander of the United Nations forces and were seeking excuses for the aggressor-for it would have been difficult to agree with Israel’s description of the measures as a police action-have now seen fitto cal1 for an urgent examination of the question and hatre gone to great lengths to interrupt the work of the Security Council, which had been considering the complaint from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. At the time of the attack in July, even the Government of Israel’s admission that it ordered its regularforces to attack objectives in a neighbouring country was not sufficient reason, in their view, to condemn the aggressor. NQW, on the other hand, a news bulletin broadcast at night by Radio Damascus, and coming not from a Government but from an independent organization, is sufficient reason for themto cal1 for anurgent meeting of the Security Council and to attempt.to secure the condemnation of the Syrian Government. 76. Such an attitude cari only increase oux apprehension. The Government of the Peoplels Republic of Bulgaria, together with other peace-loving countries, is seriously concerned by the growing tension in the Middle East. We cannot remain indifferent to the fact that the Syrian Arab Republic is subjeoted to continuous threats and provocations, which could lead to a serious conflict. We hope that tha Security Council Will issue a warning to those planning aggression against the independence and sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic, If we allow such plans to be put into operation they Will have consequences endangering the peace of not only the Middle East but the entire world. 77. Mr, BERRO (Uruguay) (translated from Spanish): 1 confess that on 1 August 1966, when I flnished my statement on the reciprocal accusations by Syria and Israel, my mixed feelings‘ of relief and hope were very similar to those 1 used to experience long ago 78. 1 told thcm at that time: “The clashes between Isrnel and Syria must not recur . “In vicw of the circumstances 1 have mentioned, a Security Council condemnation would be neither useful nor conducive to the end that it is our duty to seek. Our mi.ssion is to ensure peace. Considering the heightened passions, politicnl tensions and even hatred prevailing between the peoples concerned, any condemnatory resolution would be selfdcfeating and woulcl impede the achievement of peace. We must therefore seek solutions that Will lighten the cloud of passion and hatred that hangs over that important region, whose peaceful destiny we must protect and preserve. This should be the last time that the Security Council is called upon to deal with R clash between Arabs and Jews. 1 turn to the Psalms in addressing the representatives of Israel and Syria: ‘Out of destruction cornes the exhortation, which is also hope. Make straight the road and through the darkness shall corne thelight’. That is my exhortation: 1 appeal to you, representatives of Israel and Syria, in the hope that you Will dedicate yourselves to the common task of building the road thnt will lead your peoples to peace, Wellbeing and stability. It [1293rd meeting, paras. 56 and 57.1 79. When 1 said these words two and a half months ago, 1 did net imagine that a few days later the incidents would begin again and complaints to the Security Council would continue, as if this bodyhadbeen set up for the sole purpose of sorting out the affairs of peoples whose maturity and wisdom should give them a greater respect for the law and a less inconstant dcvotion to peace. 80. The agenda of the Council ought not to offer the SOrry spectacle of the Arab and Jewish peoples occupying first place on the list of disorders, clashes and disputes and of the burden these disorders, clashes and disputes have placed on the body set up by the international community to maintain peace throughout the world, by settling disputes, avoiding dangers or, 111 the la& resort, curbing acts of aggression. 82. Documents S/7477 of 27 August 1966, S/7485 of 8 September 1966, S/7488 of 11 September 1966, ,Y/7536 of 10 October 1966 and S/7540 of 12 October 1966, submitted by Israel, and document S/‘74’70 of 23 August 1966, submitted by Syria, show how credulous ancl unrealistic it was of me to assume that the intense and bitter debate in the Council concerning the events of 12 to 14 July wouldproducea radical change of conduct by the Governments of Syria and Israel. 83. 1 do not regret my optimism. The fault lies with those who have not suited their actions to the clear intent of the Council by respectingthe General Armistice Agreement, concluded in 1949 and violated again and again, year after year, ever since the representatives of both Governments signed that sound and judicious instrument of peace and security. Be that as it may, we are now faced with the latest of the endless series of clashes between Arabs and Israelis. 84. 1 may say, in order to clarify my position with regard to this new incident [S/7536 and S/7540], that on the last occasion-Syrian complaints against Israel and vice versa-1 made an objective summary “with neither hate nor love”, according to Tacitus’ rule for the writing of history, which he might also have applied to the administration of justice. My conclusions then were as follows: (3 if the air attack on Syria of 14 July is considered in isolation it undoubtedly constitutes an illegal aggressive act; <d) if that attack is linked to the repeated acts of sabotage by Syria on 12 and 13 July, the responsibility of the State of Israel is considerably mitigated in the light of a number of attenuating circumstances (such as emotional reaction, patriotic fury at the nation’s injury, claim tobe exercising a legitimate right, reaction against recent acts of aggression and other unjust acts, injury to compatriots’ persons and property), especially if both the Syrian and Israel incidents are viewed against the background of hostility and hate which has prevailed in that region since 1947, as is borne out by the records of the United Nations; (c) it is obvious that XpriSalS cannot in any circumstances be recognized as a lawful instrument in international relations and that the illegal use of force constitutes a violation of the positive international law created in San Fran- 85. This position, clearly stated in my statement of 1 August, should throw some light on the events which have occurred hom that time until today. 1 categorically opposed reprisals. 1 unequivocally condemned the aggression against Syria. 1 did not seek to justify those who “took the law into their own hands” despite the existence of international bodies specifically empowered to judge and take action against any deed or act prejudicial to the sovereignty or security of any State Member of the international community. I did, however, declare that when dealing with accusations which were legally inseparable, the Council might, in condemning one separate act, behave partially and one-sidedly if it did not consider, as it must, a11 the facts and circumstances of both complaints in order to reach a just decision, assigning blame where appropriate to each Party-although blame might be heavier in some cases than in others and although a11 the incidents were marked by the same unpardonable hostility and hate which separates these very civilized peoples, to the shocked amazement and sorrow of the world, which has to watch them breaking their international obligations and constantly renewing their quarrels, increasingly intolerable to those who love peace and increasingly encouraging to those perverse people who anticipate war. 86. This same impartiality, the same spiritof justice, the same search for peace, the same love for both peoples, the same concern for their welfare Will guide my judgement and my conduct in studying the facts now before the Council. 87. 1 shall begin by congratulating the representative of Syria, Mr. Tomeh, who, by his presence among us, recognizes the authority of this body: this is an attitude which honours him and his Government, since it signifies a reversa1 of the regrettably subversive policy which was implicit in the statements from the Syrian side following the recent decision of the Council on 3August 1966 [1295thmeeting], such as, for example, the broadcast onRadio Damascus, the official Government station, on 15 August-twelve days “Citizens, the Syrian revolution Will not in future complain to the United Nations. We must never take a defensive or protesting attitude. It Will be Israel which Will be on the defensive and Will complain. The Syrian revolution, rallying to the slogan of a ‘people’s war’, Will always be ready to oppose aggression while it prepares to put that slogan into practice, The strategy which Syria is now following is a change from the defensive to the attacking position. Fellow-citizens, the time has corne to use the weapons which our people are paying for with their blood and bread to silence the enemy and destroy his morale. On a11 future occasions OUI‘ strategy Will be to attack the aggressor’s positions within occupied territory.” 88. On 18 August, another officia1 communiqué from Radio Damascus said: Yyria has decided to followits own road of popular revolutionary war. Syria has decided to begin the campaign.” 89. These statements amount to a categorical reply to the Council’s decision to reject a one-sided condemnation of Israel on the ground that it hacl been prevented from considering at the same time the acts of sabotage of which Syria was accused-mine-laying, death of a woman, injuries to a number of people, damage to property, etc.; it must be admitted, however, that the statements broadcast by Radio Damascus do not follow the sacred United Nations ritual and are not submitted inthe formof a communication addressed to the President for distribution as an officia1 document of the Council. 90. Nevertheless, this conduct was aggravated by the attitude taken by the Prime Minister of the Syrian Arab Republic when he made the following statement on 10 October 1966: “We are not guardiansof Israel’s safety. We are not resigned to holding back the revolution of the . . , 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.” 91. On 11 October, General Suwaydami, the Syrian Chief of Staff, made this grave statement: “These activities 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 act inside Jordan and inside Israel in order to defend our people and its honour. We shall mobilfze volunteers and we shall give them arms.” 92. This statement, considered together with that of the Prime Minister, Mr. Zu’ayen, seems to imply a new political doctrine whereby aggression against other peoples, not only against Israel, would become legal, force would be established as a principle in law and the supremacy of the individual sovereignty 94, In a subsequent discussion of this very serious political question, which is bound up with the future of the international community, he made the following points, which appear in volume II of the Anuario Uruguayo de Derecho International, the extreme legal significance of which needs no emphasis: “This arrogant attitude, which is typically Hegelian, is reminiscent of the stand taken by Philip II when he dismissed the arguments of the professors of civil law at the University of Coimbra, who, basing themselves on Roman Law, had decided in favour of the Duke of Braganza as the successor to the Portuguese throne. The King, rejecting the decision of his own jurists, stated that ‘empires are not given or taken in accordance with the opinions of jurists; they must be won and held by force of arms’.” Aréchaga went on to say: “There is a clear political philosophy underlying this rejection of the rule of law in judging certain decisive actions by States.” He adds that the attitude reflected in Philip 11’s remarks must be held to imply that: “States are not wholly bound by international law and every State has certain vital interests which are SO much more important that international law cannot impose upon them general egalitarian standards applicable to ail. “De maximis non curat praetor. This attitude would, however, lead to international anarchy for each State would thereby be empowered to define unilaterally which of its vital interests were not subject to the law. It would challenge the fundamental concepts of contemporary international doctrine and practice, which have definitely established the supremacy of international law, the principle that a11 States, whatever their power, are bound by definite standards of conduct andthe ability of the international community to appraise and judge the international conduct of any of its members in the light of those standards and to apply such principles by means of the admittedly imperfect institutions and procedure which the international community of today has adopted for the purpose.” 95. The Syrian position, as defined by its Prime Minister, its Chief of Staff and the officia1 government radio, is to proclaim the anachronistic and hostile principle of the unlimited sovereignty of the State, regardless of the institutions and procedures of the international community, and coincides with the attitude noted by Aréchaga in discussing Philip II 96. It is regrettable that Syria shouldhave threatened to do without the Security Council, simultaneously proclaiming aggressive war as a political doctrine. 97. Nevertheless, as 1 said on noting that Syria was represented in the Council in the person of Mr. Tomeh, 1 believe that a11 these statements which, when taken together, appear to be an expression of a coherent doctrine opposed to law and peace, lare, in reality, nothing more than a momentary and impassioned reaction to the disappointment caused by the Council’s attitude, which did not fulfil the expectations of the Syrian Government and people. As a result, some ideological stimulus was necessary to revive their spirits, which had been overwhelmed by incredulous despair. Only thus cari we explain such dire threats and dark designs by a people destined to play an exalted role in the community of civilized nations, 98. 1 would repeat that the mere presence of the Syrian representative at this Council meeting should be taken as an implicit recognition of the international community and a tacit reaction against a desperate attitude adopted at a time of stress and mortification. 99. The same arguments which, on 1 August [1293rd meeting], led me to condemn the aerial attack against Syria, today compel me to condemnthe acts of aggression perpetrated against Israel. 100. Nevertheless, 1 consider that before reaching any definite conclusion, the Chief of Staff, General Bull, should, as the representative of Israel, Mr. Abba Eban, the Foreign Minister, suggested himself, beinstructed to carry out an immediate and full investigation not only of the substance of the complaint which gave rise to this Council meeting [S/7536 andS/7540], but also of the reports circulating of possible concentrations of Israel forces on the Syrian frontier. This would enable us to base our conclusions on unchallengeable, proven facts. 101. It is obvious that a policy which is based on aggression and runs counter to the law deserves to be condemned. Nevertheless, 1 do not believe that the peace of the world and the stability of the Mfddle East stand to gain anything by such a condemnation. In the present emergency 1 shall abide by the samerealistio and humane attitude which 1 adopted two months ago when, addressing the members of this distinguished body, 1 said: “And to you, my colleagues in this Council, 1 would say, fully conscious of my responsibility with regard to this serious problem: the world hoped that our decision Will not take the form of condemnation or 102. It is true that my forecast didnot corne true; the incidents have, unhappily, recurred. It is also true that the solemnity of the debate did not serve as a warning to the parties, nor did it have the weight and effectiveness of a judgement, as 1 had naively expected. It is no less certain, however, that in view of the general world tension caused by the serious conflict in South-East Asia, the racial problems convulsing South Africa, the disturbances on the frontiers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the conflicts undermining the stability of the Middle East, a legally Perfect formula might not provide the necessary basis for a solution of this long-standing dispute between Arabs and Israelis. Let us postpone the final decisions for a while, without ignoring the dictates of legality, even though we could reach a decision now. Let us endeavour to apply a new procedure within the machinery of the United Nations itself. Let us respect the law but not yet take any final, irrevocable decision. 103. The statements of the representatives of Israel and Syria indicate that a peaceful solution may be possible. Both countries belong to the international community and are bound by a11 the obligations and commitments set forth in the Charter. In accordance with Article 40, a Commission was set up in July 1949 to supervise the Israel-Syrian truce, under the tesms of the Armistice Agreement signed in that same month. The Armistice bound both parties not to resort to military force in the settlement of the Palestine question, and to respect scrupulously that obligation. They likewise agreed to accept the Armistice “as an indispensable step toward the liquidation of armed conflict and the restoration of peace in Palestine.” Finally, article III is worthy of note in that it is more explicit than any other type of contractual formula which might be adopted now in settlement of the incidents in Palestine which we are considering; paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof read as follows: “No element of the land, sea or air, military or para-military, forces of either Party, including non-regular forces, shall commit any warlike or hostile act against the military or para-military forces of the other Party, or against civilians in “No warlike act or act of hostility shall be conducted 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.“3/ 104. 1 would say this to the representatives of Syria and Israel: it only remains for your Governments to fulfil the commitments which they undertook seventeen years ago in July 1949. There is no need for any new instrument; it would be superfluous. Al1 that is needed is a new attitude to the fulfilment of old obligations. Al1 that is necessary is a change in the minds of men, not further agreements, resolutions and judgements which would add nothing to the commitments already incurred. Even if such new instruments were adopted, they would remain a dead letter while those responsible for implementing them continued to be motivated by the snme spirit which has led them to leave their previous commitments unfulîilled. The latter have the same legal force and are just as relevant as in those distant days of 1949. 105. The solution is, first, to investigate the facts through the Chief of Staff; secondly, to strengthen the authority and prestige of the Truce Supervision Organization; thirdly, to urge the parties to honour their international obligations, whether statutory obligations as Members of the United Nations or contractual obligations as signatories of the 1949 Agreement; and fourthly, to cal1 upon the Governmcnts of Syria and Israel to carry out a psychological disarmament of their peoples as an essential steptowards the coexisténce of those States. 106. Our resolutions and our dedication to peacewill be in vain unless the peoples of Syria and Israel disarm in their hearts. 107. What is lacking, 1 repeat, is not better instruments to ensure peace but better men who Will not evade their responsibilities.

