S/PV.1323 Security Council

In acoordance with the decision taken previously at the 1320th meeting and with the consent of the Council, I shall invite the representative of Israel to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. Comay (Israel) took a place at the Council table.

The Counoil Will now continue its consideration of the question on its agenda.

Only two weeks ago we a11 left this room with a feeling of uneasiness and anxiety over the situation in the Middle East. Today we are met again to consider a neiv and more serious outburst of violence in that same region, as was i.n faot to be expected at the time. On one of the last days of our previous debate my delegation said: 11 .., we hear... ominous reports that there is mounting pressure in Israel for military retaliations. Several speakers in the Council”-and 1 was particularly referring on that occasion to the repre- 5. The attack by Israel forces on the territory of Jordan on Sunday, 13 November 1966, of whichJordan complains, has not been denied by the Israél representative and it , has been fully substantiated by a preliminary report which the Secretary-General gave us two days ago [132Oth meeting], The situation in this respect is therefore similar to, although somewhat worse than, the one which the Council faced last July, when Israel forces likewise attacked a neighbouring State and openly admitted that action. Dealing with that situation, my delegation stated in this Council on 1 August that: “The Government of the Netherlands #, a disapproves of any action that is taken or tolerated by any of the parties concerned in contravention of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of the General Armistice Agreement to which both parties have subscribed.” [1293rd meeting, para. 9.1 6. My delegation deeply deplores this new more violent attack by Israel, as it didprevious attacks, and we shall continue to do SO because we are convinced that escalation of violence will never bring a solution for the area. 7. As an explanation for its armed intervention, the Israel Government has referred to a series of acts of sabotage preceding the attack, culminating in the blowing up of an army vehicle by a land mine about two kilometres from the Israel-Jordan border which killed three Israelis and wounded six others. 8. During our recent debate my delegation made it abundantly clear that, in our opinion, an end should be put to these acts of violence. However, on 17 October 1966, my delegation also emphasized that Vetaliation cari never be the answer to provocation” [1308th meeting, para, 531. 10, This attack is a11 the more regrettable because it was dixected against oivilian elements and civilian settlements in a country whioh itself has adhered to its international bbligations and which, for its part, has always disavowed and discouraged the acts of terrorist groups, fox which it oannot therefore be held responsible. 11. For a11 those reasons, my delegation deplores the action taken and the loss of life xesulting from it. It must urge Israel to adhere strictly to its obligations under the Charter and under the General Armistice Agreement, just as it has previously urged both sides to do their utmost to prevent recuxrence of acts of violence on each side of the border or demarcation Unes, The present state of affairs ‘remains fraught with danger, and the recent raid of Israel, SeriOLIS as it was, is unfortunately by no means the limit of the possible hostilities. Any further action might well bring about a full-scale war in the Middle East. 12. My delegation wishes once again to appeal to a11 the Governments in the axea to aot in self-restraint and moderation. Militaxy action cari never solve the situation, nor cari it bxing peace. The only effective remedy is for a11 parties strictly to respect their obligations under the Charter and under the General Armistice Agreement, obligations which were freely entered into. I/ Sec Officia1 Records of the Secut-ity Council, Fourth Year, Special %Jpplement No. 1. 15. Mx. CHANG (China): My delegation strongly deplores the retaliatory raid carried out by the Government of Israel on 13 November against the Jordanian villages south of Hebron. 16. This is not, of course, the first time that the Council has been called upon to deal with a case of this nature, Two years ago, ironically also on 13 November, Syria oomplained that Israel aircraft had attaoked its territory in the region of Tel-El-Qadi. In July of this year, Syria lodged a similar complaint against Israel. On both occasions my delegation, while deploring the acts of violence committed by terrorist bands in the territory of Israel, voioed its strong disapproval of the policy of reprisa1 adopted by the Israel authoxities. We believed then, as we believe now, that such unilateral exercise of force must be at a11 times regarded as reprehensible and contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the United Nations Charter, 17. This latest retaliatory raid surpassed the two previous ones both in gravity and in magnitude. It was an operation of considerable size, supported by heavy artillery and aircraft. There was heavy loss of life and property. This action constimted a violation of the Charter and of the Isxael-Jordan Armistice Agreement. 18. In bis lettex of 12 November to the President of the Council [S/7584], the representative of Israel referred to a mining incident which caused loss of life and property in Isxael. He accused the Government of Jordan of having failed to prevent terrorist incursions into Israel from Jordanian territory. By implication, however, he did not really believe that the terrorist bands were of Joxdanian origin. That being SO, the Israel attack was obviously directed at the wrong party, a party which has endeavoured to co-operate with the United Nations machinery in the area and to observe its obligations under the General Armistice Agreement. The Isxael action, therefore, is a11 the more deplorable.

