S/PV.1320 Security Council

This meeting of the Security Council has been convened at the urgent request of the representative of Jordan. That request was addressed to me yesterday and has been circulated in document S/7587. 2. 1 have received a request from the representative of Israel [S/‘7590] that it be invited to participate without vote in the consideration of the questionbefore the Council. In accordance with the usual pxactice a.nd with the consent of the Council, 1 shall invite the representative of Israel to take a place at the Council table. 2. une lettre invité la question mément je vais inviter à la table du Conseil. prend place 2 la table du Conseil. At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. COmaY (Israel) took a place at the Council table.

The Security Council Will now begin its consideration of the complaint it has just inscribed on its agenda. Before calling on the firSt speaker on my lise, I wish to announce that 1 have keen informed that the Secretary-General has received Certain information that would be of value to the Counoil in its consideration of the matter before it. The Secretary-General is prepared to give this information orally to the Council if there is no objection on the Part of the Council. 3. Le PRESIDENT de sécurité plainte Avant de donner la parole au premier je tiens Secrétaire pourraient question gén&+al informations d’objection. 6. At 06.46 local time on 13 No,vember 1966 the following message was received by the UnitedNations Truce Supervision Organization from the Jordan delegation to the Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission: “At 06.15 local time, Israel armouredcarsopened fire from the Israel side of the armistice demarcation line against a Jordanian police post at Rujm el Madfa’a in the southern Hebron area using artillery and heavy machine guns. Further details will follow. We require an immediate cessation of fire against the police post and Jordan. Request immediate investigation and United Nations team to be sent to the location most urgently.” The above message was registered as complaint M-446. 7. The Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission immediately endeavoured to arrange a cesse-fire but was unable to establish contact with an officer of the Israel delegation to the MixedArmisticeCommission. The Chief of Staff, after several attempts to contact the Israel Director of Armistice Affairs, finally spoke to his deputyat 08.241ocaI time andrequested a ceasefire as soon as possible and not later than 08.55 local time. The Jordan delegation to the Mixed Armistice Commission had already agreed to a cesse-fire but hadpointed out that Jordanwas not firing. At 09.05 local time, efforts to obtain a cesse-fire were continuing. At 09.10 local time the Chairman of the Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission called on both delegatiens for a cesse-fire for 11.45 local time. At 10.10 local time information was received from Jordan that Israel forces had withdrawn and firing had stopped. 8. A one-sided investigation of the Jordan verbal complaint No. M-446, mentioned above, was oarried out in Jordan from 10.35 hours to 16.30 heurs on 13 November and from 08.15 heurs to 19.15 hours on 14 November, and was sesumed at 08.45 heurs on 15 November-that is, yesterday. The investigating United Nations Military Observer$ interrogated eight witnesses. The first of these. the corporal in charge of the Rujm el Madfa’a police post, stated that at 9. The tanks, supported by armoured personnel carriers, then proceeded into Jordan in an easterly direction in two columns. The first column proceeded in the direction of As Samu. The second column proceeded in a northeasterly direction towards el Markaz. At approximately 06.10 hours, the first column reached As Samu. The witness heard shooting and explosions from the As Samu area, and at 09.45 hours he observed the Israel force from As Samu retreating to Israel across the armistice demarcation line along the track by which it had entered into Jordan territory. The witness stated that there were more than forty open half-track armoured personnel carriers in each column, each carrying eight to ten soldiers. He also observed support vehicles and twelve Mirage aircraft. 10. A second witness, the Jordan Army local commander stationed at As Samu, stated that he was informed at 05.45 hours of the shelling of the Rujm el Madfa’a police post and, ten minutes later, was informed that Israel tanks, supported by armoured personnel carriers, had advanced across the armistice demarcation line into Jordan. He set off in the direotion of the police post and, although hiscar was blown up on the way, he kept the Israelforce under observation. The Israel force oocupied four hills with tanks and armoured personnel carriers, while a number of troop carriers came towards As Samu firing in a11 directions. The tanks and armouredpersonnel carriers on the four hills also fired in a11 directions while other troops advanced into the village and blew up houses. There were a number of civilians killed and injured, as well as police and armistice demarcation line troops. Israel aircraft bombed villages and rocketed vehicles, Firing and acts of demolition continued until the withdrawal of the Israel force at 09.45 hours local time. There were believed to be five aircraft strikes against As Samu and three strikes against vehicles on the road. Other witnesses substantiated this account with further details. 11. A resident of el Tuweimin stated that, after crossing the armistice demarcation line, Israel tanks and armoured cars shelled and opened automatic fire on the villages of Jinba and el Markaz, and then took positions near the villages while troops went into Jinba village and set explosive charges in fourteen houses. The Israel force left the area at about 10.00 hours and withdrew southwards into Israel. 125 houses, including two shops, tOtal1.y destrOYed 1 village medical clinic totally destroyed 1 six-classroom school totally destroyed 23 houses damaged 1 mosque damaged 1 dwelling tent totally burned 3’military jeeps totally destroyed 1’7 military trucks totally destroyed 1 civilian bus totally destroyed 8 dead donkeys 4 dead cows 1 dead goat 1 wounded came1 (b) The police post at Rujm el Madfala Police post building almost totally destroyed 4 dead horses (c) The village of Jinba 15 stone buts totally destroyed 7 stone huts damaged 1 came1 killed by small arms fire 1 well totally destroyed (cl) At Rafat 3 Jordan Army tents totally destroyed by fire 3 Jordan Army vehicles totally destroyed by aerial bombing, Total casualties have not yet been reported by the United Nations Military Observers. 13. The body of a Jordan Army Major, whowas taken prisoner and subsequently died of wounds, was handed over in Jerusalem at 02.10 hours local time on 14 November. A Jordanian soldier taken prisoner was handed over to the Jordan authorities at the Mixed Armistice Commission at 10.30 hours on 16 November-this morning. 14. The investigations are continuing. The Chief of Staff will transmit his report to the parties and to me as soon as investigations are completed, which he expects Will be on Friday.