There is no other member of the Council on my list of speakers for this afternoon, but both the representatives of Syria and Israel yesterday asked to speak in exercise of their right of reply, and 1 shall presently cal1 upon them. 109. Before 1 do SO, Imight say that several members of the Council have already expressed their wish that there should be a United Nations report on the events that we are debating. Thus may I now, on behalf of the Council, ask thc Secretary-General to provide uswith a report, and, if possible, to indicate to us when such a report would be available.

We Will bear that information in mind when we consider later when we should resume our debate. 1 cal1 on the representative of Syria in exercise of his right of reply.

Allow me, first of ail, to thank the representatives of Argentina and the Netherlands for having expressed their sympathy as regards what happened to the Syrian Mission last Friday. 113. During the 1307th meeting of the SecurityCouncil on 14 October, several members of the Council who spoke expressed in clear terms their concern about the suspension of the activities of the Israel- Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission. The representative of France, Mr. Seydoux, put it this way when he stated: [The speaker continued in Trench.] “As my delegation has had occasion to point out several times, notably at the 1291st meeting of 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.1t (The speaker resumed in English.] You, Mr. President, expressed the same concern when you stated: II.. . my delegation would welcome an investigation by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, SO that impartial evidence canbe quickly presented to us. 1’ 114. Taking full note of these statements and in a spirit of co-operation with the Council, which my Government has always shown, 1 wish to state the following. At the time the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic submitted its complaint against the Israel attack of 14 July 1966, when the Israel Air Force attacked the Syrian population and territory, killing innocent civilians and destroying a development project, the Council requested a report from the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General submitted his report of 27 July 1966 entitled “Note by the Secretary-General on the efforts of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization to relieve tension along the armistice demarcation line between Israel and Syria” [3/74343. If 1 refer to this report now, it is because of three basic reasons: first, that since the presentation of that report the stand and attitude of the Syrian Government has not changed; aecondly, that the problem of the demilitarized zone continues to be the basis of what we are facing now; thirdly, that consultation with the Mixed Armistice 2 Subsequently circula& as document S/7553. 115. As the demilitarized zone with its contingent problems continues, therefore, to be a source of dispute, and as it is directly relevant to the situation we are now facing, 1 wish, as a background to the statement which 1 am ,going to give, to restate to the Council what 1 stated on 1 August 1966: “Replying to my letter of 24 May [S/‘7320], the Israel representative, in his letter of 29 May [S/7326], denied once more any aggressive intentions on the part of Israel. At that time, and after, the Syrian authorities were taking a11 necessary steps to relieve tension and co-operating fully with a11 the measures proposed by General Odd Bull, the Chief of Staff of the UnitedNationsTruce Supervision Organization, as cari be seen from the report. It does appear that a11 the steps taken by General Bull were SO that the problems of land cultivation could be studied in a calmer atmosphere. “Thus, one of the basic problems in this whole situation is that of land cultivation. The follow-up of the report throws the responsibility on the Israel authorities for the tension in the area. In fact, paragraph 5 of the report states that: “‘On 29 June, the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission was advised by the Israel delegation that Israel farmers would commence cultivating that day in the southern demilitarized zone a field (the so-called “booster field”), the limits of which had not yet been agreed upon’.” [1293rd meeting, paras, 72 and 73.1 The phrase %he limits of which had not yet been agreed upont’ proves in no uncertain terms not only the extent of the aggression, but the actual violation by Israel of the General Armistice Agreement. 116. The Syrian stand was one of co-operation with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. And it was at General Bull’s request that the Syrian Chief of Staff has promised that, in order to facilitate his efforts to relieve tension, there would be no Arab cultivation in certain disputed lands in the area immediately north of Lake Tiberias. 1 ended that statement by saying: “It is not necessary to stress exactly from where the obstruction was coming. The appeal of the Chief of Staff was made, in his own words, not to the Syrian authorities but to the Israel authorities, These cultivation problems and the incidents to which they have led are part and parce1 of the aggressive Israel policy in the demilitarized zone, which has been, throughout, a gradua1 process of forcing Arab farmers out of the demilitarized zone and by the 118. Recently, the Syrian Chief of Staff addressed a letter to General Bull-in fact, it was in the last few days-in which he confirmed the following. 119. First, where the Syrian authorities do notinany way prevent Israel farmers in the demilitarized zone from cultivating lands in the zone under Israel authority, the Israelis have been preventing, until now and by force, Syrian farmers from cultivating their lands in the demilitarized zone, which is under Syrian authority, in full contradiction of the Syrian-Israel Armistice Agreement. A letter, dated 18 September, issued by the Chief of Staff of UNTSO, contained the refusa1 of Israel to permit Syrian farmers from exercising their right to cultivate their lande.. 120. Second, the officia1 Syrian attitude has been to permit cultivation without any obstruction provided that our farmers are not prevented from the exercise of their right. 121. Third, General Bull has been officially informed, by a letter addressed to him recently, that we confirm once more the readiness of the Syrian Government to co-operate fully with the Mixed Armistice Commission. This has continued to be our attitude up to the present time. But Israel has completely boycotted the Mixed Armistice Commission, at least since 1955, for obvious reasons: that it wishes to avoidbeing condemned by the Mixed Armistice Commission for its acts of aggression, and it has been producing unilateral statements a11 the time containing alleged incidents, without ever giving a chance to the neutral authorities of the United Nations to present their views. 122. Fourth, Israel insists on charging Syria with the responsibility of individual acts of infiltration by Arab Palestinian refugees, regardless of their places of operation, and refuses any responsibility for the plight of those same refugees, numbering one and a quarter million, scattered over four countries, and for the continuance of their plight and tragedy. 123. Fifth, Israel rejected the proposals of the Chief of Staff, submitted by him on 18 September, as well aa our own proposals, to create a calm atmosphere on the demarcation lines, which would have enabled the farmers and other civilians to carry on their work in a normal manner. Theseproposals, submitted hy the Syrian authorities to the Chief of Staff, for the normalization of the situation on the demarcation lines, are still valid as far as the Syrian Government ia COncerned. 124. Sixth, contrary to paragraph 6, article V, of the Armistice Agreement, the Israel authorities con- 125. Several statements have been made today and a11 of them, in one way o’r the other, emphasize the necessity for a report from the Chieff of Staff of UNTSO. 1 wish first of all, on this occasion, to recall once more the request which was formulated by the Syrian delegation during the last series of meetings of the Security Council in July and early August, in which we asked the Secretary-General for a full and comprehensive report that would take into account the whole history of the demarcation lines from the beginning of the estabiishment of the Mixed Armistice Commissions up to thepresenttime. We are still awaiting the issuance of this report. 126. Several of the speakers who have spoken today emphasized in one way or the other paragraph 3 of article III of the Armistice Agreement. In view of the past record of Israel, 1 think it is appropriate that this reminder should primarily be addressed to the party that has broken the record in the United Nations, not only as regards the Security Council but as regards a11 the important bodies of the United Nations, in completely disregarding and forgetting United Nations resolutions. 127. Some of the members of the Security Council have also referred to the fact that the Israel Foreign Minister, Mr. Eban, said in his statement at the 1307th meeting that they are ready to have their borders and their demarcation lines examined by investigators. Such a statement should not mislead the Council. Firstly, as 1 stated on the last occasion, it was Mr. Eban himself who said on29 October 1956, that “there is going to be no war”; and on 30 October, the Israel armies were already invading Egypt. Secondly, it is a well known fact that in forty-eight hours Israel cari mobilize a quarter of a million soldiers. Thirdly, it is also a well known fact, about which the Israelis boast and make no secret, that their villages are armed citadels for attack and for aggression. 128. Some of the speakers also referred to the statements by the Israel Chief of Staff and the Israel Prime Minister about a “war of liberation”, and SO on. This whole thing reminds me of someone who says that in the Bible there is a verse that says: “There is no God”, forgetting that the full verse says “The ignorant man says in his heart ‘There is no God’“. There is a similar verse in the Koran which says “Approach not to prayer while you are drunk”. Someone could say that the Holy Koran says “Approach not to prayer”, forgetting the other part which says “while you are dru&“. 129. NOW, in a11 the statements that have beenquoted, if one goes to the Arabie text he finds this provision: “If attacked, we Will do” this and that. But the words “if attacked” are always omitted and only what cornes after the words “if attacked” is used. 131. 1 would not be doing justice to myself if 1 were to attempt to reply in detail to the statements made by the representative of Uruguay. He has a breadth of learning, such a great juridical mind, that it is with fear and trembling, as he used the two words of Kierkegaard’s book, that 1 dare to approach whatever he said. 132. First of all, there is no doubt that Syria felt a great deal of bitterness when, on 14 July and in a11 respect to the Security Council and the United Nations, we came to this important body and said that by Israel’s own admission, Syrian territory and Syrian people were attacked by the Israel Air Force, by irregular forces of the Israel army, and we provided a11 the evidence. In fact, there was no need for evidence. The Israel representative himself stated that they used napalm bombs. A woman and a Child were killed, nine civilians were wounded and a whole project was destroyed, And yet we went out of the Security Council completely empty-handed. 133. 1 wish to remind the representative of Uruguay of my closing statement then. TO the best of my recollection-1 do not have the exact text-1 said: Syria is a small country. We were oneof the founders of the United Nations. The majority of the Members of the United Nations are small countries. In a11 good faith we came to the Security Council and said, “Here is an aggression that was committed against us”. We got absolutely nothing. And then I posed the question-not only as far as Syria is concerned, but as far as concerns the fate of any small nation, of any small nation, for instance, like that of the representative of Uruguay-the question: If a small nation is attacked, what is the guarantee? Where are we to turn? 134. Exactly one month later, and in spite of everything that was said to the contrary, and as explained in my letter to the Security Council of 23 August 1966 [S/7470], the provocation came from Israel. An Israel heavy armoured launch went, beyond the defensive line that is permitted by the General Armistice Agreement. The Syrian forces did not openfire; they signalled with a flasl-ilight, warning the Israel heavy armouredlaunch from the defensive area. It was the Israelis who opened fire and .it was only after thirty-three minutes that the Syrian forces returned fire in self-defence, 135. The representative of Uruguay quoted Hegel. 1 wish we had much more time SO we could embark on a discussion of Hegel. However, it does seem to me, 1 27 136. Then too, according to Hegel, history consists of a thesis, an antithesis and a synthesis. TO stick to one part would make one very partial indeed, and I am sorry to say that in the presentation of the representative of Uruguay he saw history taking place in a vacuum, he saw history only partially. 137. One last point, and that is this. The representative of Uruguay referred time and again to the conflict between Arabs and Jews. 1 submit that this is not a conflict between Arabs and Jews. 1 submit thatwe have nothing against Jews as Jews. The Zionists are those with whom we are in conflict. 1 am not going to dwell at a11 on that aspect. 1 am sure that my friend the great jurist from Uruguay, Mr. Berro, Will appreciate the very great difference that exists between followers of a religion and followers of a narrow, rabid nationalism. 138. With your permission 1 would like to refer now to some of the statements that were made during the 1307th meeting of the Security Council. We heard a statement from Mr. Abba Eban and we also heard statements from the representatives of New Zealand and the United States. 1 assure you, I read and reread those statements to see if 1 could find any variante from what Mr. Eban had said, butwasunable ta do SO. If it cari be pointer3 out to me that the case is not SO, 1 Will gladly apologize in full respect and in a11 sincerity. 139. 1 wish to take a little bit of what the representative of New Zealand said. Referring to the statements attributed to Syrian spokesman, he said that they were left without answer, that the Syrianrepresentative had nothing to say on those statements. This is not the case. First of all, 1 said something about those statements, and too, 1 opposed those statements with statements of General Rabin, the Chief of Staff of Israel, and of Mr. Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister of Israel, which were communioated to the Security Council in a letter from me dated 15 September [S/7495], That letter was never answered, those statements were never refuted. Why is it that the representative of New Zealand took only those statements of the various Syrian spokesman, saying they were not denied, and passed over in complete obliviousness whatever has been said in Israel? Does he consider statements of the Israel leaders saying very clearly “our aimis the Syrian régime as such” as being love poetry, for instance, and that our statements arefullof bombshells? 140. Second, the site of one of the tributaries of the Jordan was attacked at least ten times by the Israelis, equipment being destroyed and people being wounded, and SO on. Some of those incidents we did not bring to the Security Council; we referred them to the 141. Third, the representative of New Zealand also spoke of absolute rights as far as the Israelis are concerne& New, the two words “rights” and “absolute” have been on the minds of the greatest thinkers of mankind from time immemorial. There is no absolute right without a duty and a responsibility that is completely and organically related to any absolute right or to any right. But when he speaks of the “absolute rights” of the Israelis, what about the absolute rights of the Arabs? They have been affirmed by the Universal Declaration of HumanRights, by the Charter of the United Nations and by scores of resolutions affirming the rights of those same refugees, whom he called murderers, to go back to their homeland. Are these not rights? Are they rights just for the Israelis in Palestine, in Israel, and no rights at a11 for the Arabs? Are the Arabs a different kind of human being from the Israelis? 1 wi.sh my friendfromNew Zealand would find answers to those questions. 142. 1 was really most sincerely gratified to find the Permanent Representative of the United States attending our meeting here-a judge and a scholar in his own right. 1 am sure no case could be better placed than in the hands of a scholar who is at the same time a judge. But there, are two points that I should like to take from the statement of the representative of the United States, Mr. Goldberg: “violence breeds violence” and the second one, the “principle of non-interference”. 143. ’ 1 must say that when the resolution on nonintervention in the interna1 affairs of States was discussed in the First Committee, my delegation supported it most strongly. But I said that the statement of the representative of the United States does not differ very much from the statement of Mr. Eban. How do 1 corroborate that claim? By the words of the chief representative of the United States himself. This is from a speech given by him on 3 May 1965 on the occasion of the seventeenth anniversary of Israel’s independence. These are some of the things that he said: “The United States was the first country in the world to recognize Israel as an independent nation in 1948 and was its principal sponsor for admission to the United Nations,” Correct. He goes on to say: “One of Israel’s foremost leaders, the Honourable Abba Eban, has described Israel’s Declaration of Independence in words descriptive of our ownDeclaration and Constitution . , .” 144. I claim that there is a complete identification between the representative of the United States and Zionism; in fact, he says it here himself. Of courses he qualifies it by saying, “1 am azionist also because I am loyal to the spiritual heritage of the Jewish people”. There is a very great difference between “spiritual Zionism lt and “political Zionism”. 145. It is one thing when every Christian believer looks to Palestine or to Jerusalem as beingthe source of his religion, and both Moslems and Christians believe that Palestine or Jerusalem is just that-but when from this spiritual Zionism we carry onto support the State of Israel as a political State, that is no longer spiritual Zionism. This is political Zionism-and the difference is very great. 146. 1 said, quoting the representative of the United States, “violence breeds violence”. The following is a quotation from what was said by Rabbi Eliazer Silver, President of the Agudath Israel of America on 31 January 1947: “TO those who believe that we ought to excommunicate the so-called terrorists in Eretz Israel” -referring to the Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and SO on--Y am forced to declare that if ex-communication could be applied to those whoare really responsible for the terror, that is to say, the British authorities, we would then apply the measures against the terrorists as well. However, we must bear in mind that the Irgunists and the others are really martyrizing themselves for the Jews and for Eretz Israel. n This is how Israel entered the area-by acts of terrorism, by bombing the King David Hotel and the 120 innocent people there. 14’7. But then the representative of the United States made a great deal of the fact that the United 8tates Government was the first to recognize Israel in 1948. 1 said that was ltcorrect”. The following is a passage from the Congressional Record of the United States of 18 December 1947, when a member of the United States Congress objected to the pressure brought about by the American Government in order to have the twothirds required majority for passing the resolutionon the partition of Palestine. The Congressman is Mr. Lawrence H. Smith, who asked the Speaker to insert the following: “Let’s take a look at the record, Mr. Speaker, and see what happened in the United Nations Assembly meeting prior to the vote on partition, A two-thirds vote was required to pass the resolution. On two occasions the Assembly was to vote and twice it was The decisive votes were cast by three small States. “These votes were sufficient to make the twothirds majority. Previously, these countries opposed the move. . . The pressure by our delegates, by our officiais, and by private citizens of the United States constitutes reprehensible conduct against them and against us. “3 148. Now, we spoke about infiltration and non-intervention. 1 have here a memorandum distributed to a11 Zionist leaders from Dr. Sidney Marks; it is headed: “Subject: Re the Syrian aggression against Israel.” It goes on to state: “Israel has requested an early meeting of the United Nations Security Council to consider complaints against Syria alleging repeated acts of aggression and charging that officia1 spokesmen for the SyrianGovernment had threatened Israel’s territorial integrity and political independence.” However, 1 must hasten to say that this goes back to 22 March 1962, but it shows the artificiality of the complaint that we are facing now, because these same words were repeated then. trouvent 149. The memorandum is long, but it speaks about the dispute on Lake Tiberias. It auotes an article in The ierusalem Post of 18 March, and states, about Lake Tiberias: “It was anreed between the British and French authorities, representing Palestine and Syria respectively at that tirne”-fourteen years ago- “that the fishermen of,. .‘I etc. nronos l’époque de .-.” 150. That shows what 1 have just stated: that when we speak about Palestine we know what we are speaking about. Those limits were set up by the British and by the French, not through the specifically expressed wishes of the Arabs. que, lorsque nous parlons par les Britanniques la voIonté expresse 151. The memorandum goes on, informing the Zionists in America what to do: “We shall have to prepare to fight to defend our water rights as much as our Territory.lV This was addressed to Americans of the Jewish faith in the United States, referring to Palestine as “our Territory ‘1. The memorandum states further: I’It was not an easy decision, for the Syrians were known to be both firmly entrenched and expecting retaliatory action”, etc. nistes fendre nos droits toire.” de confession a la Palestine, mémorandum car on savait que les Syriens ment retranchés des mesures 152. New, the concluding paragraph contained the instructions to the Zionist organizations in the United 152. tions suivantes a United Sktes of America: CongressIonal Record, vol. 93, part 9, November-Eecember 1947, p. 11652. tie, novembre-décembre 153. Now, cari the representative of the UnitedStates produce a similar document distributed by an Arab organization-if there is any Arab organization in the United States-to persons of Arab descent? 154. The representative of the United States also blames Syria for acts of infiltration. But may 1 remind him that we hear, time and again, of acts of sabotage committed by Cubans going from Florida to Cuba. How do they go to Cuba? We know what is happening and taking place there. Suppose-which is very unlikely-that the Syrian delegation were to corne to the Securiiy Council and accuse the United States of infiltration into Cuba. Then the representative of the United States would have to provide us with an answer. 155. Finally, a very great deal has been said about this war of liberation, but let me state once again in the clearest possible terms that the Arabs of Palestine are not the Syrians; they are not the Egyptians; they are not the Lebanese or the Jordanians. They are a people separate unto themselves. Their right of selfdetermination has been denied them. They are like any people in Asia or Africa that has fought and is fighting for its independence. 156, The status quo is aot the rule. As the Secretary of Labour of the United States, Mr. W. Willard Wirtz, said on 13. May 1966: “Change is our ally, and we face squarely those who fight change because the status quo has been good to them. The divine rightof Gcessful is as false a notion as the divine right of kings.” 157. The Arabs of Palestine are human beings. They understand this truth, They feel that they have human rights, that they are human beings, and’ that no one cari deny them those rights. And 1 assure you, in a11 sincerity and truth, that this is the greatest truth that has been said in this Council. 1 wish 1 had the Bible here, Mr. President, since you are a biblicalscholar, to quote St. Paul% statement to the Corinthians: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then shall 1 know even as also 1 am knownlt. And what we know is this: that the Arabs of Palestine are a definite people that has to be recognized some day; and the guilt committed against them is the greatest truth that has to be recognized, and everything else is just beating around the bush. 158. 1 reserve my right to further intervention. 161. In that statement [ 1295th meeting], the Assistant Secretary of State, who was representing the United States in the Security Council, quoted the position of the United States in this area, which, as 1 mentioned in my statement at the 1307th meeting, was an evenhanded statement in the interest of peace andsecurity in the area. That statement was nota new one, because it went back many years. In fact, Mr. Sisco’s statement referred to the statement made by Mr. Stevenson, my illustrious predecessor, on 9 April 1964 [llllth meeting], when Mr. Stevenson, speaking for my Government, stated: “the United States delegation has made it clear that it disapproves of provocative acts and retaliatory raids in situations such as that before us.” 162. Mr. Sisco also said the following at that time, with reference to the complaint of the Government of Syria-and he said it with my approval: “The decision of the Government of Israel to ‘respond’--in the words of the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Crganization-to these incidents was a depIorable one, given the availability of the United Nations machinery on the spot. My Government would have been willing to support a resolution expressing this judgement.. .” [1295th meeting, para. 86.1 163. We are dealing here with complaints-thattime, it was a complaint by the Government of Syria; this time, it is a complaint by the Government of Israel. It has always been my view, as a judge and as the representative of the United States here, that the case at hand should be dealt with. 1 was attempting in my statement to deal with the case at hand at this time, and to deal with it as we have dealt with other complaints before the Council. 164. Perhaps the representative of Syria has forgotten that 1 concluded my statement to the Council-he did nOt pay a great deal of attention to that statement, since he referred to others in his remarks-with an appeal to the Government of Israel as well as the Government of Syria to adhere to the Armistice Agreement, to co-operate in maintaining peace and security in the area. 165. 1 do not have to telltheCouncilwhat the position of the United States in this area has been for many years. 1 do not have to recall steps which the United States has taken, even against close friends and allies, 167. That was also in the speech referred to by the representative of Syria, but he didnot quote it. Indeed, 1 made another statement which the representative of Syria did not quote. 1 said that 1 was a Zionist in the same sense as other world statesmen were Zionists, by their own profession. 1 mentioned some names; 1 might have mentioned others, including some great Arab leaders, who have also made statements to the same effect, In any event, 1 do not apologize for that speech, 1 have not brainwashed myself as an individual. 168. But much more important than what 1 said in 1965 is what 1 say before the Council as the representative of the United States Government, announcing its policies, and what our other representatives say. What we bave said-and, by the way, this is not inconsistent with what 1 said in my private speech-is that the Government of the United States, in keeping with the action taken by the United Nations, supports the independence of ail States in the area: Israel, Syria and a11 the other Arab countries. We seek good relations with a11 countries. We’ seek to apply the provisions of the Charter and of United Nations resolutions which cal1 for non-interference in the affairs of other countries. Nothing 1 have ever said privately has been contrary to that, and nothing 1 have said officially has been or could have been contrary to that, because the policy of my Government is established by its commitments under the United Nations Charter, 169. As I said in the speech in May 1965, the statements I made in my persona1 capacity arose out of my spiritual heritage, out of a passage fromthe great prophet Isaiah which is engraved on a wall near the United Nations building and which, it Will be recalled, ends with the great words: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neithex shall they learn war any more”, That is my profound conviction, spiritual and non-spiritual. That is a conviction to which 1 am wedded and which 1 came here to maintain. 170. 1 shall not deal with the excursion, clearly irrelevant, into other matters: cuba, and SO forth.