1 cal1 on the representative of Israel.

At the first meeting of the Council on the present complaint last Wednesday morning [132Oth meeting] my delegation placed the events of 13 November last in the context of the grave security problem with which Israel is confronted by neighbouring Arab States. In reply to that, the representative of Jordan that afternoon [1321st meeting] contended that what 1 had explained to the Council was irrelevant and an attempt to divert the attention of the Council from the complaint before it. And in his catalogue of irrelevancies, in what he called fabrications, he included the Armistice Agreement, the sabotage and mine-laying attaoks which led up to the Israel action, and other matters. IIe then addressed himself to the question: what was the real issue before the Council, and what was pertinent to that issue? That is a proper and legitimate question and 1, too, shall address myself to it. 22. One fact is not in dispute in these proceedings. It is the fact that on a <certain hour of a certain day Israel troops carried out an action across the Jordan border. There is no dispute about that, becaume my Government on its own volition made the fact public. It did not do SO boastfully, as has been alleged, but because we are a democratic country, and the Government is obliged to account to ,the people for actions taken on their behalf. 23. The representative of Jordan has asked the Council, in effect, to look upon this action in a complete void, unrelated to anything which preceded it, and out of the context of the seourity problem of Israel. Then, when the Israel Government asked that its representative be invited to take a seat here, in order that he should place before the Council the considerations and problems which prompted the action of 13 November, it is maintained that those considerations and problems are not relevant to the complaint on the agenda, That is an untenable proposition. It would certainly not be tenable in a court of law, and even less SO in an organ which is not a court of law but a body concerned with maintaining peace and security, and therefore required to take into account a11 the factors which may affect peace and security in a given situation, 24. At any rate, a number of members of the Council who have SO far spoken in the debate have been unwilling to shut their eyes to provocation, even if they have not condoned the Israel reaction to Chat provocation, SO, for instance, Lord Caradon, speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom, spoke about a tragedy which was: n., , one further symptom of the tense and deteriorating situation which now prevails 25. You, Mr, President, speaking as the representative of the United States, stated that “it . , , must be the funotion of this Council to assure conditions of peace and stability in the area” [ibid., para. 881. You further stated in a later passage that: ” . . , violence breeds violence, and that it rnust be opposed in the Middle East regardless of the direotion 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 aot on oomplaints that corne before it. The Council, and in particular its permanent members, cannot contribute effectively to peace in the Middle Eastunless the entire Gontext is taken into account and a11 parties to the General Armistice Agreements are required by this Council to adhere to their legal obligations to prevent violence aoross the frontiers.” [&, para. 99.1 26. Our colleague the Ambassador of Franae observed that the act of the Government of Israel had been incited by “incidents which, while not of comparable gravity, should not be underestimated” [1321st meeting, para. 41. 27, The representative of Argentina referred to the increasing political and military tension which exists in the region, and he urged that the Council should “do its utmost to end this series of incidents, which are gravely disturbing peace in the Middle East” [1322nd meeting, para. 21. He continued that 11~. , as the organ primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security, [the Counoil] must not confine itself to condemning , , ,” but should try n *.. to adopt whatever measures or recommendations are needed to seourepeace in the area* [m., para. 61. 28. SO, too, the representative of Japan said that “we do not overlook the terrorist incident that preceded this Israel military action,, .” and he deeply regretted wthat, just two weeks ago, the Council was unable to take effective action to reduce the long-standing tension in the area. The action proposed at that time, in our vfew, might have provided a good bas& for solutions in the future’ [m., paras. 13 and 141. 29. The representative of New Zealand, while stating that the Israel aotion could not be condoned, also expressed understanding for ” . , , the frustrations to which continued incidents, including loss of life through terrorist activity across Israel’s borders, undoubtedly give rise in IsraelM, and also “the nature of the strategic quandary to which the representative of Israel has referred in his opening statement” [ibid,, para, 191. 30; He pointed out that the series of sabotage incidents in Israel’s territory “must inevitably be a source of strain and tension in relations between Israel and those 31. This afternoon the representative of the Netherlands also said that an end should be put to these acts of violence, that a11 parties must respect obligations under the Charter and the Armistice Agreements and that steps should be taken to prevent military attacks as well as other acts of violence. 