On behalf of the CouncilIthank the Secretary-General for his helpful report. 16. 1 now cal1 on the first speaker on my list, the representative of Jordan.

We have asked to appear before this honourable body in order to put before the Security Council a complaint against Israel of a most serious nature, 18. The present explosive situation in the area, resulting from the aggressive and irresponsible policy 19. We have corne before the Security Ccuncil beoause we feel it is the respcnsibility of the Council to adcpt measures and take deterrent action forthwith inorder tc put an end tc acts of international banditry, which, if permitted tc continue, may lead to a dangerous eruption in the whcle area. 20. As you Will recall, Mr. President, my delegation warned the Security Council at its last series of meetings, last month, of this aggression planned byIsrae1. On 14 October 1966, just one mcnth ago, my delegation said that: n 0.. They”-that is, the Israelis-l~ccme to the Security Ccuncil for no other reascn than to cultivate the ground for a certain act-1 wculd cal1 it an act of aggressicn, which Will be real aggression-tc corne later. “Let us net forget that this is 1966. In this year, Israel celebrates the tenth anniversary of the invasion of 1956 when, on 29 Octcber, the Israel armed forces crossed the demaxcaticn lines to occupy more Arab land, to displace more Arab people and tc expel more Arab reiügees. It was ten years ago this month that Israel invaded Arab areas. It is here and now cultivating the grcund for a similar act.” [ 1305th meeting, paras. 74-75.1 J’ai plus d’une fois répété cet avertissement devantle Conseil et il est tout 3 fait regrettable situation. 1 have repeated that reminder ta this Council time and again, but it is most unfortunate that no adequate measures have been taken to remedy the situation. 21. Time and again in this Council, the Israelrepresentative has repeated that the Government of Israel 21. A maintes reprises, le représentant d%raël a répété au Conseil de sécurité que le Gouvernement isra&lien n’avait aucune plainte & formuler contre le Gouvernement jordanien. Il a également déclaré que le Gouvernement jordanien ne fait rien pour aider ou encourager ces prétendus raids et incidents sur le territoire Ce furent la les paroles d’Israël, mais ses aotes ont été différents. bas no complaint against the Government of Jcrdan. He has also said that the Government of Jordan dces not help or encourage or have any part in any of the so-called raids and incidents inside Israel-occupied territory. Thcse are Israel wcrds, but Israel deeds have been different. franchi la ligne par une escadrille d’appareils à réaction Mirage, 22. At approximately 6 a.m. on 13 November 1966, ISrael armed forces crcssed the demarcation line in brigade strength. They were supported by a squadron of Mirage jets. They had heavy artillery; they had brought tanks and army personnel carriers into the area of the incident. The figures were presented this morning by the Seoretary-General, and we are indeed grateful tc him. He has said that the investigations are continuing and that more information is ccming, and we are looking fcrward to receiving a11 information about this naked act of aggression. 24. A few minutes later the first column reached AS Samu. There they started a carefully planned destruction of houses and property. It was well planned, because it was spread throughout the village, They spent four hours shelling, dynamiting, destroying and murdering innocent Jordanian farmers. 25. The Mirage jets subjected the villages of As Samu, Rafaat and the police post of Rujm elMadfa>a to bombardment from the air. The village of Tawawani was also the target of heavy shelling by heavy Israel artillery. 26. The losses in life and property resulting from this reckless and wanton act of aggression were very heavy. We have not fa11 details about the very many victims of this brutal Israel attack, According to preliminary reports, we understand that six Jordanian civilians and two aged women were murdered and many men, women and children were seriously injured. According to first reports, twelve Jordanian soldiers of those who rushed to repel the attack were killed and thirty-two were wounded, many seriously. Fifteen of their vehicles were completely demolished. 27. Not only that, but the Israelis captured two prisoners and announced a few hours later that one of them, Major Mohamed Daif Alla, had died in captivity. He died a few houns after taken captive. His body was handed over to Jordanian authorities the day before yesterday. 28. As a result of the air bombardment and shelling by heavy Israeli artillery, together with dynamite and explosives, 110 houses, eight shops, including a coffee shop, and a mil1 were totally destroyed. Four other dwelling houses and another mil1 were seriously damaged. This act rendered more than 1,000 farmers homeless-as if Jordan does not have enoughrefugees to tope with. In this same village of As Samu, eighteen cars were demolished, one public bus and a substantial number of the village animals. TO complete their inhuman act, the Israelis, before leaving, made sure that the water supply of the village was boobytrapped. Moreover, when the Jordan aircraft came to 29. An Israel military spokesman in a communique dated 13 November 1966-the same day-admitted that brutal attack. He called it “Zahal operation”. 30. Mr. Joe Alex Morris of the Los Angeles Times, reporting from the invaded place, the village of As Samu, said-and here 1 am quoting the Washington Post of yesterday, 15 November 1966-that the attack on As Samu village was: “the most serious Israel military act against the Arabs since the Sinai campaign ten years ago”. He said that parts of this hilltop town of some 4,000 people had been reduced to rubble. The explosives used by the Israelis were SO powerful that houses made from huge tut stone blocks weighing fifty pounds and more were obliterated and had been hurled in every direction. Mr. Morris further said that one of the few Jordanian defence weapons in the village, a jeep with a recoilless rifle mounted on it, was not SO much destroyed as buried underneath the rubble. 31. While the Israel army, with tanks and artillery and air caver, was killing innocent people and destroying property, the Israel soldiers, according to eyewitnesses, were celebrating a11 these crimes with joy and singing. This indiscriminate attack did not even spare a house of worship and its minaret, which suffered direct shell bits. The Los Angeles Times correspondent reporting from that place heard the call for prayer of the local muezzin “chanting out his baleful litany as women scrabbled through the debris looking for their buried and shattered belongings”. 