1 cal1 on the representativeof Uruguay in exeroise of the right of reply.

1 shall be as brief as possible, The representative of Syria has alluded to my statement. 1 have the highest esteem for him and it is because of that esteem that 1 am going to exercise the right of reply. 1 think that Mr. Tomeh has been unfair to me. 1 do not wish to imply any reproach to our distinguished colleagues in the booths who are translating Spanish thoughts into English or French-since we have no Arabie interpreters here-but it may have been a case of traduttore, traditore, since the representative of Syria did net perfectly understand my meaning. 173. As 1 shall brieily point out to the representative of Syria, 1 was very explicit, very fair and very impartial. When referring to the Syrian complaint against Israel in my statement during the meeting on 1 August last, 1 said: l e* it is obvious that armed reprisa18 cannot in any ciroumstances be recognized as a lawful instrument in international relations and that the illegal use of force constitutes a violation of the positive international law created in San Francisco. These reprisals are known in modern criminal law as ‘taking the law into one’s own hands’.” [1293rd meeting, para. 47.1 1’ 174. That was the statement 1 made on 1 August 1966. A short while ago [paras. 99 and 100 above], in referring to the charge of aggressionbrought by Israel against Syria, 1 said the following: “The same arguments which, on 1 August [1293rd meeting], led me to condemnthe aerial attack against Syria, today compel me to condemn the acts of aggression perpetrated against Israel. ftNevertheless, 1 consider that before reaching any definite conclusion, the Chief of Staff, General Bull, should, as the representative of Israel, Mr. Abba Eban, the Foreign Minister, suggested himself, be instructed to carry out an immediate and full investigation not only of the substance of the oomplaint which gave rise to this Council meeting [S/‘7536 and S/7540], but also of the reports circulating of ~OSsible concentrations of Israel forces on the Syrian frontier. This would enable us to base our conclusions on unchallengeable, proven facts.” 175. These are two completely different attitudes: on the former occasion 1 expressed condemnation, “Nevertheless , . , 1 believe that a11 these statementsl’ -1 was referring to those of the Prime Minister, the Chief of Staff and the officia1 radio- “which, when taken together, appear to be an expression of a coherent doctrine opposed to law and peace, are, in reality , nothing more than a momentary and impassioned reaction to the disappointment caused by the Council’s attitude, which did not fulfil the expectations of the SyrianGovernment and people. As a result, some ideological stimulus was necessary to revive their spirits, which had beenoverwhelmed by incredulous despair.” 177. I would note that I’myself sought for the justification, with the essentialaim of not offendingsyria and of being fair, SO that the legal principles which have always determined my position, and which still determine it today, should not conflict with the feelings of the Syrian people or their representative here. It is regrettable that my words were not understood inthat sense. 178. Mr. Tomeh also said that I had digressed into certain fiel& without full knowledge of a11 the facts, taking a one-sided position, 1 did no such thing. Wbat happened is very easy to explain. Mr. Tomeh is animated by a certain feeling, the same feeling which moves his people and obscures their thinking. 1 am not dominated by any feeling other than a feeling for justice and law, which guides my thinking. That is where the difference lies. 179. He also said that 1 hadquoted Hegel and he made certain observations in that connexion. The philosophy of Hegel was not quoted by me: the reference came in a quotation from the distinguished Uruguayan commentator Mr. Jiménez de Aréchaga. It is true that 1 might have quoted him, not in order to substantiate my view of the international juridical community but precisely in order to reject his view, since 1, as a member of that international community, would like to see it guided more and more by law and less and less by politics. 1 corne from a small country and my only desire is that the sole weapon used in relations between States and in disputes between peoples should be the international community itself. In this 1 will not yield one iota to the representative of Syria, nor to any other representative in the United Nations, whatever the size of his country. 1 have a clear concept of my international duty and international responsibility as the representative of a country which was born fighting for the law, which lives fighting for the law and, if need be, Will die fighting for the law.