32. Lastly, the representative of China, who has just spoken, also refesred to constructive action to prevent acts of violence and to the reduotion of tension in the area. 33. While noting, therefore, that members of the Council have disapproved of the Isracl action, 1 would also note that most of the Council members have taken account of surrounding circumstances and have not been prepared to regard them as frrelevant. That appears to my delegation to be a logical and necessary view, and we should expect it to be reflected in any draft resolution which may be presented, 34. It was suggested by one of the previous speakers in .this debate that the Israel action was outside the norms of international law and the Charter, which allowed the use of force only in cases of legitimate self-defenoe or in fulfilment of collective measures called for by the United Nations. IIe referred also to the obligatory norms of coexistence among States. The application of general legal principles to a particular type of situation has become a complex and difficult one, 35. In 1946 the framers of the Charter had, above ail, in mind the Second World War from which they were emerging and which had been waged by gigantic armies pitted against each other in mortal combat. They were perhaps less conscious then of the kind of indirect aggression and undeclared guerxilla wars which have occurred in various parts of the world since then and which are hard to fit into the precise formulation of international norms. 1s the principle of national self-defence to be regarded as suspended in such situations? 36. At the twentieth session there was an effort by the General Assembly to establish internationalnorms for these categories of unofficial belligerents as well, and we a11 supported the landmark resolution on the inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of States and the protection of their independence and sovereignty. As Council members know, operative Paragraph 2 of resoiution 2131 (XX) reads in part: ” . . . no State shall organiee, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of , , , another State . , .n. 37. This problem was very well put by the representative of New Zealand in his intervention to the General Assembly in the generaldebate on 18 October, and 1 would take the liberty of quoting a key passage in it: “Increasingly it must be noted, a practice of injury by stealth is being followed. This tendency is not confined either to one continent or region or tc one kind of power struggle or ideological conflict. Those SO injured, if they cannot get redress here, Will tend to reply as best they can. It must be said frankly, too, that this tendency favours the clandestine, the attack launched but publicly denied, and those nations whose systems of government do not easily lend themselves to such surreptitious implementation of policy may find themselves condemned if they frankly acknowledge their own inevitable response. This sort of dual standard, of which there are signs already, is scarcely a prescription for international peace; it is, rather, a prescription for the comity of nations to become, in practice, the oomity of hard knocks, a comity of reprisals.“z/ 38. This question goes to the heart of the Israel-Arab border situation. It has been reflected in the most reoent debates on that situation, whioh took place in July and August and again in October and November and have now been resumed for the third time in the past few months. Surely the time has corne for the Council to corne to grips with the real underlying problems. It oannot bring those problems under oontrcl simply by expressing disapproval of an Israel reaction and ignoring a11 the factors of tension and insecurity which revolve around that action and explain it. 39. In our opening statement last Wednesday [132Oth meeting] my delegation put on record what some of those factors of tension were. They include therejection of Israel’s politioal independence and territorial integrity, open military preparations against Israel and the organization and operation of so-called liberation armies and guerrilla groups. Nothing will be settled while such policies and aotivities continue, and the situation may deteriorate even further. This, as my delegation sees it, is now the immediate ohallenge to the Security Council in any effort to bring matters under oontrol. The Counoil must, we submit, see the whole picture and deal with it as a whole. It must insist, among other things, onahalt to threats and’ incitement and a halt to terrorist raids across -- 2/ See Officia1 Records oftheGeneralAssembly,Twenty-ftrstSsssionL Plenary Meetings, 1447th meeting, para. 103. 41. Let us take article 1 of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan. In paragraph 2 it rules out even the threat of aggressive action by one party against the people or the armed forces of the other. Paragraph 3 of that article says that the right of each party to its security and fxeedom from fear of attaok by the armed forces of the other shall be fully respected. Paragraph 4 deals with the establishment of an armistice as an indispensable step towards the liquidation of armed conflict and the restoration of peace. 42. In a complaint to the Security Council on 5 September 1957 [S/3883], the representative of Israel drew attention to the fact that Jordan was in standing violation of the fundamental principles of the Armistice Agreement outlined in article 1. At the 788th meeting of the Council the representative of Israel referred more specifically to this non-compliance “with the fundamental principles of non-aggression, nonintimidation, and the promotion of peace which are included in article 1 of the Agreement” [788th meeting, para, 171. Not only the Government of Jordan but a11 the Arab Governments that signed Armistice Agreements with Israel in 1949 are in standing violation of those fundamental principles of article 1, whichare the keystones of the whole armistice structure, 43. These provisions are SO fundamental that, by article XII, the parties to the Armistice Agreement may at any time, by mutual consent, revise or revoke any of its provisions, but not those in article I and article III, to which 1 shall refer shortly. The parties cannot, even by mutual consent, discharge themselves of those obligations. 