32. The situation is becoming very tense and it gets more complicated by the hour, People are demonstrating in many parts of my country against this Israel aggression. Because of this cold-blooded attack which lasted for four hours, people lost their homes, their belongings, their farming equipment, their focd a.nd their animals. Villagers became a prey to hunger because of Israel’s vicious, merciless and inhuman attack. The people told reporters that they were beaten, that some were killed and their homes obliterated simply because they had no arms with which to defencl themselves. Cne of them, ahumiliated farmer, said to the LOS Angeles Times reporter, in descrlbing this tragedy and their inability to a&: “What do they expect us to fight with? With women and children or with stones?” 33. This is the picture of an innocent, peaceful, unarmed village which was invaded by over a brigade, supported by tanks, armoured equipment, heavy artillery and jets. One wonders why a11 this force. V?as it to Conquer a village which, according to an eYe- Witness, had one single jeep with one single reCOilleSS rifle mounted on it? Cr was it really to Create the 34. 1 have already said that this was a well-planned, deliberate and clearly admitted act ofaggression. The officia1 reporters who visited the area clearly found that the Israel destruction was carefully planned and was spread throughout the village of As Samu. This outrageous aggression was not confined to houses, post offices, and mosques, but the plan extended to schools. The secondary school for girls of As Samu was also dynamited. 35. This same village, as well as the neighbouring hamlets, were decorated a day before the attack with flags of Pakistan ,and Jordan, on the occasion of the State visit of President Mohammed Ayub Khan, the Head of State, who was landing at the very time of the attack to start his State visit to Jordan. It was this deliberate aggressive behaviour, timed with the visit of a Head of State, which turned a scene of happy people preparing for a worthy reception to a worthy leader into a scene of mourning people, a scene of women and children crying and suffering over lost parents, lost homes and lost children, a behaviour which was nothing but an act of banditry with a11 its cruelty, viciousness and barbarity. What makes the crime even more outrageous is the fact that it was committed on a Sunday, a day of prayer and meditation, a day of peace in the land of the Prince of Peace, 36. President Mohammed Ayub Khan was greatly disturbed upon his arriva1 that same morning to hear of the Israel aggression against Jordan. He had the following to say: “Your Majesty, the creation of Israel is aviolation of human rights, a denunciation of the United Nations Charter and a disgrace to the Arab world and Islam, for since its establishment it has never ceased to poison the air in this part of the world,w 3’7. Realizing the gravity and seriousness of the crime, we in Jordan were expeoting strong statements of condemnation from the permanent members of the Security Council. The immediate reaction in theUnited States, refleoted in Press release No. 49’75 of 13 November 1966, was unfortunate, to say the least. The United States attempted to find justification for the attack. Moreover, and 1 say this with regret, the United States continues to treat the question of PalestineLit has done so from the very beginning until the present time-as a domestic issue. Its policy, therefore, vis-a-vis this problem, has been no deterrent to the Zionist criminals who cross demarcation lines to kil1 and butcher. 38. But now that a11 the facts of the case are crystal clear, now that we have heard a valuable report from the Secretary-General, now that the Security Council has the oomplete picture, now that the United States 39, This question does not involve Jordan alone; it involves the interest of a11 countries that believe in peace and that would like to see stability in our area. We are still full of hope that real self-inter& and not political expediency Will direct the deliberations of this Council, this great body of the UnitedNations, this hope of mankind. 40. These are the facts. Now what are the measures which the Council is calledupon to take? Of course, the Council is the highest organ of the United Nations. It is the instrument intended to restore the peace, condemn acts of war and repel aggression, Condemnation in this case is not enough. This is not the first time that Issael has been condemned by this body for acts of this nature, but it is the first time, 1 submit, that an attack of this type, with heavy artillery, tanks, air force and brigades, has been used by Israel armed forces against innocent villages and peaceful inhabitants. 41, The Security Council is therefore expected to act, and to aCt firmly, not only because of the seriousness of the crime committed, not only because the Israel authorities have openly admittod their crime, not only because Israel has created a dangerous situation threatening peace in the area, but also because the Security Council has in the past taken a stand on what other steps it would take if Israel repeated its aggression. 42. Before referring to the stand to be taken by the Security Council, allow me, for the benefit of my colleagues around this table, to review the various decisions taken by the Security Council against Israel. (a) On 18 May 1951, the Security Council found that the aerial action taken by the forces of Israel on 5 April 1951 wds inconsistent with the terms of the Israel-Syrian General Armistice Agreement and the obligations assumed under the Charter. It did SO by its resolution 93 (1951), which had been proposed by France, the United States, the United Kingdom and Turkey and adopted by the Security Council by ten votes in favour, none against and only one abstention. font conclue action. France, (9 On 24 November 1953, the Security Council considered the attack against Jordan civilians and territory in Qibya and decided that that attack was “inconsistent with [Israel’s] obligations under the General Armistice Agreement.. . and the Charter of the United Nations”. It expressed, therefore, the strongest censure of that action, This resolution, [lOl (1953)] had been sponsored jointly by France, the United States and the United Kingdom. It was (a On 19 January 1956, the Security Council, by its reSOlUtiOn III (1956), condemned the attack of the Igrael regular army on Syria as “a flagrant violation of the cesse-fire provisions of its sesolution (1948), of the terms of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Syria, and of Israel’sobligations under the Charter of the United Nations”. The Security Council, in that resolution, expressed grave concesn at the failure of the Government ISrael to comply with its obligations and warned that it “Will have to consider what further measuresunder the Charter are required to maintain or restore the peaoe”. The same three Western Powers sponsored this resolution, which was adopted unanimously the Council. It was not sponsored by Jordan, but by the same three Western Powers. (e) On 16-17 March 1962, the regular Israel armed forces waged a series of violent mortar attacks against the villages of Nuqueib and Squofie in Syria and the military post of El-Douga. The Syrian positions El-Al, Fiq, Zaki and the El-Hamma area were subjected to heavy Israel aircraft bombardment. On 9 April 1962, the Security Counoil adoptedby10votes none, with one abstention, resolution 1’71 (1962), which had also been submitted by the United Kingdom and the United States. It reaffirmed resolution 111 (1956), from which I have just quoted, which not only condemned Israel military action, whether or undertaken by way of retaliation, but also warned that the Council would have to consider further measures under the Charter to maintain or restore peace. 