1 intervene not to exercise my right of reply at this meeting but to ask that I be put on the list SO that 1 may exercise it more fuIly at our next meeting, 1 think time is desirable, in order that 1 might not begin by using such terms as those used in the hit-and-run attack by the representative of Syria, in which he misrepresented every point that I had made. It might give time to reduce the feeling towards his remarks, SO that 1 might even quote Gilbert and Sullivan and say that his remarks were merely “corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and ùnconvincing narrative”, or 1 might even learn from the gentleness of the representative of Uruguay, who said that the representative of Syria did not entirely catch his meaning. 182. However, I assure him that 1 Will at the next meeting take up the three points he raised. 1 Will take up his allegation that 1 made no reference to Israel statements. I shall refer him in more detail to the Verbatim record of the 1307th meeting, where at the beginning of my statement 1 referred precisely to a statement by the Chief of Staff of the Israel army. 1 Will take up his allegation that I seemed at the last session of the Council to be uninterested in the Israel attack of 14 July on Syria, and 1 will then refer him in more detail to the very strong condemnation found in paragraph 81. of the 1292nd meeting, 1 will take him up also in more detail on his third point, where he alleges that 1 referred to some absolute right of the Israelis-a statement which 1 have never made at any Urne, having merely insisted on two occasions on the duty imposed by the Charter on a11 Member nations to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or independence of any State and having said that that duty on a11 Members of the United Nations is an absolute one. At no time have 1 mentioned any absolute rights other than this, for Israel or any other State, nor have 1 ever used the name of Israel in connexion with that particular duty. 183. On the next occasion 1 should like to deal with those niatters and also to state our central position once more, in the hope that the representative of Syria Will on that occasion catch my thought entirely. In the meantime 1 might ask him, if he does quote me or other representatives, to do SO with tare. He maY even if he is quoting the Bible, quote that with equal tare.

I cal1 on the representative of Israel’to exercise his right of reply. 186. It need hardly be said that this is a very grave indictment and that it has obvious implications forthe peace of the area and the viability of the armistice rhgime. The Council is entitled to expect from the representative of Syria clear andunequivocal answers on behalf of his Government ta the crucial questions which have been raised and, as has already been pointed out here, no such answers were forthcoming in the Council’s previous debate two months ago, and no such answers have been forthcoming in this debate. Instead, we have heard from the representative of Syria two elaborate, evasive statements: one on 14 October [1307th meeting], and one this afternoon. 187. My delegation does not propose to comment in detail on a11 the quotations or counter-allegations made by the Syrian representative, although we reserve the right to do SO if necessary. We certainly have no intention of getting drawn into a discussion on the following list of topics: the demilitarizeà zone: land cultivation problems; the Arab refugee problem; the Israel police boats on an Israel lake; the historical associations between Palestine and Syria; whether Napoleon represented the absolute; Judaism; Zionism; the United Nations partition decision of 1947; the behaviour of Cuban exiles, or any other of the myriad matters which were put forward by the Syrian representative this afternoon in order to avoid dealing with the problems which really concern the Council at this moment, And a11 these matters are not the issues before the Council at this moment. 1 believe that the majority of members of the Council are unwilling to be distracted by these diversions from the central issue which has already taken such definitive shape in the debate. 188. Before 1 deal with that issueoncemore,I should like to clear up one point which has recurred in this debate and in the letters which have been sent to the 189, In September, General Rabin wrote a long article in the Israel army magazine Bamahane dealing with a nurnber of matters of professional militaly interest. In the course of that article he said the following, which is translated from the Hehrew: ++The counter-measures to the Syrian deeds, whether these be sabotage or border hostilities, bave to be directed against those who perpetrated them and against the rggime which supports these acts. In this instance the abject is to bring about a change in the policy of the régime an9 the removal of the motives for these acts.++ 190. It is true that that statement may have given rise to some misunderstanding, and the Prime Minister of Israel, who is also the Minister of Defence, therefore thought it as well to clarify it, and on 19 September he put out a statement which reads as follows: ++Certain remarks by the Ch.ief of Staff have not been interpreted correctly. Ms. Eshkol said that after a conversation with the Chief of Staff he was satiufied that the formulation did not express Generai R.nbin+s intention. The Prime Mini.ster went on: ‘Israel does not interfere in the interna1 affairs of other countries and their r&imes.+” 191. That attitude and policy of my Government was stated and repeated and amplified withthe full authority of his office and his Government by thelsrael Foreign Minister before this Council last Friday night; and that remains the policy of my Government. 192. New, Mr. President, what is the central issue which has emerged in this debate? At the Council’s meeting last Friday, my Foreign Minister referred, first of all, to Syria+s obligations towards Israeland I repeat, towards Israel-under the Charter of the United Nations, which Syria and Israel signed; Mr. Eba.n said: tt .n. we propose that both 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 political independence and territorial integrity. 1 give that assurance to Syria on Israel+s behalf. 1s the Syrian representative here prepared to affirm it in relation to Israel?++ jl307th meeting, para. 52.1 That is a perfectly straightforward question which admits of a perfectly simple answer. We are waiting for that answer, as the Council is no doubt awaiting it. 193. Mr. Eban also listed the specific commitments which derive from the Armistice Agreement signed 194. Of special importance in the present context is article III, paragraph 3, which has rightly received considerable emphasis in the statements made to the Council, and 1 shall once more quote it: “No warliko act or act of hostility shall be conducted 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.“!Y 19 5. Mr. Eban asked whether Syria would specifically reaffirm article III, paragraph 3, of the Armistice Agreement and pledge to the Council its determination to work actively in accordance with it. And he asked quite specifically: “1s the Syrian Government prepared, as we are, ta speak and work against the existence, the training and the operation of guerrilla units against any neighbouring State?” [m., para, 53.1 196. Again, this is a perfectly straightforward question which admits of a perfectly simple answer, TO that question too my delegation and the Council still await a clear and affirmative answer, The need for such an answer is even more inescapable in the light of the recent statements by Syrian Government leaders which have not been denied and which, on the face of it, appear to give a negative answer to these questions. These statements amount in effect to a unilateral repudiation by Syria( of its Charter obligations and of its Armistice commitments. This is an issue of such a crucial nature that the Council is entitled to insist on the position and policy of the SyrianGovernmentbeing formally and fully clarified by its representative seated at this table, I say again that the issue is inescapable and that the representative of Syria cannot evade it or obscure it, however much he may wish to do SO. 197. TO our great regret the statement made by the representative of the Soviet Unionatthe 1307thmeeting has not reflected the same willingness to examine the israel complaint on its merits as have marked statements by other Council members. More thanany single Member State, the Soviet Union has always insisted that the authority, the powers and the availability of the Security Council must be rigidly maintained inmatters 6/ Officia1 Records of the Securiiy Council, Fou& Year, Special Supplement No. 2. 198. It is revealing to note that atthe 1307th meeting, shortly before the representative of the Soviet Union made his statement, my Foreign Minister had given the Council categorical assurances on this very matter. Mr. Eban further informed the Council that we were agreeable to General Bull’s carrying out an inspection on the ground and that we hadalready indicated that to General Bull. I am informedthat such an inspection on both sides of the line Will take place the day after tomorrow and, if 1 understood rightly the reference to this in Mr. Berro’s eloquent statement this afternoon, he suggested that it would be helpful to the Council if the findings of such an inspection would be made available to the Council. My Government would certainly welcome that, 199. One would have thought that, speaking after the Israel Foreign Minister, Mr. Fedorenko would have made some reference to the Foreign Minister’s declaration on this matter. The attitudes taken here by Council members concern not only what goes on in this chamber, but concern also what goes on in the Middle East, and we would like to believe that the influence of a11 members of the Security Council, and certainly of a11 its permanent members, would be exercised in a fashion that would allay tensions, avoid conflict, reinforce the existing political and territorial structure in our region and maintain the integrity of the Armistice Agreement. 200. Lastly, 1 corne to the statement made this alternoon by the representative of the United Arab Republic. After listening to that statement, my delegation cannot but ask itself what prompted him to request Permission to intervene in this debate. 201. Some years ago Egypt and Syria entered into a union. The United Arab Republic, as this union named itself, then had to be held responsible forthe CarrYing out of Syria’s obligations under its 1949 Armistice Agreement with Israel. But that hasty marriage endsd in an equally hasty divoroe. Syria resumed its indspendent existence and its separate membership in 202. On the contents of Mr. El-Kony’s statement, I shall confine myself to two comments. One relates to the Sinai campai@ of 1956. It would be unwise and unwarranted to draw any analogy between the events which led up to that campaign and the difficulties Israel is at present experiencing with its Syrian neighbour. It is, however, a matter of historical record that before the events which led to the Sinai campaign, there was a long period of turbulence and tension on the Israel-Egyptian border caused by the Egyptian policy at that time of sending armad guerrilla groùps called Fedayaen on raids across the border into Israel for the purpose of mine-laying, sabotage and murderous attacks upon our civilian population. And then too, the excuse and the alibi was that these were the spontaneous actions of Palestine refugees for whom Egypt could not be held responsible. There is nothing original about that story either. 203. After the Sinai campaign Egypt stopped these Fedayeen raids and has not resumed them in the decade that has past since then. 1 infer no conclusions from these facts. They are mentioned merely to show that the ‘kind of guerrilla activity now promoted by Syria across our northern border was at that time promoted by Egypt across our southern border. It was dangerous then to peace and security, and it is dangerous now to peace and security. It cari be terminated by Syria now, as it has in fact been terminated by Egypt ever since 1957. 204. My second and last comment is to note with some astonishment that it is the representative of the United Arab Republic who has corne to this table to charge Israel with imperialist and colonialist designa and with plans for military expeditions. It is not Israel that maintains an army of military occupation in another country 1,000 miles away from its borders. It is not Israel that has been fighting a squalid colonial war in that country, killing thousands of civilians who are snpposed to be the blood brothers of the invaders. It is not Israel that has imposed its domination by force on another people, appointing and firing its Governments and gaoling national leaders for daring to plead for self-rule in their own land. 205, The PRESIDENT: I understand that the representative of Jordan wishes to raise a point of order.