44. We have heard a good deal in the Council about invoking the armistice machinery. In 1955 the former Secretary-General, Mr. Hammarskjold, submitted a report to the Seourity Counoil in which he pointed out *A further weakness is that no pxoceduxe has been established for the handling of conflicts covered by the general clauses in the Armistice Agreements. For example, the first article of the several Agreements establishes a right to security and freedom from fear of attack. . . , For cases of thiskindwhich the party may not wish to bring to the Security Council, there is at present no such possibility available within the fxamework of the armistice regime as applied.” [S/3596, para. 65.3 45. In a further report to the Security Council on 31 October 1957, which xelates to the Israel oomplaint, the Acting Chief of Staff of the time of UNTSO stated candidly of that organization: t, . . . it cari do little to secure the implementation of article 1. The Chairmen,of the Mixed Armistice Commissions have generally considered that this article falls outside the competence of the Commission concerned to interpret and apply.” [S/3913, para. 16.1 46. We therefore have the strange anomaly that those provisions in the Armistice Agreements which are designed to ensure the right to security, freedom from fear of attack, freedom from threat and the promotion of permanent peace are regarded by the armistice machinery as outside its scope and its competence. 47. It is repeated here that a11 the ArabGovernments concerned, including the Government of Jordan, have failed consistently to respect the basic provisions without which the’ armistice rggime is meaningless. 48. The Israel complaint of 1957, which was debated by the Council and to whioh 1 referred, was specifically a complaint against Jordan. 49, As regards article III, the Council is very familiar with the counterpart of this article in the Israel-Syria General Armistice Agreement;.?/ the two articles are the same. Paragraph 2 of that article pxohibits the commission of any warlike or hostile act by, among others, para-military or non-regular forces against civilians in territory under the control of the other party, Paragraph 3 states: “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.. . .” 50. Evexy time a terrorist or a saboteur crosses the Jordan border into Israel it is an automatic violation 2 Sec Officiai Records of the Security .Council, Fourth Year, Special Supplement No. 2. 52. There is also an article VIII of which Jordan remains in standing violation, That article sets up a Special Committee to work out “agreed plans and arrangements for such matters as either Party may submit to it, whioh, in any case, shall include the following, on which agreement in prinoiple already existsfl. The matters on which agreement already exists included, in the article, free movement of traffio on vital roads, including the Bethlehem and Latrun-Jerusalem roads; resumption of the normal funotioning of the cultural and humanitarian institutions on Mount Scopus and free access thereto; free access to the Holy Places most sacred to the Jewish religion, such as the Wailing Wall in the Old City, and the use of the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, On a11 these matters Jordan remains in default of article VIII, and the Special Committee has long ceased to function because Jordan refused to co-operate with it. 63. The Acting Chief of Staff in his report in 195’7 quotes Security Council resolution 89 (1950) of 1’7 November 1950 in which this Council expressed the hope that the Speoial Committee, under article VIII, would prooeed expeditiously to carry oJt its functions. Seven years later the Acting Chief of Staff reported that the Security Councilfs hope had not been.fulfilled. 54. And what about article XII? Jordan is in clear violation of article XII ?f the Armistice Agreement, and it is a great pity that it is SO. By that article, either of the parties “may oall upon the Seoretary- ;eyeercael of the United Nations to convoke a con- . . . for the purpose of reviewing” the provisions of this Agreement and its implementation, and participation in suoh conference Wshall be obligatory upon the Parties”. The Government of Israel officially requested such a conference in 1953, and in its resolution 101 (1953) of 24November 1953 the Security Council asked the Chief of Staff to make recommendations regarding oomplianoe with the General Armistice Agreements, “taking into account any agreement reached in pursuance of the request by the Government of Israel for the convocation of a conference under article XII”. No agreement was reached because no 55. It Will no doubt be suggested by the representative of Jordan that my delegation is referring to these various aspects of the Armistice Agreement and to Jordan’s default under them in order CO confuse the issue presently before the Council. That is not SO. These provisions are an integral part of the issue before the Council if it is seen in its proper context and perspective. 56. 1 should like to reserve the right of my delegation to intervene again in the debate, if that should appear necessary, including the right to make any observations that may be called for by the Secretary-General’s xeport when that becomes available.