43. Only six months ago, Israel committed similar acts of lawlessness against Jordanian territory. I am sure that a11 the representatives at this table Will remember that thin was brought to the attentionof Security Council. Military armed forces penetrated four kilometres inside Jordan and attacked thevillage of Tel el Asba’in. They killed eleven civilians and wounded three, and blew up nineteen houses in the village of Rafaat-the same village as the one involved yesterday. We brought this attack to the attention of the Security Council indocument S/7275 of 2 May 1966. In document S/7325 of 31 May 1966, we also asked the President of the Security Council to circulate decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission $0 a11 members of the Security Council. In its decision [S/7325, annex], the Mixed Armistice Commission deplored the great loss of lives and injuries inflicted upon the Jordanians as a result of the unprovoked, vicious attacks launched by the Israel armed forcesthose are the words of the Commission. The Com- 44. The Mixed Armistice Commission considered the Israel attack inconsistent with the Israel obligations under the General Armistice Agreement between Jordan and 1srael.g The Commission decided “that this hostile and warlike act officially planned by the Israel authorities and launched by the Israel force against Jordan is a most serious andflagrantviolation of Article III, psragraphs 2 and 3 of the General Armistice Agreement”; and therefore the Mixed Armistice Commission “condemns the Israel authoritics for this action by Israel against Jordan in utter disregard of their solemn obligations under the terms of the General Armistice Agreement”. The Commission took a most serious view of the Israel authorities’ open admission of aggression in utter disregard of their obligations under the General Armistice Agreement, It further called upon the Israel authorities, in the strongest terms, to desist from a most serious threat to peace and security. 45. That was a serious and deliberate cold-blooded act of terrorism, which was condemned in the strongest terms by the United Nations machinery in the are&. Certainly, as you cari see, the Israelis did not heed the request of the Mixed Armistice Commission, And now, what has been the result? More acts of war, more cold-blooded acts of terrorism, more bloodshed, and more defiance of the Charter and of the very authority of this high organ of the United Nations. 46. It is as a result of this sad, indeed tragic, experience that we corne here before the Council to seek effective remedy. Had the Council taken adequate measures on the last occasion, it mighthave prevented yet another tragedy and deliberate defiance of its authority. 47. The new attack on Jordan is a manifestation of further oontempt for and complete defiance of this Council’s authority. Such behaviour calls for the Council’s consideration, in addition to condemnation of Israel, of further measures under the Charter of the United Nations to maintain or, restore peace. Chapter VII of the Charter is the only answer in this specific case; this, of course, if you, Sir, and the Security Council wish to maintain the prestige, authority and dignity of this high organ of the United Nations. 48, The PRESIDENT: 1 now cal1 on the representative of Israel. g S+e Officia1 Records of the Security Council, Fourth Year, Special Supplement No. 1. 50. No constructive purpose could be served disapproving a specific action without regard to the difficulties which prompted it. Israel is a small country, some 8,000 square miles in area. A glance at the map will show that it is long and narrow shape, with nearly 800 miles of open border, much of it winding through hills and desert. These borders are incapable of being sealed up physically. 51. Within these borders, we are engaged in an historic effort to develop our country and to build up a new and creative nation from the remnants of a sorely mutilated people which has regained its independence in its ancient homeland. It is our wish to be permitted to live and work in conditions of peace, friendship and oo-operation with OUF neighbours, Till now, that wish has been denied US. 52. The four Arab States that have common borders with us went to war in 1948 to crush our Skate in itS infancy. That war ended with the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which put a permanent end to hostilities, which banned a11 violence or threats of violence between the countries concerned and which were expressly meant to serve as a short transition stage to a final peace. 53, Contrary to the United Nations Charter and contrary to theArmisticeAgreements, ArabGovernments proclaim that they do not accept the political independence or territorial integrity of the State of Israel, and that our statehood must be eliminated and our people dispersed by force of arms. The air of the Middle East is strident with this doctrine of violence, and it is shouted incessantly from the rostrum of the United Nations itself. Who was it who said: “We are now facing a question of occupation, and the answer to occupation is liberation; it is as simple as that”? (1316th meeting, para, 20.) 54. That was said about my country, a Member State of the United Nations, by a member of the Security Council less than two weeks ago. It was said by the representative of Jordan on 3 November; he stated that the existence of the State of Israel is simply a matter of occupation which must be solved by liberation. 