1 would askthe representative of Israel to continue, and I would ask him naturally also to restrict what he says to the subject under discussion.

Certainly, Mr. President. I have said what I wanted to say on this point, but 1 said it not because we sought to raise this matter on our own initiative, but simply because when the representative of another Member State appears before the Council in order to make false charges against my country, 1 would assume that he is willing to submit the record of his own country to public scrutiny. 209, The PRESIDENT: 1 have no other speakers who have asked to speak today-except the representative of the Soviet Union, who, 1 note, has just asked to speak now. However, I have a request dated 17 October 1966 [S/7554] from the representative of SaudiArabia to make a statement to us this evening, with the permission of the Council. 1 Will first ask the representative of the Soviet Union to speak.

1 shall be very brie& 1 asked for the floor in order to reply to certain semarks made during the discussion in the Council, in particular by the representative of Israel. 211. In the first place, the representation of Israel, Mr. Comay, complainedthat certain delegations represented in the Security Council, including the Soviet delegation, paid insufficient attention to the statements made by the officia1 representatives of Israel, inparticular the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In this connexion we should like to ask whether the distinguished representative of Israel himself pays attention to the statements of other delegations, or Will pay any attention in general to statements made by anyone here. 212. We have just heard a very detailed and convincing statement by the representative of Syria, Mr. Tomeh. It would be very difficult to refute his arguments ox deny that he established his case, Why should the representative of Israel remain deaf and dumb to what has been SO convincingly expounded by the representative of Syria? We think that the officia1 representative of Israel, who has been permitted to take a seat at this table, should weigh very carefully and responsibly the statement by the representative of Syria. 213. Secondly, the representative of Israel also expressed dissatisfaction that the Soviet delegation had not referred to the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel at the 1307th meeting. We listened attentively to the representative of Israel at that meeting and at this meeting. We see no lack whatsoever of verbal statements and declarations by 214, We wonder what value cari be placed on words and declarations here if they are not only not corrobcrated by actions but completely belied by them. In paxticular, the representative of Syria has repeatedly, SO many times, during the discussion of relations between Syria and Israel, emphasized here in the Council that Israel has ignored and sabotaged the work of the Mixed Armistice Commission, 215. Does this not indicate that IsraeT’s position is inconsistent and contradictory, if we are comparing declarations and actions? When indeed Will Israel finally consider it necessary to co-operate with or participate in the work of the Mixed Armistice Commission? When will we see an end to the sabotage about which the representative of Syria spoke? Those would not simply be words but actions. 216. Furthermore, before csiticizing the position of any delegation in the Security Council-including the Soviet delegation-one should at least pay due attention to its statements-in this case the statement made by the Soviet delegation-in this Council. 1 have the impression that Mr. Comay has not taken the trouble to study our statement carefully. In that statement we spoke unequivocally of the highly dangerous situation created by the actions of extremist circles in Tel Aviv on the bcrders of Syria and other countries. 1s there any need for me to repeat what1 said in that statement, namely, that the Soviet Union is in no way indifferent to this dangerous situation, which is very close to its southern borders? 217. Why, then, has Mr. Comay not considered it necessary to place the proper value on that statement? Why, in his statement today, did he speak only of one thing and forget the most important? We are not casting our words to the wind to no purpose. We hope that the representative of Israel, when circumstances allow him, and we think it is never too late, will correct this omission andfamiliarize himself with the meaning, the significance of the statement made by the Soviet delegation at the 1307th meeting,

1 would suggest to the Council that, since we must resume this debate on a date to be agreed among us after further consultation, it might be best to postpone any further exchange of replies until we meet again, 219. 1 would oome now to the question raised by Mr. Baroody, My attention has been drawnto the provisions of rule 14 under which, when such an application is made to be heard or to participate in our discussion, a period of notice shall normally be given. However, 1 believe it to be true that the Council has on several occasions decided to waive that requirement. Therefore 1 think it is a matter to be decided at the wish of At the invitation of the President, Mr. J. M. Baroody (Saudj Arabia) took a place at the Council table.

I now invite the representative of Saudi Arabia, who has asked to make a statement on the subject under discussion, to make that statement which he wishes to present to us.