The representative of Jordan has asked to speak and 1 now cal1 on him.

1 have listened very caxefully to the statement just made by Mr. Comay. I cari safely divide his statement into two parts, The first part relates to the question now under consideration. The second part relates to a11 aspects of the question of Palestine. As 1 have said before, that second part has no place in oux deliberations new. 1 could have asked you, Mr. President, in your wisdom, to stop Mr. Comay from discussing an irreievant issue, but 1 delibesately lei Mr. Comay take a11 the time he wishecl, and speakon any question he wished to mention, because if this exposes anything, it shows the art of diversion. 59. What is before the Council is a clear act of aggression. What the Council is expected to decideand 1 hope that it Will decide-is whether or not there is any link whatsoever between this act of aggression and any other aot committed by the Government of Jordan. SO far, out of a11 the representatives who have spoken-and 1 hope that it Will be the same at our next meeting-I have not heard a single statement implicating the Government of Jordan in the commission of any act whioh cari be linked with the crime committed by the authorities of Ms. Comay. That being the case, there is but one single issue before the Council: a crime oommitteddeliberately, intentionally, in oold blood, without any provocation of any kind on the part of the Government of Jordan. 60. 1 cari answer every single issue raised by Mr. Comay. But these questions are not new. They were that yesterday; I say it again today. 61, But as to the first part, relating to the complaint, 1 do intend to make a clear statement exposing a11 the faCts and a11 the distortions, whether those which he imputed to the Secretariat or those he imputed to Jordan, or those which have been created and have no foundation anywhere in the records of the Mixed Armistice Commission or the Security Council. At OUr meeting on Monday, 21 November, with your indulgence, Mr. President, 1 shall have sufficient time ta refer to a11 these issues. 62. But there is one point that it is important for this Council to ponder. 1 keep hearing references to a mine explosion having led to the committing of this crime by Israel, in which one brigade crossed the border, raaed a village, displaced 1,000 people, destroyed 125 homes, demolished part of a mosque, a house of worship, and killed innocent civilians. A warlike act was committed and Mr. Comay calls it local action committed for defensive purposes. After Israel used a11 kinds of offensive weapons, Mr.Comay cornes here and calls this act a defensive act. 63. 1 wish tc refer to a case with which 1 am sure you are familiar , Mr. President. 1 have in mind Korea. 1 should like to remind the Council of something which happened recently and which concerned the United States. The United States is a great Power, a permanent member of the Security Council. It has part of its army with the United Nations forces in Korea. The other day an incident occurred-1 do not know exactly what the facts were, but I do know that six United States soldiers were killed. Did the United States send its army from the south to cross the 38th parallel and kill, destroy and demolish? Did the United States send its jet aircraft to the north in so-called retaliation, in a so-called act of reprisa& in a so-called answer tc provocation? This is a case in point, The United States did not take the law into its own hands. The place to bring up any violation, if a violation has occurred, is the Security Counoil. 64. Mr. Comay cannot take the law into his own hands and then say that because there was amine explosion, bis country committed an act of war, and that we, the Security Council, must go ahead and discuss everY iSSUe relating to Palestine in order to caver Up the Orime. 1 am sure that the Security Council iS Well aware of its responsibilities and well aware of what is before the Council. 66. Those were the few observations I wished to make. 1 xeserve my right to speak again on Monday to answer other points.

1 have no other speakers on my list. It is the desire of the members of the Council that we should adjourn this meeting inorder to permit time for further consultations regasding the appropriate disposition of this urgent item on our agenda, 1 am advised that these consultations will continue throughout the weekend. In the meantime, the Council will weloome a written report from the Secretary- General which, 1 am given to understand, will be available tomorrow. The next meeting of the Council will be held on Monday, 21 November 1966, at 11 a.m. The meeting rose at 4.30 p.m. Litho in U.N. Price: $U.S. 0.50 (or equivalent in other