1 repeat: it was said by a member of this Council two weeks ago. 55. It is this unremitting threat of armed aggression which obliges Israel to divert a substantialproportion of its precious resources and manpower away from constructive tasks in order to maintain a high level of defensive and deterrent capacity. If we wereunable to protect the lives of our citlzens andthe integrity of 56. TO ensure ‘the national security is the primary duty of any Government in the world. In Israel’s situation, as 1 have described it, that duty cannot be relaxed for a moment, nor cari the Government abdicate its responsibility to protect the nation which has selected it. 57. In the last two ox three years, theIsrae1 Government and security forces have had to be especially concerned and vigilant about a specific aspect of the security problem: the organization, training and use of para-military guerilla and terrorist forces, designed to operate in Israel territory in advanoe of a future military showdown with regular forces. For example, in the Secretary-Generalfs latest report on the United Nations Emergency Force, dated ‘7 September last, he refers to one suchpara-militaryforce which has been recruited and trained by the Egyptian authorities in the Gaza Strip. The report states: Il . . . public indications by local sources in Gaza have put its strength at about 12,000. The operational deployment of detachments of the Palestine Liberatien Army just outside the 500-metre zone of the ADL and increased patrolling and training activity of their units in this area are unavoidably of concern to UNEF and its ,functioning.” 3 58. Syria, in its turn, has not only recruited and trained thousands of men for the same so-oalled Palestine Liberation Army; it has gone a step further by promoting organized terrorist and saboteur raids into Israel, in pursuance of what it publicly declares to be the opening phase of a “popular war”. After recent debates, the Council is only too familiar with this development and the danger to peace it creates. There have been seventy-one such attacks since January 1965, some across the Syrian border and some across the borders of neighbouring Arab States. In the statements and letters to this Council by Israel representativcs, it has always been made quite clear that, even if Syria is the basic souce and origin of this trouble, the Government of each neighbouring State must be held fully and rigidly toits commitment ta prevent any attaok or incursion across the border from its territory into Israel territory. It is a painful fact that the Government of Jordan has failed to fulfil this obligation, 59. Recently organized terrorism and sabotage across the Jordan border have become bolder and 21 OffIcial Re c rds o of the General Assembly. TwWV-firSt %SSiOh Annexes, agenda item 21, document A/6406, para. 26. 60. The pattern of penetration in this corner of OUr country involved certain villages on the Jordan side of the border. They have served as bases of operation and staging posts for terrorist and saboteur groups who have crossed the frontier from these villages and returned to them the same night. The local inhabitants have harboured and assisted the gangs, without any serious interference from the Jordanian security authorities. 61. For many months, the Israel Government has acted with great self-restraint as outrage after outrage has taken place from across the border, disrupting normal civilian life and provoking resentment and anger in the country. 62, We brought the whole problem of these border raids and their political background before this Council, in a complaint against Syria on 12 October 1966 [S/7540]. As the Council is aware, adraft resolution [S/7575/Rev.l] supported by the great majority of Council members was vetoed at the 1319th meeting, It was our earnest hope that, in spite of that unfortunate abuse of the veto power, the view of the Council majority would carry sufficient political and moral weight to ensure that the raiding would stop, 63. That hope was shattered last Saturday morning, when an army vehicle on a regular patrol was blown up by a mine, killing three of its occupants and wounding the other six, This incident again tookplace in the border sector adjacent to the southern Hebron hills, and again it was evident that the perpetrators had corne from and returned to the same villages. What is more, we had reason to believe that this incident was the first in a fresh series of attacks of an even more serious nature, planned to take place in the locality. 64. It was then that my Government decided to carry out a local action directed at the villages involved, in the hope that it might serve as awarning and a deterrent to the inhabitants-as well as to other elements along our borders that might be planning attacks upon our people and territory, or that might be under a duty to prevent such attacks from their territory. 65. This defensive action was carried out by a relatively small and mobile task force, including tanks, owing to the rough hilly terrain to be traversed. The force was under strict instructions to take every possible measure for the avoidance of casualties. Unfortunately, a number of casualties were 66. 1 have described the broad security problem which faces Israel from its neighbours, In the context of that problem, how could my Government acquiesce in a situation in which guerilla-type raids against our population could be carried out with impunity-in whioh the armistice demarcation line would afford automatic sanctuary to the raiders and they would be immune from counter-action either from the Government of the country attacked or from the Government of the country from which the attack was mounted? 1 must in a11 earnestness ask each of the representatives around this Council table to try and imagine what his own Government would do under similar cisoumstances. If we had to resign ourselves passively to armed raiding from hostile neighbours, if oux citizens were helplessly exposed to being blown up on the roads or dynamited in their homes at night-would we not thereby be inviting a surge of violence from a11 sides by so-called “liberation armies” and terrorist organisations? Would every week and month not become an “open season” for killing our people in this cowardly war by stealth? And would an undeclared guerilla war not inevitably escalate into open hostilities’? These are grave questions which no IsraelGovernment dare brush aside, however sincere the counsels of toleration we get from our friends. It is a genuine quandary, not of our making but forced upon us by neighbouring States. Those States, and only those States, cari resolve the problem by putting a stop to the attacks from their territory. They are also obliged to stop creating an officia1 climate of warlike inoitement, in whioh acts of violence against Israel are presented as legitimate activities, and in which the terrorists, saboteurs, murderers and thugs engaged in them are presented as national heroes. That is where the real responsibility rests for the violence on the border level, and the defensive reaction to that violence, Disapproval of a specific counteraction, without regard to its context and its causes, Will not salve the problem. It cari be relieved by the responsible opinion of the international community being brought to bear upon the roots of the tension and violence. They lie in the Arab doctrines and praotice of belligerency against the State of Israel. 