1 mustthankyou, Mr. President, and a11 the members of the Council for affording me an opportunity to make a statement ahout the Palestine question. The door, it seems, has been opened by the parties concerned, and Ifeel compelled, as one who has been a party to the dispute on this question since 194’7, to express the views of my Government lest many around this table think that Saudi Arabia is keeping aloof from this question. 1 do request those around this table to bear with me inasmuch as 1 bore with them the other day when 1 had a lunch scheduled and they did not appear until2 o’clock. 1 will have to take my time, and 1 hope that their appetites Will be whetted by the time 1 finish my speech. 222. May 1 be allowed to say that Saudi Arabia in 1947 sent a contingent of 2,000 men, three-quarters of whom met with martyrdom, over the Palestine question. 1 happen to be old enough to have lived with this question since 1920, and you Will find that 1 am not speaking from books but from persona1 experience, as I was one of those Arabs who participated, in the 192O’s, in the 1930’s and ever since, in trying to find a solution to the Palestine question. I am not going to engage in accusations and attempts at inorimination because 1 do not think such a procedure Will get US anywhere. 223, On the other hand, let me state forthwith that this is not an isolated incident with which you are selzed today. Somebody mentioned how many Security Council meetings have been devoted to the Palestine question. It is always the pious hope of those who uaurped Palestine that they would find peace in Palestine by enlisting the help of certain great Powers. Let me make myself clear at the beginning SO that there may be no misunderstanding why 1 am speaking now. 1 am speaking for the benefit of those who do nOt know what happened in 1920 and before that, and for that matter who, even if they have the inclination t0 dehe into the records, do not have the time what with the avalanche of business with which we are seized in this Assembly. 224. On the other hand, I must make it clear that there is no ranoour or hatred in my statement which I shall make about this thorny problem, but I Will try as humanly as possible to be objective. Iam fortunate, Mr. President, in speaking during a month in which you are presiding, and YOU will understand, in your Per- 226. On the other hand, the Sykes-Picot-Sazonof agreement partitioned those parts of the Ottoman Empire-which they wrested from the Turks, and We helped fight the Turks-into mandateswhichproved to be nothing less than colonialism in disguise. Later, it became naked colonialism. I submit, had it not been for the Second World War, the acceleration of the independence of that area and many parts of Asia and Africa would not have been effected. We wouldstill be under some sort of Mandate, 227. 1 must immediately assure this Council that there is no hatred between Arabs and Jews. In fact, the Jews carne from Ur, north Mesopotamia, which today is Iraq. It was a Semitic tribe with Abraham, the Patriarch of all-in the Bible, of the Jews, Christians and Moslems. Abraham was not called a Jew, as you know; it was rather the son of Abraham, Jacob who-incidentally he is one of the prophets of Islammoved from Ur of the Chaldees southward through the land of Canaan; and Jacob had some Canaanite concubines-he had some wives and some Canaanite and Aramaian concubines; they a11 belonged to the same tribal system there. I do not know about the purity of certain bloods-1 Will corne to that later. 228. The Word ‘Jew’* was derived from the name of the fourth son of Jacob; his name was Judah, The Jews were Semites like the Arabs-and the Arabs arementioned in the Bible. The Arabs did not begin with Islam, Islam is only about fourteen centuries old. If one goes to the l3ible one will find that the Arabs are in the Bible. One day, if archaeologists become zealous in uncovering the relies of the past, they may find civilizations in Arabia going back perhaps to 6,000 years before Christ, The Jews and the Arabs were one people. There was no difference between Arabs and Jews. That was before Islam and aftex Islam. Racially , ethnically and culturally they were one peop]e. Hebrew and Arabie are SO akin to each other that when 1, who do not know Hebrew, heur PeOPle talking in Hebrew, I cari understand the gist of their conversation. Sir, you are a scholar and you know what 1 mean. 230. Unfortunately, in those days, any invader who had a mind of his own, if his advice was not heeded, could kil1 a whole population. And there was a prophet in those days, none other than Jeremiah, who warned the Jews not to resist. Buttheirkingopted for another course of action, This explains the first Diaspora, when many of the Jews in those days were uprooted and taken to Babylon. They were our brothers, those Jews-not cousins-brothers. They came from the area just as we. 231. 1 commend to any one who would like to feel the drama of those days a play, written by none other than that great Jewish writer, Stefan Zweig. It is a very moving play about how the Jewish people did not heed the advice of the prophet Jeremiahhence the lamentations of Jeremiah in the Bible. It is entitled to be called “the poetry of tragedy”. 232. The descendants of those Babylonian Jews were none other than the Iraqi Jews, who were Arabs- 80,000 of them. In the time of the caliphs, as you know from history, whenever the chief rabbi in Baghdad wanted to worship, in his honor the caliph sent his royal guard to accompany the chief rabbi to the synagogue, They were brothers-net cousins, 233. And it is no secret that, in relatively recent times, the Jews in Baghdad-the Arab Jews 1 should like to cal1 them, because they spoke Arabie, they had the same traditions, they worshiped the same God, they wore the same clothes-constituted the higher echelon. Not in the government alone; some of them were members of the Government, but they were the financiers of Baghdad, and of Iraq for that matter, and they became victims, subsequently, of the Zionist movement. 234. ln Europe, unfortunately, there was no such thing as religious tolerance as we had known it when the Arabs were enjoying the high plateau of civilizatien. Nationalism in the Middle Ages was beginning to take root, and the Pope at that time was the religous as well as temporal chief of Europe. Europe at that time was in the really dark ages. The agriculture there was insufficient to feed the people of Europe: and there was that spirit of nationalism which had to be retarded, “Let none of your possessions detain you, nor solicitude for your family affairs , since the land which you inhabit is too narrow for your large population, nor does it abound with wealth; it furnishes scarcely food for its cultivators. Hence, it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war and frequently you perish by mutual wounds e “Let, therefore, hatred depart from among you and let quarrels and war cesse. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre, wrest the land from the wicked race”-the wicked race-“and subject it to yourself. If 236. The history of the Crusades, which inflicted SO much suffering on both East and West is too familiar to bear repetition. 1 do not have to go into that era; 1 do not have to relate how chivalrous Saladin was , how Richard the Lionhearted, after twice promising Saladin that he would not rebel against him, broke his Word-the famous Richard the Lionbearted! It is a sad, sad story. 237. But we should not glance back. The Jews were consistently persecuted in Europe, If there were Arabs at that time, 1 am sure they would not have discriminated against the Jews. The Arabs have been persecuted, whenever they were in sufficient numbers, 238. SO this led to the dream of TheodoreHerzl, who promulgated his famous Zionist creed in Base1 in 1897-a beautiful dream; nothing wrong withit. He was an author, a friend who encouraged Stefan Zweig. 1 have friends who knew Stefan Zweig; 1 myself did not have the privilege of knowing him, although 1 have read almost everything he wrote. It was really a shock to me when 1 learned that he committed suicide in Brazil in 1940. He gave up,‘it seems, when the Second World War broke out. He said, “It seems that humanity is going down the drain”. 1 remember that the same Stefan Zweig and Romain Rollandan Austrian and a Frenchman-both left their homeland during the First World War to fight for peace. 239. When Herzl, who had given Zweig a job on his paper, asked Zweig to become a Zionist, he said: “We have too many ‘isms’ in the world. 1 am for one ‘ism’ only-humanism’f. And he was as good as his Word. He fought for humanism, and he died a broken man, dejected. He committed suicide in Brazil, because he had lost faith in humanity. 240. The abject of that Herzl declaration was to provide a home for the Jews, of Europe mostly. He said: As long as there are Jews in Europe, they Will be persecuted, It is therefore high time that there should be an ingathering of a11 the Jews of the world in one territory-and not necessarily Palestine. At that time the British had acolony called 241. Then that arch fiend came on the scene: none other than Hitler. He persecuted not only Jews, but anyone who was against him. Ask the Ukrainians how many millions they lost during the war. Anyone who was not of that northern breed was an outcast, to be either killed or sterilized. We, the Arabs, were also regarded by Hitler as being beneath the dignity of man. He was mad. 1 do not know whether his madness was hatched just like that; 1 think the Versailles Treaty had something to do with it. That is another subject. The Versailles Treaty caused Hitler’s madness, and the German people identified their frustration with his intransigence. I am talking facts. 1 am not going to the books. 1 lived through that era, just as you did, Mr. President. Let us put things in their proper perspective, 242. NOW, Herzl’s dream has not been realized. 1 was in Paris on 26 August 1966, and I read a news item in the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune. The source of that item was Jerusalem (Israel Sector), The story read as follows: “August 26. UPI. Nearly 17 per cent of the world’s Jewish population lived in Israel at the beginning of 1965, according to the figures in the new Israel Statistical Yearbook. At the end of 1964, the number of Jews in the world was 13,250,000, the Yearbook says. It says that in 1855 the Jewish population of the world was nearly 5 million. This figure had risen to 17 million by the eve of World War II. At the end of the war, the Jewish population was down to 11 million, the Yearbook says.” Thus, twenty years after the establishment of that State, only 17 per cent of the Jewish population of the world is in Israel; 83 per cent is outside of Israel. 243. As everyone knows, since Hitler died and the United Nations came into being religious intolerance and racial discrimination have been considered abhorrent and against the principles of the Charter, Many declarations and even convenants have been promulgated to ensure that an end is put to such practices. The situation in Europe now should not be the same as it was in Hitler’s day and in pre-Hitler days, when the Jews were subjscted to systematic persecution. 244. 1 have said that the Jews are our cousins, 1 am speaking about the oriental Jews. Representatives here know very well that in the tenth Century or soat least until the eleventh Century-there were Mongol and Asian tribes that inhabited what is today southern Russia, After the seoond Diaspora-that is, the Roman Diaspora-many of the Sephardim Jews were scattered in the Balkans and the Iberian Peninsula, 1 am not taking the chronological order of the dispersion. Be- 245. Then we find on the scene the emergence of Russia, culminating in Rurik and other emperors before the Romanoffs, who subjugated the Jews. Those are the Jews who introduced Zionism into the world. They were European Jews. Al1 our ills have corne from Europe and are still coming firom Europe. ManY of my friends are Jews. They were withme at school. There was no talk about Zionism, even when Zionism was being propagandized, especially in the United Kingdom and the United States. The torch-bearers of Z ionism were European Jews. Ethnologically they were not Semites. They had a Semitic religion to the extent that an Englishman has a Semitic religion but need not be a Semite; to the extent that an African from the heart of Africa may be a Moslem, may be dark, may have a Semitic religion, but is not a Semite. There is nothing wrong in being of a different ethnological origin. There is only one race: homo sapiens. Anthropologists tel1 us that the hominids no longer exist. There is only one race, whether black, yellow, white, pink or brown. We a11 belong to one race: homo sapiens. 246. The torch-bearers of Zionism were Europeans. 1 do not want to go into what influence they wielded on the Government of the United Kingdom and on the Government of the United States, but 1 was almost tempted to spend $150 to buy a hundred copies of Mr. Truman’s second edition in paperback to distribute here and in the General Assembly, with a11 the passages that show how patently clear it was that Israel was created by the United States. The United Kingdom found that the mandate was becoming too hot and threw the whole thing in the lap of the United Nations. 1 was sitting in the General Assembly during itS first special session in 1947 at Lake Success, But it is a11 in the records. I may be allowed to read only a few passages for the benefitof those who have patience. If anyone has no time to go and buy Mr. Truman’s second edition of memoirs, let him apply to my dele- @ion and 1 shall send it by special messenger. 247. Mr. Truman says in chapter 10: “In his meeting with King Ibn Saud early in 1945, Mr. Roosevelt promised the King that as regards Palestine he would make no move hostile to the Arab people and would not assist the JewS as against the Arabs. “1 was fully aware of the Arabs’ hostility to Jewish settlement in Palestine, but, like many “The Zionists . . , were impatiently making my immediate objective more difficult to obtain. They wanted more than just easier immigration practices. They wanted the American Government to support their aim of a Jewish State in Palestine. Ifs/ 248. In chapter 11 he says: l, I.. the Jewish extremists in Palestine werecontinuing their terrorist activities. And top Jewish leaders in the United States were putting a11 sorts of pressure on me , , , on behalf of the Jewish aspirations in Palestine 119/ . 249. On Yom Kippur, the Jewish holiday falling on 4 October 1946, Mr. Truman declared that 100,000 immigrants should be allowed to enter Palestine, 250, Let us not blame our colleague, Mr. Goldberg. Nobody should blame him. This was the policy of the United States. 1 do not know what Mr. Goldberg was doing then-he was Secretary of Labour or on the Bench. This was American policy. Mr. Truman is not a Jew by religion, unless he goes back to Jewish origins-1 do not know. Let us not blame Mr. Goldberg. He has a11 my sympathy, my admiration and my respect, and 1 say it publicly, because itis very diffieuh for a man of the Jewish faith sometimes not to express his sentiments, That has nothing to do with it. It was the policy of the United States Government before we even knew of Mr. Goldberg-with a11 due respect to his illustrious career in this country where he has distinguiohed himself. 251. In chapter 12 Mr. Truman says: “The facts were that not only were therepressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. 1 do not think 1 ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as 1 had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders-actuated bypolitical motives and engaging in political threats-. . .annoyed me. Some were even suggesting that we pressure sovereign nations into favourable votes in the General Assembly”, -/ which, incidentally, they did. 1 was sittingthere. 1 Will mention that later. Three nations were in fact pres- 3 Harry S. Truman, Mernoirs, Vol. Two: Years of Tria1 and Hope Farden City, New York, Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1956), p. 133. e/ Ibid., p, 140. i?l g&, p. 153. .w &g., p. 158. 252. Then there is Mr. Eddie Jacobson, a haberdasher, who was the partner of Mr. Truman before Mr. Truman entered politics. 1 am told he had a habesdashery store in Kansas or Missouri-I do not know. There is nothing wrong with that. It is to the credit of Mr. Truman that from a haberdasher he became President of the United States. That is something tremendous. This is what Mr. Truman’s book said about the time of Eddie Jacobson’s visit: “When Eddie left 1 gave instructions to have Dr. Weizmann corne to the White House as soon as it could be arranged. However, the visit was to be entirely off the record,” This is an American way of doing things: in other words, “1 am with you, but don% mention it”. “Dr. Weizmann, by my specific instructions, was to be brought in through the East Gate. There was to be no press coverage of this visit and no public announcement. 11 I). 1 “The following morning Judge Rosenman , , .” Incidentally, Judge Rosenman was introduced to me by Mrs. Roosevelt at a reception which she gave to the Third Committee. She told me at that time that he was one of the most capable men “around Franklin”. 1 said: “Who is Franklin?” She said: “My husband.” And then a Jewish lady seated next to me told me that Judge Rosenman wrote many of Mr. Roosevelt’s speeches for him. There is nothing wrong with that; they a11 . have ghost writers nowadays. Only you and 1, sir, have to Write our notes and speeches. TO continue: “The following morning Judge Rosenman called to see me on another matter. As he was leaving, 1 asked him to see Dr. Weizmann and tel1 him that . , , there would not be any change in the long 253. 1 am not going to embarrass the United Kingdom. Mr. Bevin is dead now. When 1 saw him with Hector McNeil in the company of Bis Royal Highness Prince Faisal, the present King, he said: “We were supposed to be allies of the United States, but it seems that they are doing everything without consulting US.” 254. 1 shall not go into further details, but Sir Ronald Storrs of the Arab Agency in Cairo told a loyal American friend of mine that when he took issue with Lord Balfour about the Balfour Declaration he had said: “But this cari be interpreted differently by the Arabs and the Jews. It Will create confusion.n And Lord Balfour said: “This is clone on purpose, Young man. This is for the greatness of the British Empire.” Where is the British Empire now? 255. Mr. Truman goes on to say: “New that the Jews were ready to proclaim the state of Israel, 1 decided to move at once and give American recognition to the new nation. 1 instructed a member of my staff to communicate my decision to the State Department and prepare it for transmission to Ambassador Austin at the UnitedNations in New York. About thirty minutes later, exactly eleven minutes after Israel had been proclaimed a State, Charlie ROSS, my press secretary, handed the press the announcement of the de facto recogni- .- tion by the United States of the provisional government of Israel.“E/ 256. This is the climax from a letter dated 29 November 1948 addressed by Mr. Truman to Dr. Weismann: “We have already expressed our willingness to help develop the new State through financial and economic measures.” Incidentally, the Expert-Import Bank was instructed to give long substantial loans to Israel. Mr. Truman goes on to say in the letter: “Thank you SO much for your warm congratulations and good wishes on my re-election. 1 Was pleased to learn that the first Israel elections have been scheduled for January 25th. That enables us to set a definite target for extending de jure recognition.n It is a long letter; 1 do not know how he found time to Write two or three pages, The letters concerning the Korean war and other important matters were short ones, but this letter was long. He continued: “1 trust that the present uncertainty, with its terribly burdensome consequences, will soon be eliminated.‘! -/&&, pp. 161 and 162. 12/lbi&, p. 164. “We will do a11 we cari to help by enoouraging direct negotiations between the parties looking toward a prompt peace settlement.a13/ 257. Twenty years have passed, and this is only an isolated incident, 1 do not go into the merits about this or that. 1 have not spoken in the Security Council in a11 those years. 1 thought it high time that one who witnessed what had taken place before the United Nations was established, in the 192Os, in the 193Os, and in twenty years in the United Nations, was entitled to speak about the research and studies which 1 have made.

1 do not wish to interrupt Mr. Baroody; indeed, any man who does SO ïs a brave man. But 1 wish to consult the wishes of the Council, and I would also ask Mr. Baroody, on the basis of OUI’ long friendship, to bear with me if 1 interrupt him for a moment. 1 myself. would gladly listen to Mr. Baroody a11 night. I always find what he says a matter of great interest and Ilistento himwith great respect. 1 think, however, that if we are to caver the wide ground which he has embarked upon, it might well be that we would be engaged for a long time ahead. Therefore, 1 think it is right that we should consult the wishes of the Council. There are members of the Council who have other forma1 and officia1 commitments in the course of the evening. 1 am in the hands of the Council, and 1 think that a11 of us regard Mr. Baroody with respect and affection. 1 would suggest, however, that Mr. Baroody might wish to continue at a subsequent meeting of the Council, and 1 would propose that’ at 8 o’clock 1 should aonsult the Council as to what we wish to do with our business for this evening and on the next occasion, Perhaps he would bear that in mind as he proceeds. 259. 1 would ask Mr. Baroody to be good enough to continue,

Thank you for your generosity, Mr. President. 1 should like to remind the Council that when you were with the delegation of the United Kingdom, a certain gentleman by the name of Mr. Krishna Menon used ta talk for eight hours; 1 am not going to do that here. They brought him. tea. 1 am not asking for coffee or even Coca Cola, 1 Will abide by your advice because 1 wish to be considerate of many of my friends around this table. 1 do net want to finish on a hurried note because 1 am developing a theme that is hfstorical, religious, racial, ethnological and anthropological-and 1 will have to formulate a11 these as objectively as it is humanly possible for me to do SO. 1 ask everyone around the Council table to judge my presentation of the case on its own merits, but 1 promise you that 1 Will watch the clock. 1 may take one minute more or one minute less, and 1 hope 1 Will not be kept too strictly to this, However, if 1 do notfinish the elabora- -/ /bid., p. 169. 261, The PRESIDENT: 1 am sure that the Council would be glad to hear Mr. Baroody further, and if he wishes to continue on another occasion, 1 feel sure that the Council Will be glad to hear him. 262, Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia): 1 Will corne to the second phase of my statement. 1 delved into the historical background; 1 made a distinction between the European and Semitic Jews as such, and 1 must say forthwith that we Arabs thought that the Zionist movement used Judaism as a motivation for a political movement. 1 repeat that: we thought that of the Zionists in Europe, the protagonists; not a11 of them because there were some Zionists who were sincere inwanting to have a haven where they could live in peace not because they are of the same race. This idea of race has been exploded. No one is of a pure race. This happened because they were persecuted. They were sincere and they were afraid. There was a Dreyfus affair in 1898. The Jews were burned-1 do not want to say where Iest 1 offend the susceptibilities of some. That was during the age of intolerance when even Christians burned each other. It was not unusual for those days when religious intolerance was at its height. 263. I remember from history how the Catholics killed the Protestants and the Protestants killed the Catholics-and they were of the same religion. 1 will not go into that. I submit that the age of intolerance is passed, unless there are certain enclaves in Europe where they still persecute a man because of his religion. 264. I recall that the arguments of the European Zionists in 1947 consisted of four main arguments, and 1 will devote the next meeting to elaborating on them. 1 will mention them now to give a preview of those arguments: there was the racial argument; there was the religious argument; there was the historical argument: and there was the humanitarian argument, Those are the four arguments which the Zionists used in order to gain their point, and 1 Will take each of those arguments separately when we next meet. 265. However, 1 must make a few statements with regard to Judaism. Judaism is a great religion and bath Christianity and Islam are deeply involved with Judaism. But Judaism is not a nationality. The Jewish communities which are everywhere in Europe and elsewhere are as diverse as are the Christian and Moslem and other communities. Jews and Christiansfor that matter, peoples everywhere-transcend the national barrier when they worship in communion with one another , regardless of their ethnological or national origin, An Englishman, a German and an American worship in the same church; the same is truc of the Sephardic Jews, the Yiddish-speaking Jews; a Jew who was converted to Judaism likewise wor- 266. You know about Buddhism. The great Buddha was born and grew and preached in India about 550 years before Christ. There was Hinduism then. Today Kinduism in India is stronger than Buddhism. 267. Buddhism is very strong in Tibet and in Indochina. It was called Indochina, but it is now Viet-Nam, North and South; Cambodia; Laos. 1 do not know how many States exist there. They are Buddhists, most of them. Have you ever heard of a Buddhist community saying: We should invade India because it is the spiritual birthplace of Buddhism? We never hear about that. Do they lay a claim? No, because they are wise. They believe that India should belong to its indigenous population, 268. Why is it that the Zionists should claim Palestine because Palestine was the birthplace of Judaism, when those who put the claim are ethnologically non- Semites, and are Semites religiously only. On what grounds, by what logic? 269. See how objective one canbe if he gives examples rather than just talks in the orthodox way of citing this resolution and that resolution. My approachto this subject may seem unorthodox to this body, which has quite often been engaged in legalistic quibblings, procedural and substantive. 1 mentioned Tibet, There is China, for example. There are more Buddhists in China, including Tibet, If the Chinese take it into their heads that they should invade India on religious grounds, then God help us. Everybody would be invading everybody else. The Christians would invade Palestine on the grounds of religion, The Moslems too then Will quarrel with the Christians saying “it is as holy to us as it is to ~OU~‘; and the others would say, “No, Christ was born there”; and others would say that Abraham’s progeny came there. We would have bedlam. This is what happened in Palestine. A country belongs to its indigenous inhabitants. 270. Therefore, on the grounds of ethnology, and on the grounds of religious origin, we cannot say that the European Zionists had a claim to Palestine. 272. Where are they, the Red Indiana? In reservatiens. And President Johnson is doing his best to improve their lot, 1 heard him appealing on the radio for contributions, because he says that they are the original people of the land, And how right he is. 2’73, Where are the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of Palestine? They are in worse than reservations; they are in camps. And who takes tare of them to a large extent? The American taxpayer. Just like he takes tare of those Red Indians in the reservations. Why should he take tare of the Red Indians in their reservations or the Palestine refugees, those of them who are in camps there? Why do they create this? We thought we were free from European domination and that we shook off their yoke. Why should the Americans, our friends, do this? At one time the Arabs used to saymyself studied in an American university and 1 owe a great deal of my education to that university-we used to say in Arabie, as translated into English: “God in the Heavens and the Americaris on earth”. They were idealistic. They did not have the trappings of power. They did not then have polfticians who campaigned for votes and they were not obliged to please this faction or that faction. They have become now SO strong and SO powerful that we corne here to plead with words, having no guns. 274. A few farmers-it is deplorable whether they are Jews or Arabs-are killed. And the Council convenes. It does not look at the root of the matter. And this Will continue until doomsday, because the Arabs consider that an injustice has been perpetrated on them. And they have survived many injustices. The Arabs, 100 million of ,them, cannot forget this injustice, Let every big and small power take it out of their minds that they Will forget. Until the last breath, the last Arab will fight. Either this United Nations is predicated on justice and peace, or it is predicated on death; death, the pence of the grave. It is neither fair for those European Zionists, nor fair for the Arabs. They might involve the world in a world war. 1 am talking as an individual now. As if We had not witnessed, Mr. President, you and 1, two world wars in our own lifetime: the holocaust. 275, This is a dangerous situation. It cannot be solved by politics, by show of arms. No, Sir, Let the great Powers take it out of their minds that they cari solve it by force. There Will always be anhrab whose voice will he vibrant for the defence of justice. Forget for a moment that the people of Palestine are Arabs. For- 276. There is in English a proverb: “You cari do this over my dead body”-that is to say, that an American Will not yield when he uses that phrase, 1 am not saying this in a spirit of threat. There are a hundred million Arabs. Do not trample over their dead bodies. You cannot, because you Will commit suicide; because there will be some who will defend the Arabs. Perhaps for motives of their own-1 am not going to say why-perhaps moved by a sense of justice, It will be over the dead bodies of a hundred million Arabs. 277. And 1 am not saying this lightly. The Jews are tenacious. Remember, they are our cousins, But we are more in number and we are just as tenacious. If they were not tenacious they would not have survived the persecutions to which they were subjected in Europe, they would not have survived what Hitler did to them. But by God, we are as tenacious if not more SO; otherwise there would not be a hundred million Arabs still there, from the Atlantic Ocean extending to the confines of Iran and down to the Indian Ocean, spread over an area one and a half times the area of the United States with resources perhaps as plentiful. We had our heyday, and 1 hope we Will not have a heyday of empire-building, as of yore. 278. You cannot perpetrate injustice against the people of Palestine, the indigenous people of Palestine now living in camps, whether they are Arab or non- Arab. Self-determination fs there inthe Charter. Selfdetermination has now been elaborated into a right, not a mere principle. 279. Seeing the hands of the clock standing at two minutes past eight, 1 will abide by my promise. I do not want to take advantage, Mr. President, of your generosily and the kindness of the members of the Council, and with your permission I would resume my argument when we meet again, summing up my thesis with more facts on this question, summing up the thesis of a person who has for forty-six years been confronted with this question. 1 promise you that 1 will speak as objectively as it is humanly possible for me to do SO, without hatred, without bitterness, without rancour, but stating the facts as they obtain from the point of view not only of the Arabs but of a human being who has identified himself not only with Saudi Arabia but with this great Organization which is committed to peace with justice. 281. If there is no objection, the Council stands adjourned. The meeting rose at 8.05 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED United Nations publications may distributors throughout the world. Write to: United Nations, Sales COMMENT SE PROCURER LES Les publications des Nations Unies agences dépositaires du monde entier. ou adressez-vous à: Nations Unies, Section COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES Las publicaciones de las Naciones casas distribuidoras en todas partes dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Section Litho in U.N. Price: $US. 1.00 (or’equivalent