67. It has been suggested, from time to time, that Israel should confine itself to the United Nations machinery on the spot when we are attacked, and particularly the Mixed Armistice Commission. This view requires honest and realistic scrutiny. When the responsibility of Syria under the Armistice Agreement 68. In the case of the apartment houses dynamited in the Romema quarter of Jerusalem, the tracks were followed as far as an ami-infiltration fente on the border, The verdict was inconclusive, but the Commission Chairman was olearly txoubled in his mind about this flight from reality, to judge from his statement at the conclusion of the meeting, which included the following passage: “Such a terroristic action in the Holy City of Jexusalem, in a densely populated axea, cannot but bring to my mindthe even more serious consequences which have resulted. This was uppermost in my mind when 1 visited the area of the incident on the morning after it occurred. This visit made me very much aware of the feelings of the inhabitants of the area. 1 would like it to be known that my abstention in the voting on this resolution as a whole does not imply any change in my attitude. 1 was ready to vote in support of a11 those paxagxaphs which describe the serious character of this incident and the 69, But, on occasion, even the highly technical footprint test is satisfied. The other recent incident to which 1 would refer was the subject of a Mixed Armistice Commission decision last week on 7 November . The incident took place in the same Hebron-Dead Sea locality in which the most recent events occurred, and it is therefore very pertinent to read the decision. It says that the Mixed Armistice Commission: 69. Parfois, la prise d’empreintes de pas, qui est très technique, est concluante. L’autre auquel je voudrais me référer a faitl’objet d’une décision de la Commission mixte d’armistice la semaine dernière, le 7 novembre. L’incident a eu lieu dans la merne région - Hébron-Mer nements les plus récents, Il est donc tout 3 fait opportun de donner lecture de cette décision. Il est dit que la Commission mixte d’armistice: n . . .after having considered Israel complaint M-438, the investigation reports made on this complaint and the discussion held thereon: n Finds that: “1. On 20 October 1966.. , an explosive charge exploded at a hut located at.. , Ein-Gedi (Israel). This hut is a kiosk in which soft drinks are sold for tourists. “2. In the early hours of 21 October 1966 an antitank mine was detected by an Israel tracker,. . This mine is a British type MK 7 metallic make, weighing 13-1/2 kilograms, out of which the explosive is 9 kilogxamsn-twenty pounds of explosive in a mine!- “The place where this mine was planted is on the shortest xoad extending from Ein-Gedi youth hostel to the but.” That is an Ein-Gedi youth hostel used by Young people and school children on hikes. “3. Incoming footprints of the perpetrators who planted the mine and the above charge and who operated this charge were extending intermittently from the vicinity of the hut through the place where the mine was detected up to the armistice demarcation line. , . “Decides: “That those acts of crossing the armistice demarcation Une from Jordan into Israel and then back to Jordan, and the planting of the mine snd the explosives, are a failure of Jordan to implement her undertaking derived from article IV, paragraph 3, of the General Armistice Agreement, . . “Deplores these acts and condemns the perpetrators who commited these acts, “Notes that such incidents disturb normal civilian life and jeopardize peace and tranquility in Israel.” “1. TO find the perpetrators who did these acts and to punish them. “2. TO take the necessary measures in order to stop this activity forthwith. n 70. That decision by the United Nations machinery on the spot, Mr. El-Farra, speaks for i.tself. It was adopted a few days before the army vehicle was blown up on 12 November by a freshly laid mine, killing three more Israelis and wounding six more. 1 should like to know what the Government of Jordan has really donc to stop this kind of thing. And when the representative of Jordanquotes rather stronglanguage from a previous Mixed Armistice Commission decision, he has omitted to tel1 the Council that that language was inserted into the decision by the representative of Jordan in the Mixed Armistice COmmission, and that the Chairman made a statement that whereas he supported the decision in substance he dissociated himself from the strong language used in it. 1 think it would be advisable in these matters, if decisions are quoted, to put a11 the facts before the Council. 71. I would conclude my statement by quoting a passage from a statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister of Israel before the Knesset, the Israel Parliament. Mr. Eshkol said: “1 feel it necessary to define Israel’s policy and aspirations in regard to the position on the border& The Israel Government once again proclaims its sincere desire to achieve a mutual state of peace and quiet on a11 its border% This is no exorbitant desire, It does not go beyond the obligations undertaken by the countries of the area which set their hands to the United Nations Charter and to the Armistice Agreements. If it rests with us, last Sunday’s operation cari be the last military operation in the history of this region. That is our heartls desire, but its realization lies in the hands of the neighbouring Govesnments.n 72. The Prime Minister then urged that the United Nations and a11 peace-loving States should present the Arab States with a simple demand thatthey should let Israel live in peace in its territory, as we want our neighbours to live in peace and tranquility in their own. 73. It is in that spirit that 1 have drawn to the attention of members of the Counoil Israel’s serious security problem, confronted as it is by hostile and warlike neighbours, and the inescapable duty of my Government to defend our State against armed attack upon it from neighbouring States which either promote the attacks or fail to halt them. What my Government seeks above a11 from this Council is a firm reaffirmation of those Charter principles and those Armistice psovisions upon which peace in the Middle East region SO vitally depends. Our people, too, are 75, Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): First, let me say that we weloome the decision of the Jordan Government to bring this matter to the Secuxity Council, as we welcomed the decision of the Israel Government to bring its complaint to the Council last month. 76. Second, 1 should like to express our gratitude to the Secretary-General for the prompt interim report which he gave us this morning. 1 shouldlike, if 1 may, Eo pay a tribute-and here 1 am sure 1 speak for everyone in the Council-to those who strive under the United Nations flag to keep the peace. Theunrelenting and devoted efforts of the United Nations staff on the spot are perhaps the only bright aspect of a situation SO serious, SO deplorable and SO dangexous. 77. Third, 1 wish to speak this morning very shortly and very clearly. I believe it is our duty to do so-but 1 reserve the right to speak more fully on what we have heard this morning from the representatives of Jordan and Xsrael. 78. My delegation learned with the grave& oonoern of the tragic events which took place on the border between Israel and Jordan last Sunday. We deplore the senseless damage and the cost in human life which resulted. This tragedy-fox it is no less than a tragedy-is one further symptom of the tense and deteriorating situation which now prevails on the borders between Israel and cestain of its Arab neighbours-a situation which cari be restored, we believe, only by strict observance of the obligations under the General Armistice Agreements. 79. Having said that, and also taking int0 account that we await the further reports from the United Nations authorities in the area, my delegation cari find no justification whatsoever for the calculated, admitted and wholly disproportionate act of military reprisa1 committed by Israel against Jordan on 13 November. 80. MX. President, reference has been made, in the letter of the representative of Israel to You of 12 November [5/7584], to a mining incident on that daY which cost the lives of three OOCUPantS Of an ISraSl army vehicle and injured six others. CertainlY, mY delegation deplores that incident and regrets the loss 81. Last month Israel came to this Council with a complaint against another Member State. Its action in doing SO was right and its case gained sympathy and understanding here. In bringing it here, Israel acted correctly, in accordance with its obligations under the Charter. Its actions on 13 November are a sorry and deplorable contra& 82. Israel cari expect-and has a right to expectsympathy and support among the international community for its case and for the complaints it makes against terrorist activities within its territory onlyand 1 repeat the word “onlyn-if Israel itself is prepared to behave in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and with the obligations it freely entered into under the General Armistice Agreements with its Arab neighbours. 83. My delegation therefore deeply deplores the events of 13 November and their tragic oonsequences. We must condemn such actions, which only increase the risk of continued and wider conflictbetweenIsrae1 and its Arab neighbours, and we hold the Government of Israel responsible for them. 84. The lesson to be learned from these events is surely that this Council must not now fail to take speedy and positive and constructive action toprevent further deterioration in the situation in the whole area.

1 should now like to address the Council in my capacity as representative of the UNITED STATES. 86. Immediately after learning of the incident now before the Council, on Sunday morning, 1 issued a statement on behalf of my Government expressing our strong disapproval of the large-scale Israel military action on Jordanian territory on 13 November. As far as 1 amaware, the statement of my Government condemning that attack was the first and the most prompt statement made by any Government represented on this Council, at least here in New York. ‘l’he United States then condemned this raid and condemns it now, deeming it in clear violation of solemn obligations undertaken by Israel in the General Armistice Agreements. And what makes it, of cousse, most 87. On 14 October [1307th meeting], I stated before tbe Council my Government’s policy of seeking to promote conditions of peace and stability in the Middle East, and our opposition to the use of force across Middle East boundaries regardless of the direction from which it came. This was the purport of our statement on Stmday; this was our objective in the recently concluded Securîty Councilaction whenIsrae1 was the complainant; it continues to be our objective in the present consideration of this deplorable vîolatien of the General Armistice Agreements. 88. I said in our last debate, and 1 now repeat, that violence breeds vioXence, and indeed it should be and must be the function of this Council to assure conditions of peace and stability in the area. At the end of our last debate over Syrian responsibîlity for incursions into Israel, I stated: “Despite the Soviet Union veto, it is nevertheless a matter of high import, not to be ignored, that the resolution seceived such widespread support by members on a broadly geographical basis,” [1319th meeting, para. 122.J 1 urged the implementation of the essential features of the sesolution in the interests of peace and stability in the area. That urging was addressed to a11 countries concerned, încluding the Government of Israel. 89. 1 made that statement on 4 November. Nine days later, as the Secretary-General has told us in his report and as is confirmed by reports of our Ambassadors in the area, the Government of Israel oarried out, with the support of tanks, armoured vehicles, heavy weapons and aircraft, a raid into Jordan the nature of which, and the consequences of which in human lives and destruction, far surpassed the cumulative total of the various. acts of terrorism conducted against the frontiers of Israel. Although we do not as yet have the full details which have been promised US by the Secretary-General, nevertheless, from bis report and from what we have been advised, the basic nature of this destructive raid is sufficiently knownin outline. 90. Now we are dealing with the complaint of Jordan which is here before us, and on behalf of my Government 1 wish to make it absolutely clear that this large-scale military action cannot be justifie& explained away or excused by the incidents which preceded it and in which the Government of Jordan has not been implicated. This îs not a new attitude on the part of my Government. My Government has expressed itself about retaliatory raids in the paSt. 92. Without detailing our position, other than what I have already stated on a11 suoh past raids, 1 would recall my Government’s and the Councilts stand in 1953 on an incident which has some similarity to that being considered today. The Council at that time adopted resolution 101 (1953) that had been sponsored by my delegation together with the United Kingdom and France, which, in its operative paragraph, reads: WPm that the retaliatory action at Qibya taken by armed forces of Israel on 14-15 October 1953 and a11 such actions constitute a violation of the cesse-fire provisions of Security Councilresolution 54 (1948) and are inconsistent with the parties’ obligations under the General Armistice Agreement . , . and the Charter.. ,; “Expresses the strongest censure of that action, which cari onlv preiudice the chances of thatpeaceful settlement which bath parties, in accordance with the Charter, are bound to seek, and oallsupon Israel to take effective measures to prevent a11 such action in the future.” We meant what we said then; we mean the same thing today. 93. Long before the adoption of the resolution 1 have just cited, the United Nations position on military action, such as that taken by Israel in Jordan on 13 November, was set forth in Security Council resolution 54 (1948) on 15 July 1948. That resolution cited 94. Those principles were subsequently expanded by resolution 56 (1948) of 19 August 1948, whichin paragraph 2 (cl) specifically provides as follows: “No party is permitted to violate the truce on the ground that it is undestaking reprisals or retaliations against the other party.” 95. And 1 need scarcely remind members of the Council that th.e parties themselves, in article 1 of the General Armistice Agreement, have agreed that: “No aggressive action by the armed forces,. . of either Party shall be undertaken, planned or threatened against the people or the asmed forces of the other”, 96. The raid of 13 November, we must necessarily conclude, is clearly contrary to the resolutions and the Agreement I have cited, and the Council must speak out firmly against such a policy, whichcan lead only to disaster in the area, just as we urged the Council to speak out on other policies which we also condemned. 97. New, this polioy of retaliation, in our view, is contrary also to the requirements both of the Charter and of this Council, that peaceful means be utilized to settle such problems. Extensive United Nations machinery has for many years been in existence in the area to deal with complaints between the parties to the General Armistice Agreements, and as 1 have pointed out, unlike the case in other areas, suoh machinery has generally functioned well on the Israel- Jordan border. It should be utilized-it must be utilized-by the parties concerned. 98. My Government is confident that the Government Of the Kingdom of Jordan in good faith adheses to and respects its obligations under the General Armistice Agreement, Its record of co-operation with the United Nations peace-keeping machinery in the Middle East speaks for itself. In addition, the Security Council was actively concerned with security problems in the asea just before the raid we are now oonsidering. Al1 these facts, in our view, make the Israel resort to force even more dplorable. 99. Raving thus expressed our views against this and any such military raids, in unequivocal terms, 1 wish again to say what I said at the outset, and which we still believe: that violence breeds violence, and that it must be opposed in the Middle East regardless of the direction from which it cornes. That is our view of how this Council, if it is faithful to the Charter and the General Armistice Agreements, must act on Oomplaints that corne before it. The Council, and iri 100. The events of the past four months in the Middle East, during which the Council has had three series of meetings to consider breaches of the peace, speakfor themselves as indicators of the degree of tension in the area, to which our colleague Mr. El-Farra and the representative of Israel have referred. Starting in mid-summer, there occurred in Israel, with seemingly little warning, a number of tragic incidents along the demarcation line between Syria and Israel, and that was followed by an ais strike on 14 July by Israel Air Force planes on a Syrian construction project. 101. In September and October, there occusred a series of further terrorist incidents within the borders of Israel, for some of which certain organizations outside its borders publicly claimed credit, and against which Syria did not commit itself to take effective action. The loss of life and damageresulting from those incidents caused the Government of Israel to complain to the Council on 12 October, as we a11 know, And we a11 also know that our debate was not conclusive because of the veto, which we regretted, and still regret, 102. We know that violence in the area continues now in the most deplorable form, and weknow that we have unfinished business of the first magnitude before Me Council. 103. I would cal1 attention again in this regard specifically to paragraph 1 (b) of resolution 56 (1948) of 19 August 1948, which provides that: “Each party has the obligation to use a11 means at its disposa1 to prevent action violating the truce by individuals or groups who are subject ot its authority or who are in territory under its control.” 104. The United States accordingly believes that the Counoil, as we said on the occasion when this item was discussed last time, should again speak out clearly against terrorist incidents, as it did at the time of the Qibya raid, in the interest of equity, peace and security and fairness, in order to deal with the total situation. But we have before us a complaint of great magnitude, as 1 said earlier in my remarks, and we cannot condone the action which the Government of Israel took in this regard, 105. My delegation and my Government makes an urgent appeal to a11 nations in the area to exercise restraint and to refrain from any acts or statements 106, We also think it would be most appropriate for the Council to ask the Secretary-General and General Bull to keep the situation in the area under close and constant review, reporting as appropriate to the Counoil. 10’7. In conclusion, a very valuable suggestion was made by the representative of Nigeria during our last discussion of the problem-a suggestion which did not emerge in the final action that we were considering. Chief Adebo urged that in the exeroise of our responsibilities here we ought to consider what steps this Council cari take to strengthen the fabric of peace in the area, either through the machinery of prevention, or the maohinery of fact-finding or conciliation, or any other devioe this Council might think appropriate. We thought that was a good suggestion then, and we think it is a good suggestion now. For the plain fact of the matter is that it should be apparent to a11 members of the Council, as it is apparent to the world, that despite everything that the United Nations machinery has done-and 1 commend the machinery and the Secretary-General for their great contribution towards maintaining the peace, albeit an uneasy one, which has existed there-we cannot in good conscience, faithful to our obligations under the Charter, be satisfied with conditions which, if allowed to continue, will surely threaten the peace and security in the area, cause a greater sacrifice of human life and the involvement of an ever-widening circle of States. 108. We think that now is the time for this Council really to make its great contribution towards stabilizing the situation in that important part of the world. The meeting rose at 1 .15 p.m. I 1” 5’ LfEU ISRAEL